View on keeping cetaceans in captivity?

S U N N Y

S U N N Y

Member
This is a very hot topic in the zoo and aquarium industry and always has been. I want to hear peoples opinions on it. I am not talking about cetacean shows because that is a whole nother topic all together, just keeping them in aquariums in general.Personally, I think that zoos and aquariums in no way should keep them. It has been proven time and time again that lifespans are shorter in captivity when it comes to whales and dophins. In the wild orca's live just as long as humans,many males making it to 100 and females to 80. In dolphins their lifespan in the wild is 30-50 years,but in captivity it is only 12. We cannot possibly give them what they need and it is nearly impossible to replicate their social groups in the wild due to size constraints. The main argument many have for this is that they need to be kept in captivity because they are endangered. However, marine sanctuaries are a thing now.They can net off 100's of acers of water in their home waters. They have been shown to live much longer and eventually be released back into the wild to form properly sized social groups,thus bringing numbers back to normal better than any zoo ever could. Please post your beliefs below on the subject. Make sure to keep comments respectful and remember,everyone is entitled to their own opinion;)
 
cetaceans need very particular requirements to be kept in captivity. it’s much harder to make a large, reasonably-sized tank for a large dolphin/small whale than it is to make land for land creatures. so far, i don’t think i’ve seen any facilities that have had a large enough space for cetaceans in captivity. don’t even get me started on sea world :confused:.

sanctuaries, however are a different question. places to preserve cetaceans off the coast of places are a much more humane solution than keeping them in captivity.

overall, i don’t think humans have gotten to the point yet where they can meet cetaceans captive needs.
 
S U N N Y said:
I want to hear peoples opinions on it.
Click to expand...
S U N N Y said:
Please post your beliefs below on the subject. Make sure to keep comments respectful and remember,everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Click to expand...

The purpose of this thread seems ambiguous to me (and that is besides the fact that, as @TinoPup pointed out, it's been done many times before). Your comments outlined here indicate that you just want this to be a thread for people sharing opinions that presumably (based on your own words) we are to respect and entitle them to, but then your post makes an evidence-based argument against keeping cetaceans in captivity - an argument that you did not actually provide any evidence or credible sources for, nor did you make clear whether you a) want people to challenge or argue with you about it, or b) whether you have any intention of moderating or changing your argument if you fail to back up your claims or are shown that you are wrong.

Is this thread about making evidence-based arguments and other people making counterarguments, or is this just for everyone to share their opinions and be left alone? If it's the latter, it's been done before and I don't see how it would be productive or interesting; you might as well do a poll and leave it at that. If it's the former, I'd like to ask you to provide sources for these claims:

S U N N Y said:
It has been proven time and time again that lifespans are shorter in captivity when it comes to whales and dophins. In the wild orca's live just as long as humans,many males making it to 100 and females to 80. In dolphins their lifespan in the wild is 30-50 years,but in captivity it is only 12.
Click to expand...
S U N N Y said:
We cannot possibly give them what they need and it is nearly impossible to replicate their social groups in the wild due to size constraints.
Click to expand...
S U N N Y said:
However, marine sanctuaries are a thing now.They can net off 100's of acers of water in their home waters. They have been shown to live much longer and eventually be released back into the wild to form properly sized social groups,thus bringing numbers back to normal better than any zoo ever could.
Click to expand...

These are all evidence-based claims for which no evidence has been cited.

And for the other poster, I'd like to ask you to expand on what you mean here:

Galapagos Penguin said:
so far, i don’t think i’ve seen any facilities that have had a large enough space for cetaceans in captivity. don’t even get me started on sea world
Click to expand...
Galapagos Penguin said:
places to preserve cetaceans off the coast of places are a much more humane solution than keeping them in captivity.
Click to expand...

In particular I'd like to know what data, knowledge or expertise you are using to determine that facilities you've seen were not large enough for their inhabitants - as this kind of claim should be based on evidence, not simply intuition or gut feelings.

As an aside: this is not a topic that I'm particularly interested or well-versed in, so I may not follow up or provide my own arguments here. I just feel like the purpose of this thread should be clarified, and if you're interested in making and debating evidence-based claims I think this thread should be started off in good faith by providing evidence for your own claims before others put in the leg work of doing it themselves. I know this is a casual site and this may seem like nitpicking, but I can assure you based on seeing these exact discussions in the past that I'm trying to preempt the usual downward spiral they normally take.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
The purpose of this thread seems ambiguous to me (and that is besides the fact that, as @TinoPup pointed out, it's been done many times before). Your comments outlined here indicate that you just want this to be a thread for people sharing opinions that presumably (based on your own words) we are to respect and entitle them to, but then your post makes an evidence-based argument against keeping cetaceans in captivity - an argument that you did not actually provide any evidence or credible sources for, nor did you make clear whether you a) want people to challenge or argue with you about it, or b) whether you have any intention of moderating or changing your argument if you fail to back up your claims or are shown that you are wrong.

Is this thread about making evidence-based arguments and other people making counterarguments, or is this just for everyone to share their opinions and be left alone? If it's the latter, it's been done before and I don't see how it would be productive or interesting; you might as well do a poll and leave it at that. If it's the former, I'd like to ask you to provide sources for these claims:





These are all evidence-based claims for which no evidence has been cited.

And for the other poster, I'd like to ask you to expand on what you mean here:




In particular I'd like to know what data, knowledge or expertise you are using to determine that facilities you've seen were not large enough for their inhabitants - as this kind of claim should be based on evidence, not simply intuition or gut feelings.

As an aside: this is not a topic that I'm particularly interested or well-versed in, so I may not follow up or provide my own arguments here. I just feel like the purpose of this thread should be clarified, and if you're interested in making and debating evidence-based claims I think this thread should be started off in good faith by providing evidence for your own claims before others put in the leg work of doing it themselves. I know this is a casual site and this may seem like nitpicking, but I can assure you based on seeing these exact discussions in the past that I'm trying to preempt the usual downward spiral they normally take.
Click to expand...
It’s nearly impossible to keep a sustainable exhibit for a cetacean in captivity. Its concrete tanks, and all cetaceans travel long distances that could never be managed in captivity.
 
Galapagos Penguin said:
It’s nearly impossible to keep a sustainable exhibit for a cetacean in captivity. Its concrete tanks, and all cetaceans travel long distances that could never be managed in captivity.
Click to expand...

Plenty of species in captivity travel long distances in the wild, but do fine in captivity. A lot of that travel is to find food and mates, which are both provided in captivity.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
Is traveling long distances required for them to be healthy? I'm asking both because that is also an evidence-based claim and because I honestly don't know enough about cetacean biology to know if that's true or why.
Click to expand...
It’s not required, but it’s definitely more natural and makes them feel more comfortable if they have more space.
 
@Sunny

My dear Friend... NO animal should be hold in CAPITIVITY -you see, this term says EVERYTHING about how animals really live in Zoos, they are CAPTIVE, and CAPTIVITY can never be positive.:(. No matter how golden the cage is in which they are forced to spend their lives, because animals do not have the choice whether they want to be locked up. The human being presumes to do that. And it doesn't matter at all whether the animal was born in captivity or not, how a living creature being feels has nothing to do with where it was born. NEVER, for absolut NO animal is captivity OK. They live in prisons, just so people like you can gawk at them. :(And this has nothing to do with the lifespan...many captive animals do not live so long as they would in Freedom, not only dolphins, including captive pets.... So you do understood now, what CAPTIVITY for every animal really means, if a whate in its concrete tiny pool at Seaworld, or a pet dog- I know to many american people leaving their dogs ALONE the whole day at HOME-their prison - while they are working...even zoo people do that..Pretty cool, isn't it ? I love it so much.! Think about, when you visit next time a zoo, when you see such intelligent animals like elephants, APES ! APES !, Bears and others behind fences, bars , glass and in small cages.:(

I always really like it, when Meat eaters critisise Zoos and say, the animals lifespan there is shorter than in the Freedom...Think about it, my dear friend, when you go to MC Donald's next time ... so many wild anmials loose their home in the rain forests,because people need space to keep their Hamburger-Cattle ....in CAPTIVITY, of course. I guess, their lifespan is much shorter than of buffalo in the wild...would'nt you agree ?


You can eat Burgers and other Meat from KZ-Animals even in so many Zoos....in all of them....while you watching caged elephants and gorillas....:)

Enjoy your burgers !

Most americans eat meat, I guess...?
 
Last edited:
Galapagos Penguin said:
It’s not required, but it’s definitely more natural and makes them feel more comfortable if they have more space.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what I am asking you for, which is a source. You keep saying things that are framed as being facts, but you're just saying them; you haven't told me or shown me where you are getting this information from. If you're getting this from any external source, I'd like to know what it is and read it myself. If you're just coming up with this information on your own, then you should stop phrasing all of it as factual and clarify that these are just opinions that aren't based on anything except your own internal logic.
 
TinoPup said:
Of course, but the same could be said about every species.
Click to expand...

For instance, the Western European Hedgehog generally has a home range of up to 4km diameter which it traverses each night when feeding.... but no one ever suggests that zoos need to have multiple acres for their hedgehog exhibits! :p
 
TeaLovingDave said:
For instance, the Western European Hedgehog generally has a home range of up to 4km diameter which it traverses each night when feeding.... but no one ever suggests that zoos need to have multiple acres for their hedgehog exhibits! :p
Click to expand...

Exactly :) Every species, from ants to elephants, routinely travels much, much further than any zoo could hope to recreate. Even large safaris don't provide the amount of space that hoofstock in the wild travel.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
For instance, the Western European Hedgehog generally has a home range of up to 4km diameter which it traverses each night when feeding.... but no one ever suggests that zoos need to have multiple acres for their hedgehog exhibits! :p
Click to expand...
Same goes for various rodent species, in particular certain hamsters.
 
Here’s a study done on lifespan of orcas in human care. I know lifespan isn’t the only parameter of welfare but it’s a pretty good one and so far the only argument made here against keeping them in captivity.

Comparisons of life-history parameters between free-ranging and captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) populations for application toward species management

I’m positive in some of the other threads mentioned that you’ll find more studies done. So far the evidence is not aligned with the argument against keeping them in captivity. At least on measure of lifespan. If there is an empirical study measuring welfare standards that shows consistent low welfare for cetaceans at accredited institutions, I’d like to see it.
 
Bib Fortuna said:
@Sunny

My dear Friend... NO animal should be hold in CAPITIVITY -you see, this term says EVERYTHING about how animals really live in Zoos, they are CAPTIVE, and CAPTIVITY can never be positive.:(. No matter how golden the cage is in which they are forced to spend their lives, because animals do not have the choice whether they want to be locked up. The human being presumes to do that. And it doesn't matter at all whether the animal was born in captivity or not, how a living creature being feels has nothing to do with where it was born. NEVER, for absolut NO animal is captivity OK. They live in prisons, just so people like you can gawk at them. :(And this has nothing to do with the lifespan...many captive animals do not live so long as they would in Freedom, not only dolphins, including captive pets.... So you do understood now, what CAPTIVITY for every animal really means, if a whate in its concrete tiny pool at Seaworld, or a pet dog- I know to many american people leaving their dogs ALONE the whole day at HOME-their prison - while they are working...even zoo people do that..Pretty cool, isn't it ? I love it so much.! Think about, when you visit next time a zoo, when you see such intelligent animals like elephants, APES ! APES !, Bears and others behind fences, bars , glass and in small cages.:(

I always really like it, when Meat eaters critisise Zoos and say, the animals lifespan there is shorter than in the Freedom...Think about it, my dear friend, when you go to MC Donald's next time ... so many wild anmials loose their home in the rain forests,because people need space to keep their Hamburger-Cattle ....in CAPTIVITY, of course. I guess, their lifespan is much shorter than of buffalo in the wild...would'nt you agree ?


You can eat Burgers and other Meat from KZ-Animals even in so many Zoos....in all of them....while you watching caged elephants and gorillas....:)

Enjoy your burgers !

Most americans eat meat, I guess...?
Click to expand...


Not to be rude, but if you have this view on ALL animals and not just a few, why are you on this forum...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top