Captive Orca Population

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not to disregard what you’re saying, but to be completely fair, Kohana did have a congenital heart defect, so regardless of where she lived she was most likely lucky to live as long as she did. It’s also interesting to think about how marine parks and aquariums should deal with ARAs, as they’re essentially target #1 right now. If Loro Parque’s strategy of trying to respond doesn’t work, what does? Ignoring didn’t work for SeaWorld after Blackfish (though for now they seem to be doing pretty well overall; I’m curious how much of that is 'cause of the orca phase out or if time played a larger role). Would upgrades to habitats help mitigate criticisms (ironic considering that Loro Parque’s plan to expand their orca pool complex is seemingly on ice)?
There is no one way strategy to combat backlash from the public but in Loro Parque's case they picked one of the worst methods to handle it. I don't know what the best method would be as actively seeking out and attacking animal right's activists' statements has been the only one in use. However this strategy has made it far worse for the park's PR, as always replying with exaggerations and false claims to negative attention rather than a mix of ignoring and responding with actual facts like SeaWorld did will make matters worse. This can be seen through the amount of backlash to Loro Parque compared to Marineland Antibes or one of the Japanese facilities.
 
London Zoo. In short, because those circumstances are already discussed in other threads (Megafauna in city zoos, etc.): My opinion(!!!) ist not mainly based on publizised responses (I do not collect those, sorry) but on the facts how LZ followed ARAs "orders" no longer keep some specific species (although you will find people saying that those decisions were not influenced by ARAs).
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at (which is quite possible as I've only skimmed this thread), I have a feeling you a chatting utter rubbish in relation to London holding certain species.

We had this discussion a few months ago over that side of the forum. London is categorically not big enough to provide a variety of species and world class exhibits for megafauna. Whipsnade exists which means ZSL don't need to compromise on either space or variety. This is why ZSL's rhinos and elephants have arguably the best exhibits in europe, if not anywhere. This is also why London has more species than Whipsnade. Both zoos benefitted from the megafauna leaving London, along with the animals themselves.

This is categorically not comparable to ARAs protesting the holding of large cetaceans in captivity, or the general dodginess of certain zoological collections.

I'm not having ZSL catching strays here :D
 
Not to disregard what you’re saying, but to be completely fair, Kohana did have a congenital heart defect, so regardless of where she lived she was most likely lucky to live as long as she did. It’s also interesting to think about how marine parks and aquariums should deal with ARAs, as they’re essentially target #1 right now. If Loro Parque’s strategy of trying to respond doesn’t work, what does? Ignoring didn’t work for SeaWorld after Blackfish (though for now they seem to be doing pretty well overall; I’m curious how much of that is 'cause of the orca phase out or if time played a larger role). Would upgrades to habitats help mitigate criticisms (ironic considering that Loro Parque’s plan to expand their orca pool complex is seemingly on ice)?

It's unlikely habitat upgrades would mitigate criticisms. The Blue World Project was SeaWorld's concept for upgrading their exhibits in San Diego and later other parks, but the activist response was best summed up as "a gilded cage is still a cage", and after the intense activist outcry, the project was approved by the California Coastal Commission under the caveats that breeding would be banned and that no whales could be moved into or out of the park, including rescues. As far as I know, no other orca-holding facilities have attempted to upgrade their facilities since the period of intense scrutiny began.

As for ignoring, it does seem to work actually. SeaWorld has seemed to bounce back pretty well from Blackfish, and, of their ads I've caught on TV or elsewhere, I've noticed they keep the focus well away from the orcas, in fact I don't believe I've seen them in an ad in a few years. As a result, though, the protests that had been occurring outside of the parks from organizations like Empty the Tanks have pretty much fully stopped as well. I will note that in the post-Blackfish period, they ran a PR campaign called SeaWorld Cares to try to address activists, but it never really worked, and only really reinforced those for captivity, it didn't do anything for critics, who accused it of being all lies and PR.
 
It's unlikely habitat upgrades would mitigate criticisms. The Blue World Project was SeaWorld's concept for upgrading their exhibits in San Diego and later other parks, but the activist response was best summed up as "a gilded cage is still a cage", and after the intense activist outcry, the project was approved by the California Coastal Commission under the caveats that breeding would be banned and that no whales could be moved into or out of the park, including rescues. As far as I know, no other orca-holding facilities have attempted to upgrade their facilities since the period of intense scrutiny began.

As for ignoring, it does seem to work actually. SeaWorld has seemed to bounce back pretty well from Blackfish, and, of their ads I've caught on TV or elsewhere, I've noticed they keep the focus well away from the orcas, in fact I don't believe I've seen them in an ad in a few years. As a result, though, the protests that had been occurring outside of the parks from organizations like Empty the Tanks have pretty much fully stopped as well. I will note that in the post-Blackfish period, they ran a PR campaign called SeaWorld Cares to try to address activists, but it never really worked, and only really reinforced those for captivity, it didn't do anything for critics, who accused it of being all lies and PR.

I’m aware of SeaWorld cares, though if I recall it wasn’t something that popped up instantly and they mainly just ignored criticism at first. I was under the impression rescues were still allowed. Is it keeping non-releasable rescues that is prohibited? If so, that seems like a pretty poor decision. It’s essentially saying the animal is either going to go to another marine park anyways or be euthanized.

Edit: From what I saw, rescues are still allowed; “This section does not apply to an orca that is held by a bona fide educational or scientific institution for rehabilitation after a rescue or stranding or for research purposes. However, the department shall be notified immediately upon the rescue or acquisition of any orca, and an orca that is held for rehabilitation or research purposes shall be returned to the wild whenever possible. If return to the wild is not possible, the orca may be used for educational presentations, but shall not be used for breeding, performance, or entertainment purposes”
 
Chimelong update - one of the adult males is named 'Nakhod'. He's the second biggest whale at the facility.
Great to finally know his name! He is quite the impressive whale and makes quite the pair with Tyson. I'm excited to see how big these two boys get as Tyson has already surpassed Tilikum's size and being Transients they should get quite big. We're so close to solving the puzzle that is the names of the Chimelong Pod. The following is what we know so far with each unknown individual given an identifier code.

1.0 Tyson (Wild x Wild) 2004-00-00 in North Pacific Ocean
1.0 Nakhod (Wild x Wild) 0000-00-00 in North Pacific Ocean
0.1 Katinka (Wild x Wild) 2006-00-00 in North Pacific Ocean
1.0 Kaishin (Wild x Wild) 0000-00-00 in North Pacific Ocean
0.1 CH001 (Wild x Wild) 0000-00-00 in North Pacific Ocean
1.0 CH002 (Wild x Wild) 0000-00-00 in North Pacific Ocean
0.1 CH003 (Wild x Wild) 0000-00-00 in North Pacific Ocean
0.1 CH004 (Wild x Wild) 0000-00-00 in North Pacific Ocean
1.0 CH005 (Wild x Wild) 0000-00-00 in North Pacific Ocean
1.0 Yilong (Tyson x Katinka) 2019-05-05 at Chimelong Breeding Base
1.0 Loki (Unknown x CH003) 2021-04-17 at Chimelong Breeding Base
0.1 Katniss (Unknown x Katinka) 2022-01-27 at Chimelong Breeding Base
 
I’m aware of SeaWorld cares, though if I recall it wasn’t something that popped up instantly and they mainly just ignored criticism at first. I was under the impression rescues were still allowed. Is it keeping non-releasable rescues that is prohibited? If so, that seems like a pretty poor decision. It’s essentially saying the animal is either going to go to another marine park anyways or be euthanized.

Edit: From what I saw, rescues are still allowed; “This section does not apply to an orca that is held by a bona fide educational or scientific institution for rehabilitation after a rescue or stranding or for research purposes. However, the department shall be notified immediately upon the rescue or acquisition of any orca, and an orca that is held for rehabilitation or research purposes shall be returned to the wild whenever possible. If return to the wild is not possible, the orca may be used for educational presentations, but shall not be used for breeding, performance, or entertainment purposes”

I think you may have misunderstood a bit. You're referring to the "California Orca Protection Act", which I did not refer to in my comment, but it does indeed allow rescues. What I was referring to was the conditions for the California Coastal Commission to allow the Blue World Project. They're two separate things, and the California Coastal Commission ruling came first.

As for the timeline of SeaWorld Cares, it did appear a couple of years after Blackfish in 2015 (Blackfish came out in July 2013). I do know that even before SeaWorld Cares there was a website called AwesomeOcean whose first article was in early 2014 that made a large effort to debunk Blackfish and functioned essentially the same way as SeaWorld Cares, and from the comments on their Facebook page at the time, which I followed fairly closely, it didn't make much headway, and most accused it of being SeaWorld-funded, which people considered a large blow to its credibility, so even if SeaWorld Cares came out earlier I don't believe it would have made a dent. I do think that letting the outrage decay was the best PR option, and given the company's current state, I'm inclined to believe it worked.
 
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at (which is quite possible as I've only skimmed this thread), I have a feeling you a chatting utter rubbish in relation to London holding certain species.

We had this discussion a few months ago over that side of the forum. London is categorically not big enough to provide a variety of species and world class exhibits for megafauna. Whipsnade exists which means ZSL don't need to compromise on either space or variety. This is why ZSL's rhinos and elephants have arguably the best exhibits in europe, if not anywhere. This is also why London has more species than Whipsnade. Both zoos benefitted from the megafauna leaving London, along with the animals themselves.

Yes, we had this discussion. That's why I tried to keep in short and not coming up with all the stuff again. However: As you brought up the "pro"s again, I allow myself to repeat the "con"s: There are smaller zoos that are able to keep SOME (nobody has said, it must be all) megafauna species in GOOD exhibits. Also, if you waste space - and this is not valid for London Zoo only - for unnecessary ethno elements and/or animatronic animals, movie theatres, exhibitions with dead/not living materials, seldom to never used lawns etc., etc., etc., then you have space for at least one or two (more) GOOD exhibits for a megafauna species.

This is categorically not comparable to ARAs protesting the holding of large cetaceans in captivity, or the general dodginess of certain zoological collections.

I'm not having ZSL catching strays here :D

I think it is comparable in the way how zoological institutions generally react on ARA's attacks. Here: In all silence phase out the megafauna species, that are under ARA's fire, beginning with the polar bears (there were plans in the past for a new exhibit in London that became a sloth bear and then and Australian exhibit, then they were at Whipsnade and - after the ARA attacks became stronger - they were phased out finally although there was and still is plenty of space at Whipsnade to built an outstanding polar bear exhibit).

To not block this thread for its original meaning, I suggest to discuss this somewhere else, where it fits better (if needed).
 

Attachments

  • clear.png
    clear.png
    70 bytes · Views: 3
I think you may have misunderstood a bit. You're referring to the "California Orca Protection Act", which I did not refer to in my comment, but it does indeed allow rescues. What I was referring to was the conditions for the California Coastal Commission to allow the Blue World Project. They're two separate things, and the California Coastal Commission ruling came first.

As for the timeline of SeaWorld Cares, it did appear a couple of years after Blackfish in 2015 (Blackfish came out in July 2013). I do know that even before SeaWorld Cares there was a website called AwesomeOcean whose first article was in early 2014 that made a large effort to debunk Blackfish and functioned essentially the same way as SeaWorld Cares, and from the comments on their Facebook page at the time, which I followed fairly closely, it didn't make much headway, and most accused it of being SeaWorld-funded, which people considered a large blow to its credibility, so even if SeaWorld Cares came out earlier I don't believe it would have made a dent. I do think that letting the outrage decay was the best PR option, and given the company's current state, I'm inclined to believe it worked.

Looking back you’re right that I did misunderstand. Thank you for the clarification I appreciate it! I get wanting to ban breeding as a caveat for allowing the project but was not allowing rescues really necessary? It just seems very underhanded and more to satiate people’s emotions of wanting to not allow a wild orca to go into a sea park, even if it’s against the animal’s best interest (in the case it’s unreleasable). Regardless the breeding ban is most definitely what caused them not to do the expansion and the rescue caveat was only an extra reason to halt the project.
 
If Loro Parque’s strategy of trying to respond doesn’t work, what does?

Few things:
- Show the local authorities the economic impact. You want to ban our dolphinarium? You just killed 500 jobs.

- Pre-empty the news. Studies have shown that people who first encounter some information, make own beliefs and don't easily change them. Get positive news about dolphinaria to people, so they will form a good opinion on care of animals. Then animal rights propaganda will never get big support.

- Bury negative news in positive news. Like orcas given salmon as gifts for birthday, a video of orcas playing with huge, new, colorful balls ec.

- Show behind the scenes work, like Life of the Zoo, in a rather mundane way, to dispel any ideologization.

- Do some direct and visible charity - e.g. give 50 free tickets every day to disabled and ill children. Apparently, there is a project that any child with a cancer or another life-threatening disease can get a free ticket to Disneyland. Not sure if it is run by Disneyland itself. This kind of things, although of course the scale of Disney is orders of mgnitude larger.
 
That is very interesting to hear. She is definitely a better candidate for a sea pen than most other captive killer whales. I’m curious if they intend to make a sea pen that can house more than just Naja and her calf, although I don’t see any other facilities wanting to give up their killer whales (not that that’d be a good idea in the first place).
 
Reportedly Inouk, a 24 year old male orca at Marineland Antibes is currently experiencing some form of health issue. New gray discoloration has appeared around his mouth, he's acting more lethargic, and he hasn't been participating in shows recently. Apparently a jaw x-ray was done on him. I wouldn't be surprised if stress from the death of his nephew Moana played a part in this and I hope he recovers.
 
Reportedly Inouk, a 24 year old male orca at Marineland Antibes is currently experiencing some form of health issue. New gray discoloration has appeared around his mouth, he's acting more lethargic, and he hasn't been participating in shows recently. Apparently a jaw x-ray was done on him. I wouldn't be surprised if stress from the death of his nephew Moana played a part in this and I hope he recovers.
Fingers crossed he's going to improve. I'd imagine the loss of Moana would be a contributing factor too; as the pair were very close.

It would be devastating to lose him so soon after Moana, especially with the supposed Japanese move quickly approaching too.
 
Fingers crossed he's going to improve. I'd imagine the loss of Moana would be a contributing factor too; as the pair were very close.

It would be devastating to lose him so soon after Moana, especially with the supposed Japanese move quickly approaching too.

Fingers crossed they'll delay the move if necessary, I don't believe any of them have ever been moved before (definitely not between facilities but I'm not sure if Wikie and Inouk were alive at the time the pool complex was renovated and if this involved moving them out of the water or just being moved between pools). It won't be a quick move either, trying to think of whales that have been moved between continents, think these are the most recent, there's more going back to the 60s and 70s (Clovis, Calypso and Cuddles off the top of my head) but don't think they can really be comparable to today:

Ulises - Spain to the US in 1994
Shouka - France to the US in 2002

Tanouk was a wild caught male that was kept at Antibes for 5 years before he was sold to Izu -Mito Sea Paradise in 1995, they renamed him Yamato and he died in 2000.
 
Fingers crossed they'll delay the move if necessary, I don't believe any of them have ever been moved before (definitely not between facilities but I'm not sure if Wikie and Inouk were alive at the time the pool complex was renovated and if this involved moving them out of the water or just being moved between pools). It won't be a quick move either, trying to think of whales that have been moved between continents, think these are the most recent, there's more going back to the 60s and 70s (Clovis, Calypso and Cuddles off the top of my head) but don't think they can really be comparable to today:

Ulises - Spain to the US in 1994
Shouka - France to the US in 2002

Tanouk was a wild caught male that was kept at Antibes for 5 years before he was sold to Izu -Mito Sea Paradise in 1995, they renamed him Yamato and he died in 2000.
The move took place in 1999, so I assume Inouk was only young (less than a year of age) when they moved. The move was a relocation; getting them out of the water and into harnesses where they were transported to the new complex. I'm not sure young Inouk would remember the move though!

Another recent move across countries was Ikaika back in 2011 when he was sent from Ontario down to San Diego.

Things should go fine, assuming all procedures are conducted correctly, but obviously this is Marineland's first transfer in over two decades so probably not a familiarity for most of their staff.
 
Marineland Antibes confirmed over an instagram message with an individual that they have received the results of Moana’s necropsy but are choosing not to be public about it. While it’s within their rights to keep it private, the lack of transparency is definitely suspicious to me. How bad could the cause of death have been for them to choose not to release it?

EDIT: Perhaps his cause of death may be similar to what Inouk is going through and that’s why they’d rather not release the information?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4876.jpeg
    IMG_4876.jpeg
    98.6 KB · Views: 17
  • IMG_4878.jpeg
    IMG_4878.jpeg
    81.3 KB · Views: 15
Marineland Antibes confirmed over an instagram message with an individual that they have received the results of Moana’s necropsy but are choosing not to be public about it. While it’s within their rights to keep it private, the lack of transparency is definitely suspicious to me. How bad could the cause of death have been for them to choose not to release it?

EDIT: Perhaps his cause of death may be similar to what Inouk is going through and that’s why they’d rather not release the information?
Not releasing the information is probably the right choice at this point in time. Facing intense backlash this soon prior to the Japanese move would be inadvisable.

It's possible he and Moana are going through a similar medical issue, although I doubt it, as we've rarely seen this occur in captivity. I'd find it more likely Inouk's condition was more a result of Moana's death.
 
Maybe Inouk has an issue with his teeth again? Another tooth/jaw infection. His teeth are terrible.

I cant see the transfer going ahead if we loose Inouk too. The whole reason for the move is because Japan needs males. Keijo would probably be of less value since he is inbred.

I'm not worried about the transfer itself being a problem. As far as I'm aware we have never lost a killer whale during transport. MLF have been training the whales for it for weeks now. Plus, if the newly captured Russian whales can survive being in transport crate for 2 weeks as they were trucked over China, I think the MLF whales will be ok spending a day travelling (I'm not condoning the Russian captures/transfers. It was an awful thing to subject the whales too).

The danger comes post transport. The chance of illness and death is increased for several months after a transport due to the stress of the move and adjusting to a new environment / routine / trainers / tank mates etc... MLF and KSW are very different facilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top