Not only this, but if I recall correctly neither of them have a sufficient layer of blubber by beluga standards... so the water in winter can get too cold for them[!!].
National Aquarium in Baltimore Ending the Dolphin Exhibit?
- Thread starter wensleydale
- Start date
What makes GFAS "anti-science"? You may not agree with every stance the group has (I don't either for that matter), but just disagreeing with a group doesn't make them anti-science. Nothing I've ever seen or heard about GFAS would I describe as being anti-science, and truthfully I think they do much more good than harm by providing an important distinction between good, reputable sanctuaries and horrible facilities who claim to be sanctuaries.
Maybe I am in the minority here, but I am actually looking forward to when the dolphins move out. Even if you are a local who loves seeing the dolphins at the National Aquarium on a regular basis, you also have to admit that the exhibits on Pier 4 are overall less naturalistic, unique, engaging, and immersive than those in Blue Wonders and the Glass Pavilion. Sending the dolphins away will give the National Aquarium a whole extra empty building to work with. Looking at their strong track record with exhibits like Australia: Wild Extremes, Blacktip Reef, and the Tropical Rainforest, I can’t wait to see what they do with all that blank space.
The catch is what the aquarium is doing re the dolphins. If they were simply sending them to SeaWorld or Clearwater or somewhere, none of us would care, they'd simply be going out of dolphins. The irritation is the fact they are promoting the constantly problematic sanctuary idea and are working with multiple anti-captivity groups. If they really wanted out of Bottlenoses, I don't doubt someone would have space for their animals, versus this long seemingly never-ending sanctuary nonsense that keeps dragging out with new date after new date.
PantheraLeoMelanochaita
Well-Known Member
I’ll keep this brief because I don’t like debating online, but in my opinion, they’re anti-science because their members deny all the good zoos do for science and paint zoos out as only being for “entertainment”. They’re anti-science because some of their members prefer a completely hands-off approach to interacting with animals that is actually detrimental to their welfare over science-based techniques; TWAS is infamous for this. Many of the things they’ve posted on their social media also point to a very animal-rights sort of mindset that I don’t think is compatible with the objective science of what we know about animals.
PantheraLeoMelanochaita
Well-Known Member
National Aquarium's dolphin sanctuary: Wave of the future or well-intentioned folly?
It's a breath of fresh air to finally see some critical journalism coming out about this. I thought some here might find this interesting.
It's a breath of fresh air to finally see some critical journalism coming out about this. I thought some here might find this interesting.
A good article with some well thought out criticisms. It brings a number of grounded arguments to the table against sanctuaries.
I particularly like this segment as I think it is extremely true:
It's always, "send them to a sanctuary" - but frequently those sanctuaries are either struggling to maintain their financials and the animals in their care, or aren't actually able to function as advertised (the belugas mentioned in the article for example.) It's often more about public opinions of "doing the right thing" than it necessarily is for the animals involved.
It is the same with every such article written by Animal Liberation movements about this charismatic megafauna or another - ‘send them to a sanctuary’. Regardless of where the sanctuary is, whether it can accommodate the animal in question, or if it has even been built.
I feel that the end goal is not the best interest for animal welfare, but rather human social engagement and recruitment. Likewise I accept that I may well be committing the same sin by lumping all into one… but I think my point stands.