Well this one can go round and round cant it?As for public perceptions of captive circumstances..well by and large they claim to want enormous enclosures and then moan when they cant see anything! By and large the captive record speaks for itself and in recent decades Killer Whales have done reasonably well in captivity,the whole Keiko episode proved that,for many people, principle comes before fact.The money wasted there could and should have been put to more productive conservational use..instead of forcing the animal to die.56 Killer Whales currently live in captivity...probably hundreds or more cetaceans have died at the hands of man whilst we are all arguing about them. SeaWorlds whales are a minor side issue to the main event but the fact remains that idiots such as PETA and others dont care about that as long as they get their way.In visiting over 700 zoos around the world over many years,I have only once ever observed the public getting as excited about animals as i do,and that was at the Shamu show(not that im a show fan at all).I believe also that SeaWorld failed palpably to harness that excitement... but thats a different story!
We agree on most of this, but I think those conflicting and ill-informed opinions should be given more credence than you allow. If there's one thing
this episode has proven, it's that public perceptions of animal welfare can have major ramifications for collection planning/management decisions, regardless of their veracity. We ignore that at our peril.
I'm not saying we should pander to ignorance, but we do need to meet visitor expectations. To my mind, that means reframing the eternal "visitor needs vs animal needs" debate. Within the "visitor needs" category, we have to consider not only factors such as animal activity and visibility, but also visitor perceptions about animal needs. If that means providing more space and disguising containment barriers, it's hardly the end of the world.
Likewise, if I complained at a museum or theme park, I'd be fairly miffed if the manager told me their galleries/rollercoasters were fantastic and I should "put up or shut up".
I feel the need to nitpick here,as the "obvious" answer you give is merely your personal answer. Citing dorsal fin erectness as a welfare metric is a very poor choice,as it indicates absolutely nothing of animal welfare,even anti-captivity "scientists" like Naomi Rose have said that in the past. Another interesting thing to take note of is a recent study done by the Oxford Journal of Mammalogy which indicates highly similar life-history parameters between Northern and Southern residents and SeaWorld whales. It's also worth noting that orca captivity is still relatively young. Only now would the first female animals brought into captivity be reaching average age (as seen with Lolita and Corky),and we are seeing males reach and begin to exceed average age (Tilikum,Ulises). Average age is a poor indicator in this case,however,as we all know the beginnings of a captive breeding program are often rife with failures. In about 20 years we should have a much more accurate idea of how orcas fare in captivity due to many individuals being able to reach average age in that time frame.
If all my post receives is nitpicking, then I'm happy
Actually, you're misquoting me. I mentioned dorsal fin erectness as a welfare metric because Tim referred to it as such in his post. What I called "obvious" was this:
"I've never understood the "where do you stop?" argument. Surely the answer is obvious: with species/exhibits where captivity doesn't demonstrably and negatively impact welfare."
Granted that is my "personal answer", but nothing in your post suggests you disagree. I'd be interested to hear if you did, though. The main problem with it (at least in the context of this debate) is that demonstrating compromised welfare can be difficult. However, it has the benefit of moving us along from counterproductive arguments about how an inability to adequately care for one species means we must admit defeat on everything.
As for dorsal fin erectness, I won't repeat jibster but it concerns me that this sort of question has not and cannot be answered because of bias from both sides. I think you're setting the bar rather low if you'll be satisfied with an explanation simply because it's "plausible".
And to the point that average age is not an accurate measure: agreed (partially). Again, I questioned it because longevity was the metric given by Tim, who also argued that captive orcas have "prospered for generations". Given that statement, the poor record in the 60s and 70s was relevant, whereas it wouldn't have been if he'd only argued they were prospering now.
Having said that, too many SeaWorld apologists believe lifespan is irrelevant because it will improve in the future, but such complacency ignores a major issue. With Blue World cancelled, we'll unfortunately never know whether enclosures of that scope and complexity would have addressed it.
Incidentally, I found the latter half of Jurek's post fascinating.
