If these two individuals really wanted to make a bona fide position of the welfare of orca in captivity then they should have produced a considered research paper properly referenced and then published in a recognised scientific journal that is subject to peer review. They didn’t do this and for what reason? Probably because a number of their statements they make are not been supported by the available published evidence or there is no current evidence to support their position.
As an example, the state:
“In the medical community it is also accepted that UV radiation can act as an immunosuppressant and can cause retinal damage, among other physiological risks. Unfortunately, little is known of the long-term effects on captive orcas exposed to the sun to such an unnatural extent.”
What wrong with this statement? First they offer no references to any research that supports the position that UV can act as a immunosuppressant and second they admit ‘little is known’ of the long-term effects of UV on orcas.
This is lazy at best and actually meaningless and ironically the research is out there as regards UV-B. These statements might be fine in the area of tabloid journalism (perhaps the very market they are aiming for) but it certainly will not impress any scientist of any merit.
