Sea World Gold Coast Sea World Gold Coast

[steveroberts]

Nice find! This would be Ramu who was captured in August of 1970 apart of the infamous Penn Cove capture.

He spent less than a year at Seaworld before his eventual passing in August of the following year at the estimated age of four - incredibly young.

Thanks for sharing the info about Ramu, really appreciated hearing his story in detail (albeit a sad one).

Yeah am sorry to hear the lives that orcas have lived in captivity, its been a tragic history with them. Still daydream about the 'what ifs' if they could of been rescued individuals saved from e.g whalers, or nets or orphaned rescues (not the way some were captured as doco Blackfish showed, I know they are far from the only species to have been taken in such a way though with gorillas & chimps' etc), and the orcas had been kept in sea-pens 10+ hectares big (hopefully much bigger) rather than how they have been kept. Thats not a critcism of their devoted carers/keepers at the oceanariums they have lived at..but the tiny (for their species sizes) pools they have been kept in.


*to be completely honest though used to think even 50,000 sq m pool dimension and something like 15-20 metres deep..but with the sizes of Monarto and Werribee's elephant complex thought that sort of size space was/is what any captive orca should always have had (albeit have to concede would be of been a logistical nightmare to create almost certainly, and or insanely expensive - but worth it for the orcas, though am personally more of the mindset now once all orcas in captivity have passed away, after being moved to sea-pen sanctuaries, that should be it for them as a species held in captivity).

 

[ElephasMaximus]

Thanks for sharing the info about Ramu, really appreciated hearing his story in detail (albeit a sad one).

Yeah am sorry to hear the lives that orcas have lived in captivity, its been a tragic history with them. Still daydream about the 'what ifs' if they could of been rescued individuals saved from e.g whalers, or nets or orphaned rescues (not the way some were captured as doco Blackfish showed, I know they are far from the only species to have been taken in such a way though with gorillas & chimps' etc), and the orcas had been kept in sea-pens 10+ hectares big (hopefully much bigger) rather than how they have been kept. Thats not a critcism of their devoted carers/keepers at the oceanariums they have lived at..but the tiny (for their species sizes) pools they have been kept in.


*to be completely honest though used to think even 50,000 sq m pool dimension and something like 15-20 metres deep..but with the sizes of Monarto and Werribee's elephant complex thought that sort of size space was/is what any captive orca should always have had (albeit have to concede would be of been a logistical nightmare to create almost certainly, and or insanely expensive - but worth it for the orcas, though am personally more of the mindset now once all orcas in captivity have passed away, after being moved to sea-pen sanctuaries, that should be it for them as a species held in captivity).

I've heard some people on this forum say that the only reason why keeping whales and dolphins in captivity is so controversial is that zoos and wildlife parks only started keeping them in the 60s and 70s, right around the time environmentalism and animal rights were becoming mainstream issues. The argument is that if the keeping of captive cetaceans had started much earlier, it would have been normalised enough that activist-types wouldn't have had any issues with the practice; or conversely, if keeping elephants and great apes in captivity had only started in the 60s, it would have been at least as controversial as keeping cetaceans. However, looking at cases like Ramu, I have to conclude that keeping cetaceans in humane, ethical conditions is so difficult that once the current generation of captive cetaceans dies out, the practice of keeping them should be discontinued.

It's also worth noting that no zoo or aquarium has managed to successfully keep pelagic sharks in captivity for even so much as a year. IIRC the record for Great White Sharks is 230 days at an aquarium in Japan, and that was with a juvenile. These cases caused much less public outcry, probably because sharks aren't as intelligent or lovable as cetaceans, but aquariums worldwide have discontinued the practice of attempting to keep pelagic sharks. I think these cases show that the problem isn't just the great intelligence of cetaceans, although that certainly is a factor. If a species of marine megafauna naturally lives in the open water column, that just isn't an environment that can be adequately replicated in captivity. A good benchmark for determining if a captive animal is being kept under good conditions is if it is showing the same range of behaviours that it would in the wild, and providing pelagic megafauna with the opportunities to behave as they would in the open ocean is so difficult I don't think it's possible.

 

[Zoofan15]

I've heard some people on this forum say that the only reason why keeping whales and dolphins in captivity is so controversial is that zoos and wildlife parks only started keeping them in the 60s and 70s, right around the time environmentalism and animal rights were becoming mainstream issues. The argument is that if the keeping of captive cetaceans had started much earlier, it would have been normalised enough that activist-types wouldn't have had any issues with the practice; or conversely, if keeping elephants and great apes in captivity had only started in the 60s, it would have been at least as controversial as keeping cetaceans. However, looking at cases like Ramu, I have to conclude that keeping cetaceans in humane, ethical conditions is so difficult that once the current generation of captive cetaceans dies out, the practice of keeping them should be discontinued.

It's also worth noting that no zoo or aquarium has managed to successfully keep pelagic sharks in captivity for even so much as a year. IIRC the record for Great White Sharks is 230 days at an aquarium in Japan, and that was with a juvenile. These cases caused much less public outcry, probably because sharks aren't as intelligent or lovable as cetaceans, but aquariums worldwide have discontinued the practice of attempting to keep pelagic sharks. I think these cases show that the problem isn't just the great intelligence of cetaceans, although that certainly is a factor. If a species of marine megafauna naturally lives in the open water column, that just isn't an environment that can be adequately replicated in captivity. A good benchmark for determining if a captive animal is being kept under good conditions is if it is showing the same range of behaviours that it would in the wild, and providing pelagic megafauna with the opportunities to behave as they would in the open ocean is so difficult I don't think it's possible.

Overall, society has evolved to think more critically about how species are held in captivity and that’s certainly no bad thing; especially for those species whose complex social needs can’t be met in a captive environment.

I disagree that the rise in cetaceans held in captivity during the 60’s and 70’s was a contributing factor to the current attitude. Elephants have been held in zoos for over 200 years and are at the centre of one of the biggest ethical debates on their place in captivity, which has contributed to multiple city zoos around the world phasing out the species in recent decades.

Space has always been the main argument for those against housing cetaceans in captivity; but additional consideration is now being given to their welfare needs (including social needs). Compared to sharks, cetaceans have complex social structures that often aren’t replicated in activity. Even with species like Orca successfully breeding, it’s not uncommon to find captive pods comprised of unrelated individuals (or even separated by sex to prevent breeding). The same argument has been used for elephants, with it now recognised elephants fare best in large multigenerational herds of related females.

I would also note that the association the public has with cetaceans being performing animals hasn’t helped. It’s been close to half a century since chimpanzee tea-parties and the like were decried an abomination by modern zoos. Circus acts involving live exotic animals have since been phased out across all Australian and New Zealand circuses. Shows involving cetaceans may now focus on natural behaviour and have conservation messages about cleaning up the ocean, but the stigma remains.

Though the keeping of great apes in captivity is widely accepted, significant advances have been made in how they’re housed (a progression of barred cages to open air fields; to aerial lines for orangutans). Additionally, changes have been made to replicate their natural social order - gorillas are no longer held in 1.1 pairs, but family troops (or by necessity, bachelor units); chimpanzees are no longer held in pairs, but large multi male-multi female communities; orangutans are no longer held in groups, but in pairs or trios.

It would be hard to argue that the progression in how cetaceans are held in captivity has evolved to the extent the housing of great apes, elephants, big cats etc has in recent decades.

 

[ElephasMaximus]

Overall, society has evolved to think more critically about how species are held in captivity and that’s certainly no bad thing; especially for those species whose complex social needs can’t be met in a captive environment.

I disagree that the rise in cetaceans held in captivity during the 60’s and 70’s was a contributing factor to the current attitude. Elephants have been held in zoos for over 200 years and are at the centre of one of the biggest ethical debates on their place in captivity, which has contributed to multiple city zoos around the world phasing out the species in recent decades.

Space has always been the main argument for those against housing cetaceans in captivity; but additional consideration is now being given to their welfare needs (including social needs). Compared to sharks, cetaceans have complex social structures that often aren’t replicated in activity. Even with species like Orca successfully breeding, it’s not uncommon to find captive pods comprised of unrelated individuals (or even separated by sex to prevent breeding). The same argument has been used for elephants, with it now recognised elephants fare best in large multigenerational herds of related females.

I would also note that the association the public has with cetaceans being performing animals hasn’t helped. It’s been close to half a century since chimpanzee tea-parties and the like were decried an abomination by modern zoos. Circus acts involving live exotic animals have since been phased out across all Australian and New Zealand circuses. Shows involving cetaceans may now focus on natural behaviour and have conservation messages about cleaning up the ocean, but the image remains.

Though the keeping of great apes in captivity is widely accepted, significant advances have been made in how they’re housed (a progression of barred cages to open air fields; to aerial lines for orangutans). Additionally, changes have been to replicate their natural social order - gorillas are no longer held in 1.1 pairs, but family troops or bachelor units; chimpanzees are no longer held in pair, but large multi male-multi female communities; orangutans are no longer held in groups, but in pairs or trios.

It would be hard to argue that the progression in how cetaceans are held in captivity has evolved to the extent the housing of great apes and elephants has in recent decades.

Yeah, I agree with basically all of your points here. I didn't agree with the argument I mentioned above, I just thought it was worth mentioning. And you're right that space isn't the only point against keeping cetaceans in captivity, I was just pointing out that the examples of the sharks show that keeping pelagic megafauna in captivity at all is probably a non-starter, even before you get to the social structures of individual species.

 

[Local_Shark]

It's also worth noting that no zoo or aquarium has managed to successfully keep pelagic sharks in captivity for even so much as a year. IIRC the record for Great White Sharks is 230 days at an aquarium in Japan, and that was with a juvenile. These cases caused much less public outcry, probably because sharks aren't as intelligent or lovable as cetaceans, but aquariums worldwide have discontinued the practice of attempting to keep pelagic sharks. I think these cases show that the problem isn't just the great intelligence of cetaceans, although that certainly is a factor. If a species of marine megafauna naturally lives in the open water column, that just isn't an environment that can be adequately replicated in captivity. A good benchmark for determining if a captive animal is being kept under good conditions is if it is showing the same range of behaviours that it would in the wild, and providing pelagic megafauna with the opportunities to behave as they would in the open ocean is so difficult I don't think it's possible.

I completely agree with this general premise, though I will contribute a couple things. The world record for great white captivity is 198 days by Monterey Bay Aquarium, unfortunately even shorter than 230; additionally, some aquaria in Japan and other localities are still trying to keep certain pelagic species like blue sharks, mostly for research purposes (Sendai Umino-Mori Aquarium in Japan rather quietly has the world record tenure for blue sharks at 873 days). I think there is a possibility that in the future, if sufficient innovation develops that the sharks could be kept comfortable and healthy in the long term, they could return more broadly worldwide. But overall, it's entirely correct that the vast majority of truly pelagic species are not and should not be in captivity barring such a breakthrough. The likelihood of anyone but a very select few aquariums giving them the care they need and deserve is extremely slim, and most cetaceans are much the same way, especially orcas. It's a really good connection that you make between those two issues, and I'm not entirely sure why others don't also see that inconsistency in how we treat certain animals versus others. One wonders if it's because pelagic sharks display much more visible signs of stress and health deterioration such as banging their heads against walls, while orcas and other cetaceans have a tendency to hide such signs until their bodies themselves cannot any longer (dorsal fin drooping/warping, for example, usually doesn't occur for years or even decades in captivity).

 

[WhistlingKite24]

Update on the shark egg export to West Papua. One of the eggs laid at SeaWorld Gold Coast has now hatched with a healthy male pup named Morin being reared currently at the Raja Ampat Research and Conservation Centre before his eventual release. This is the first shark to have hatched from SeaWorld Gold Coast's breeding trio of sharks in what is an exciting step to directly support wild shark populations - reported by the Sea World Foundation.

 

[Jonathan Petersson]

I completely agree with this general premise, though I will contribute a couple things. The world record for great white captivity is 198 days by Monterey Bay Aquarium, unfortunately even shorter than 230; additionally, some aquaria in Japan and other localities are still trying to keep certain pelagic species like blue sharks, mostly for research purposes (Sendai Umino-Mori Aquarium in Japan rather quietly has the world record tenure for blue sharks at 873 days). I think there is a possibility that in the future, if sufficient innovation develops that the sharks could be kept comfortable and healthy in the long term, they could return more broadly worldwide. But overall, it's entirely correct that the vast majority of truly pelagic species are not and should not be in captivity barring such a breakthrough. The likelihood of anyone but a very select few aquariums giving them the care they need and deserve is extremely slim, and most cetaceans are much the same way, especially orcas. It's a really good connection that you make between those two issues, and I'm not entirely sure why others don't also see that inconsistency in how we treat certain animals versus others. One wonders if it's because pelagic sharks display much more visible signs of stress and health deterioration such as banging their heads against walls, while orcas and other cetaceans have a tendency to hide such signs until their bodies themselves cannot any longer (dorsal fin drooping/warping, for example, usually doesn't occur for years or even decades in captivity).

Dorsal fin collapse is due to gravity and not a sign of health deterioration in the slightest. Cetaceans in captivity spend much more time on the surface as that is where their food and trainers are, compared to their wild counterparts. This leads to less pressure on their dorsal fins causing them to go from standing straight up to flopping to the sides especially in killer whales. Warmer weather and behaviors like sliding out of the water are believed to have an effect on it as well but it is not related to health issues or anything of that sort.

 

[Local_Shark]

Dorsal fin collapse is due to gravity and not a sign of health deterioration in the slightest. Cetaceans in captivity spend much more time on the surface as that is where their food and trainers are, compared to their wild counterparts. This leads to less pressure on their dorsal fins causing them to go from standing straight up to flopping to the sides especially in killer whales. Warmer weather and behaviors like sliding out of the water are believed to have an effect on it as well but it is not related to health issues or anything of that sort.

I didn’t mean to give that implication, my apologies. I was more trying to say that the drooping is a general signifier of captive life and sharks exhibit more obvious signs of stress, discomfort, etc. that are very clearly health problems.

 

[Trua]

Update on the shark egg export to West Papua. One of the eggs laid at SeaWorld Gold Coast has now hatched with a healthy male pup named Morin being reared currently at the Raja Ampat Research and Conservation Centre before his eventual release. This is the first shark to have hatched from SeaWorld Gold Coast's breeding trio of sharks in what is an exciting step to directly support wild shark populations - reported by the Sea World Foundation.

The team is looking forward to more breeding success with this wonderful species of shark. Stay tuned.

 

[WhistlingKite24]

$10 million have been secured to build a wildlife hospital at SeaWorld specifically for marine life. The hospital will be viewable to the public with capacity to hold dolphin-sized mammals on site for treatment. The hospital is set to be operational by the end of the year: Marine hospital first of its kind in Southern Hemisphere - Newsreel