SWIMS Act - Phase out of certain cetacean species

NAIB Volunteer

NAIB Volunteer

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
Representative Adam Schiff has introduced a bill called the SWIMS Act which would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act by prohibiting the taking, importation, exportation, and breeding of certain cetaceans for public display, and for other purposes. Those species include orca, beluga whales, pilot whales, and false killer whales.

This bill would phase out the captive display of the four listed species, would prohibit breeding, capture, and import and export but would not prohibit the continued holding of animals currently in captivity.

Already, orcas are no longer bred in captivity after a self imposed breeding phase out by Sea World. Pilot whales and false killer whales in the US are rescues only. Beluga whales would be the only affected species, but considering the small population already in US aquariums and the population bottleneck, they too would be up for a phase out anyway.

Georgia Aquarium's botched beluga import permit from Russia years ago sealed the deal for no more wild caught imports. NOAA has stated the Agency would not entertain another permit.

Mystic's troubled import from Marineland (a series of bad luck for them) also will likely close the door for any imports from non-domestic captive whales as well.

Which begs the question: what does this bill actually do? Mainly a symbolic piece of legislation by my reading. Already the holders of these species know they're on borrowed time with the longevity and viability of these populations in question. NOAA, which administers the MMPA and issues permits, has already closed the import option for wild caught individuals and will likely close it too for captive imports as well. I stated this in a thread a few years ago related to National Aquarium's decision to construct a sanctuary for it's pod of dolphins (a project that is still on track but severely delayed), that these institutions are no longer thinking about what happens if cetaceans are phased out, but rather when. Whether or not this bill even makes it out of a committee vote, the reality of the situation for captive whales is written on the wall. Like so many other captive species, there's just not enough individuals to create a sustainable and healthy population to exhibit.

I'll be curious to see this Bill's development, but doubt it will come to a floor vote.

SWIMS Act text is below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3s2YOY9gt723B_LmT3DpSS
 
NAIB Volunteer said:
Representative Adam Schiff has introduced a bill called the SWIMS Act which would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act by prohibiting the taking, importation, exportation, and breeding of certain cetaceans for public display, and for other purposes. Those species include orca, beluga whales, pilot whales, and false killer whales.

This bill would phase out the captive display of the four listed species, would prohibit breeding, capture, and import and export but would not prohibit the continued holding of animals currently in captivity.

Already, orcas are no longer bred in captivity after a self imposed breeding phase out by Sea World. Pilot whales and false killer whales in the US are rescues only. Beluga whales would be the only affected species, but considering the small population already in US aquariums and the population bottleneck, they too would be up for a phase out anyway.

Georgia Aquarium's botched beluga import permit from Russia years ago sealed the deal for no more wild caught imports. NOAA has stated the Agency would not entertain another permit.

Mystic's troubled import from Marineland (a series of bad luck for them) also will likely close the door for any imports from non-domestic captive whales as well.

Which begs the question: what does this bill actually do? Mainly a symbolic piece of legislation by my reading. Already the holders of these species know they're on borrowed time with the longevity and viability of these populations in question. NOAA, which administers the MMPA and issues permits, has already closed the import option for wild caught individuals and will likely close it too for captive imports as well. I stated this in a thread a few years ago related to National Aquarium's decision to construct a sanctuary for it's pod of dolphins (a project that is still on track but severely delayed), that these institutions are no longer thinking about what happens if cetaceans are phased out, but rather when. Whether or not this bill even makes it out of a committee vote, the reality of the situation for captive whales is written on the wall. Like so many other captive species, there's just not enough individuals to create a sustainable and healthy population to exhibit.

I'll be curious to see this Bill's development, but doubt it will come to a floor vote.

SWIMS Act text is below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3s2YOY9gt723B_LmT3DpSS
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly convinced Belugas are this inevitable phase out like you say. Obviously with this bill they would be, but otherwise there has still been some breeding happening so I could easily see the population being maintained at the small number of institutions keeping the species. Belugas are also such a long-lived species that they will likely be with us in aquariums for decades to come, even if the breeding is minimal at best.
 
I’m curious if the industry plays ball with this. As mentioned in OP, the restrictions are largely symbolic. It also preserves the option to keep dolphins into the future. It seems like an ideal chance to feign responsibility while staving off what would affect them the most. And if they really wanted to they could try to fight the beluga restriction under a friendlier legislature, especially if climate change leads to further population decline in the wild.

But the possibility of amendment is where the real problem lies. A future legislature would have an easier time amending this act to add Pacific White-Sided and Bottlenose Dolphins than they would making an entirely new piece of legislation. Even this legislation would anger some members, and the AZA has been vocal in its defense of orca captivity in the past.

To me it feels like the writing really is on the wall for the US cetacean industry. Existing facilities are phasing them out, public opinion is slowly shifting, and there are already a few states that ban captive cetaceans outright. Once the National Aquarium makes an adequate sanctuary that will probably accelerate the process.

Still, the AZA is at least entertaining a pathway to membership for multiple dolphinariums and has admitted multiple others in the last few years. The industry’s trade org might try to fight this, but that feels foolish to me. This is their chance to claim to be well regulated to the public re:dolphins while sacrificing relatively little.
 
Persephone said:
I’m curious if the industry plays ball with this. As mentioned in OP, the restrictions are largely symbolic. It also preserves the option to keep dolphins into the future. It seems like an ideal chance to feign responsibility while staving off what would affect them the most. And if they really wanted to they could try to fight the beluga restriction under a friendlier legislature, especially if climate change leads to further population decline in the wild.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure AZA will get involved just yet. These bills come and go and can be introduced by any member. Granted, the sponsors of this House and Senate bill are part of the California delegation, so they would hold a little more sway. However, I don't believe AZA endorsed the Big Cat Safety Act until it really gained momentum. That said, their other legislative endorsed projects (the Right Whale Coexistence Act and the Sea Turtle Rescue Assistance Act to name just two) were lobbied from the start. However, those are not controversial between members at all. So regardless, it'll be interesting to see how far along this goes and if, like you said, potentially additional amendments are added to include dolphin species.
 
Persephone said:
To me it feels like the writing really is on the wall for the US cetacean industry. Existing facilities are phasing them out, public opinion is slowly shifting, and there are already a few states that ban captive cetaceans outright. Once the National Aquarium makes an adequate sanctuary that will probably accelerate the process.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Public opinion was the main driver for the National Aquarium's decision to eventually move the pod elsewhere. The CEO really understands that for institutions to survive and be as effective as possible against a litany of environmental issues, old practices should end and institutions adapt. I also mentioned this elsewhere, but agree that when the sanctuary is finally constructed, smaller dolphin programs I see following suit (Indy and Brookfield in particular). That's just my opinion and thought process, so I'm just speculating, but I certainly don't think these conversations are theoretical anymore for places with cetaceans.
 
NAIB Volunteer said:
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Public opinion was the main driver for the National Aquarium's decision to eventually move the pod elsewhere. The CEO really understands that for institutions to survive and be as effective as possible against a litany of environmental issues, old practices should end and institutions adapt. I also mentioned this elsewhere, but agree that when the sanctuary is finally constructed, smaller dolphin programs I see following suit (Indy and Brookfield in particular). That's just my opinion and thought process, so I'm just speculating, but I certainly don't think these conversations are theoretical anymore for places with cetaceans.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I could see Indy resisting. Their entire shtick seems to be having lots of ABC animals. Which is a shame because I feel like the dolphinarium’s setup could work just as well for large sharks or as a dedicated walrus / arctic space. EPCOT might actually be more likely. Disney doesn’t really need dolphins as a tourist draw and I feel like they could come up with something intriguing for the space. They’re also a bit more sensitive to public opinion shifts than an average zoo since it could affect The Brand.
 
Persephone said:
Hmm. I could see Indy resisting. Their entire shtick seems to be having lots of ABC animals. Which is a shame because I feel like the dolphinarium’s setup could work just as well for large sharks or as a dedicated walrus / arctic space. EPCOT might actually be more likely. Disney doesn’t really need dolphins as a tourist draw and I feel like they could come up with something intriguing for the space. They’re also a bit more sensitive to public opinion shifts than an average zoo since it could affect The Brand.
Click to expand...

Well the North American Walrus population is not doing too well, so that option might not work out in the long term either :(
 
…yeah, I don’t think they needed to weigh in at all to kill it. This also isn’t a great PR move. Not is it a good political decision for the industry, since if they’ll oppose any anti-cetacean bill on principle there’s less reason to bother working with them in the future. And there probably will, eventually, be a successful bill like this. Just not this term. Only reason I can imagine they’d come out like this is as a sign of support to Mystic, Georgia, SeaWorld, and Shedd. Still, I would’ve stuck to private reassurances.
 
I am so glad the the AZA forcefully condemned this bill. It's shocking to me that such a bill could even be introduced as the body of scientific literature supporting the welfare of cetaceans in accredited facilities continues to mount.

It is an important part of the AZA's job to advocate against unfounded legislation that would limit the ability of member organizations to achieve their missions.

If public sentiment so strongly opposes housing a particular species, then organizations will phase species for their own preservation. But the government must not enact such sweeping legislation that has no basis in fact.

It breaks my heart that US legislators are tossing around a bill like this as dozens of belugas languish in subpar conditions in Marineland Canada. If the goal is truly to improve the lives of animals, then start with the animals who are suffering.
 
I also think it's important to mention that National Aquarium's "sanctuary" project has all but stalled out. The site was supposed to be open by the end of 2020, it's now 2022, and they haven't even found a suitable site. The last update they gave on the project was almost two years ago.

I also want to say that both Indy and Brookfield have doubled down on their commitment to housing dolphins. Indy has taken in several non-releasable animals over the past few years. A supervisor there told me they plan to continue to grow their colony. And Brookfield is continuing their support of the Sarasota Dolphin Research project and cetacean welfare project and a curator said renovations to their marine mammal areas are on the horizon.

While critics are vocal, I for one am optimistic that the community is finally supporting the longstanding claims that dolphins thrive in human care with data, making adjustments as necessary, and that cetaceans in human care will continue to inspire generations of conservationists.
 
Anmltrnr98 said:
I am so glad the the AZA forcefully condemned this bill. It's shocking to me that such a bill could even be introduced as the body of scientific literature supporting the welfare of cetaceans in accredited facilities continues to mount.

It is an important part of the AZA's job to advocate against unfounded legislation that would limit the ability of member organizations to achieve their missions.

If public sentiment so strongly opposes housing a particular species, then organizations will phase species for their own preservation. But the government must not enact such sweeping legislation that has no basis in fact.

It breaks my heart that US legislators are tossing around a bill like this as dozens of belugas languish in subpar conditions in Marineland Canada. If the goal is truly to improve the lives of animals, then start with the animals who are suffering.
Click to expand...

It’s honestly great that the AZA and by extension the cetacean community are opposing this bill. But as mentioned in the thread- orcas are already on a phase out, pilot whales and false killer whales have either small or no populations, and the belugas have an AZA SSP designation. If anything this will severely harm rescue efforts in the future if any pilot or fkw need rescuing, or even an ailing SR orca (of which Vancouver Aquarium and SeaWorld previously provided expertise in the J50 situation if I recall correctly) . Plus also detrimental to the US beluga population too as cetaceans overall are a social-sexual species.

I’d also like to add that Marineland does have a network with many other cetacean facilities due to the small network overall-but that’s a behind the scenes thing. In an article recently Mystic had mentioned that they have a research team assisting ML with their belugas plus also getting further information for Sahara, Khara and Jetta’s care.
Beluga Whale Deaths at Mystic Aquarium Unpreventable, Report Says – NBC Connecticut
 
SusScrofa said:
Government overreach as usual. If they aren't funding these facilities, they should not have any say on what animals they can keep (barring extreme, clear-cut situations).
Click to expand...

Government overreach? Every facility in the United States has a USDA license to house wild animals. The rules dictating the housing of these animals (as sub par as they may be) are somehow not?
 
Aelita said:
It’s honestly great that the AZA and by extension the cetacean community are opposing this bill. But as mentioned in the thread- orcas are already on a phase out, pilot whales and false killer whales have either small or no populations, and the belugas have an AZA SSP designation. If anything this will severely harm rescue efforts in the future if any pilot or fkw need rescuing, or even an ailing SR orca (of which Vancouver Aquarium and SeaWorld previously provided expertise in the J50 situation if I recall correctly) . Plus also detrimental to the US beluga population too as cetaceans overall are a social-sexual species.

I’d also like to add that Marineland does have a network with many other cetacean facilities due to the small network overall-but that’s a behind the scenes thing. In an article recently Mystic had mentioned that they have a research team assisting ML with their belugas plus also getting further information for Sahara, Khara and Jetta’s care.
Beluga Whale Deaths at Mystic Aquarium Unpreventable, Report Says – NBC Connecticut
Click to expand...

The bill specifically exempts animal rescue programs and any animals deemed non-releasable by NOAA, so I think the talking points provided by AZA about their ability to respond to such strandings are overblown.
 
Anmltrnr98 said:
I also think it's important to mention that National Aquarium's "sanctuary" project has all but stalled out. The site was supposed to be open by the end of 2020, it's now 2022, and they haven't even found a suitable site. The last update they gave on the project was almost two years ago.
Click to expand...

The project might be stalled from a public stand point, but it is in full swing behind the scenes. The Aquarium is in the final stages of completing a new exhibit and Pier 4 re-fresh emphasizing the new sanctuary complete with renderings, dolphin preparation, and the Aquarium's commitment to moving the colony. So while it may seem like it's stalled and rather than provide another arbitrary completion date, they've decided to keep the information internal until the plan can come into place.
 
NAIB Volunteer said:
Government overreach? Every facility in the United States has a USDA license to house wild animals. The rules dictating the housing of these animals (as sub par as they may be) are somehow not?
Click to expand...
Rules dictating the housing of a species? This is an outright ban. And where is the issue with subpar habitats? Most institutions which have had such conditions already no longer keep whales and dolphins or are voluntarily phasing them out. Cetacean captivity is a very complex issue and not something I would debate, but why is a politician weighing in with a ban on something that clearly isn't as clear-cut as some would want it to be?
 
SusScrofa said:
Rules dictating the housing of a species? This is an outright ban. And where is the issue with subpar habitats? Most institutions which have had such conditions already no longer keep whales and dolphins or are voluntarily phasing them out. Cetacean captivity is a very complex issue and not something I would debate, but why is a politician weighing in with a ban on something that clearly isn't as clear-cut as some would want it to be?
Click to expand...

USDA sets standards to house any wild animal species in captivity. Those standards are sub par as we all know which is why AZA accredited institutions are valued over a road-side zoo. That was my point about "sub par" - not about the institutions themselves housing cetaceans.

To your point about government overreach, I am pointing out the fact that USDA already regulates these facilities so claiming this bill is government overreach is overblown since it's already under the federal government's purview to regulate the housing of wild animals under USDA. It's under the government's purview to issue permits about transferring such animals under the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as NOAA in this particular case. And now Congress is considering whether or not it's under the federal government's purview to ban certain cetaceans under the Marine Mammal Protection Act which only allows for such animals to be exhibited under limited circumstances anyway. Claiming 'government overreach' is such a tiresome cliche.
 
There’s already legal precedent for this under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. As far as I’m aware it’s illegal to keep them in the country without the express permission of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Obviously they make exceptions all the time for non releasable individuals.

Yes, this is probably constitutional under the Commerce Clause for similar reasons as the eagle law. No, it wouldn’t prevent genuine rehabilitation.

Since none of these populations are breeding at replacement rate and imports are very unlikely this is just speeding up the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top