Photo by Joseph C. Dovala
(Readers, please comment at bottom of editorial)
As expected, everyone and their brother who could possibly pass the acid test of being an expert was interviewed about what had happened. So far, “experts” have blamed the incident on everything from boredom to stress to mating behavior. Frankly, the cause seems irrelevant. The fact is that these creatures weren’t intended to live in an aquatic kennel, or what one advocate describes as “straitjackets of concrete.”
Orcas are considered by many marine mammalogists to be the most social, intelligent, family-oriented member of the dolphin family. Just a few weeks ago an Emory University biologist, Lori Marino, in a presentation before a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, explained that captive whales and dolphins suffer real psychological stress. “Dolphins are sophisticated, self- aware, highly intelligent beings with individual personalities, autonomy and an inner life,” she told the group. “They are vulnerable to tremendous suffering and psychological trauma.” If that doesn’t earn them the right to be left alone to live free in the open ocean, then I can’t imagine what would.
I’m fully aware of the argument that had it not been for places like SeaWorld turning “killer whales” into cuddly performers, our attitudes toward them may have never changed. It’s now well known that there has never been a documented account of a person being killed in the wild by an orca. But that just as well could be because very few humans are ever in the cold and often distant waters where orcas live as to any temperamental aversion to considering us prey.
I also agree that, in the past, there may have been justification for keeping marine mammals captive so that humans could have a more intimate and accurate experience with them. For example, I remember an episode of “Sea Hunt” in which the matter-of-fact premise of the story was a killer whale eating a diver. But that was in the 1950s, and it’s no longer the world we live in. Today marine mammals have what may be the strongest conservation advocacy of any animal on the planet. In all forms they are beloved, so it’s pretty clear that we got the message. Therefore, trying to justify the captivity of orcas by asserting that it’s a way to prove they aren’t “killers” — aside from the evidence of the Tilikum incident — is just a very thin veil to hide the truth: As The New York Times stated when it weighed in on the Tilikum incident, “that’s a big money-making animal.” I think it’s time to own up to that truth and leave these magnificent creatures where they belong: in the sea.
No, they should not be held in captivity. We think about them in the time that they are doing shows, but how good is life in their downtime, which is most of it, when their free range, which should be as wide and deep as the ocean, is literally a pool. It wouldn't be as much a consideration if they were not so intelligent.
ReplyDeleteI'm torn. I love to take my kids to see the shows, and they love to be there. My son sleeps with a stuffed killer whale that we bought at one of the marine parks years ago, and he's 14 (he wouldn't admit that he still sleeps with it). I believe the shows have done a lot to make my kids aware and that will carry through all of their lives. On the other hand, the animals are in captivity. I guess having written this helped me think it through. I lean toward favoring the good that the shows do.
ReplyDeleteLife is imperfect. In a perfect world it would be shameful to keep marine mammals in captivity. In the imperfect world we live in those captured or captive specimens serve as ambassadors for their species and for the oceans. Kids fall in love with those ambassadors, and some of those kids will some day lead the fight to save their species and their habitat. Those ambassadors don't live the best life possible, but they serve their species in the best possible way in the imperfect world we live in.
ReplyDeleteI fell in love with dolphins more than 50 years ago at the Miami Seaquarium. As a 12 year old, I watched the dolphin shows on the top deck with the crowds, and more often from the lower decks, watching their high speed underwater ballet. I watched them for hours beween the shows, both topside and below. And they watched me. I came back time and again, for many years to come.
ReplyDeleteMy friendship with the dolphins, along with my pal, Mike Nelson (Lloyd Bridges)on "Sea Hunt", sparked and fanned the flame of my life long passion for The Sea and for Diving. That personal connection prompted my more than 40 years as a marine enviromentalist.
As a result, I also become horrified by the abuse of dolphins, in Japan, where they are still slaughtered by the thousands, by their destruction by the tuna fishing industry, and by their neglect in substandard marine parks.
When orcas were first displayed in oceanariums, I was stunned! As a young man, the prevailing belief was that all orcas were extremely dangerous killers. The U. S. Navy Diving Manual said so, as did all the dive books of the day. I have the episode of "Sea Hunt" on tape, where my hero, Mike Nelson, said Killer Whales were a deadly threat to humans and should all be killed. Shamu and her decendants and kin changed all that. Orcas became beloved by the public only because of their perfomances and personal interactions in marine parks.
What to do for them now? No more dolphins or orcas should be captured from the wild. And in the USA none are. All dolphins and orcas in oceanariums are from captive breeding programs. And they are very prolific. It is a measure of their well treatment. Highly stressed and unhappy dolphins do not reproduce.
Unfortunately, captive dolphins and orcas can never be released to the wild. Very few U. S. Navy Marine Mammal Program dolphins flee during their daily excursions in the open sea. And of the few who did leave, several came home and "reinlisted" after more than a year in the wild.
Keiko, the orca star of the 1993 movie, "Free Willy", was reintroduced to the wild in July 2002 near Iceland, where he was initially captured, after a four year effort to rehabilitate him, that cost tens of millions of dollars.
Keiko was never able to rejoin a wild pod of orcas, or feed himself well. He followed a fishing boat to norway, hungry and underweight, where he allowed people to play with him and crawl on his back. His trainers were forced to continue caring for him and feeding him.
He beach himself and died from pneumonia in September 2003, a year and a half after his release.
We have a sacred duty to continue to care for the dolphins and orcas who have become ambassadors to humanity in the oceanariums of the world, and to enhance and enrich their lives to the best of our ability. Releasing them to the wild after a lifetime of captivity is not a humane option.
I think there are two seperate issues being discussed here. One examines the concept of whether it is appropriate to keep whales and dolphins (and I would add large, pelagic fish species)in captivity and the other reflects on what to do with those already confined.
ReplyDeleteThere is no denying that many of us have been profoundly affected by exposure to captive whales and dolphins, but the question that ultimately arises is to consider what the we have gained through the experience. If we have really learned something, perhaps it should be that these animals deserve our respect and protection. Are we really fulfilling our obligation by confining them in an unnatural setting? It seems to me that captivity is both self-serving and exploitative. There are certainly less intrusive ways to educate and inspire. If we have really learned something of value from encounters with these species, shouldn't it be that true respect cannot exist without allowing them their natural freedoms?
As what to do with those already in confinement, that should be determined on a case by case basis. Each situation has it's own set of variables and cannot be broadly characterized. A Dubai hotel recently released a captive whale shark and the potential information to be gained by tagging and monitoring far outweighs any research that could be obtained by it's continued unnatural confinement. Let's not use the complexity of that issue to justify the continuation of a practice that has outlived it's own projected value.
I hate to say it but I think the good outweighs the bad. How do we make people environmentally aware, especially with regard to the marine environments. Places like Sea World, the shows they put on, put a face on it and reaches out to millions of people. It is very, very effective and generations of people, and the marine environments, have benefited as a result. Say whatever else you will, but there is no disputing this.
ReplyDeleteI agree that having the animals on display personalizes the conservation issue far better than practically anything else we have been able to do.
ReplyDelete"Geeves",
ReplyDeleteThe question I would ask is: Are we justified to "personalize" the issue in this way? Can you produce data to support your opinion that the conservation issue (the protection of whales and dolphins, in this case)is more effectively advanced through confinement of the species than through other means?
For example, there are currently no humpback whales held in captivity, but still there seems to be widespread public support for protection of that species. There really are better ways of promoting conservation than placing these naturally free-swimming animals in captivity that most often results in undue stress and premature death. Of course, not surprisingly, these other methods may not be as effective in raising revenues for the aquaria industries involved.
There are two kinds of cetacean captivity -- captivity that focuses on entertainment (and often is labeled with 'ambassador for their species' status) which puts the need of the audience (and their children) first and captivity that focuses on rescue/rehab of individual animals and/or breading of endangered species combined with conservation research in the wild. The latter is easily identifiable, valuable to the animals, the planet and our communities; the former, is also easily identified (usually involves tricks, music, and other anthropomorphic attributes) and exists almost exclusively for the economic benefit to the institution/captors.
ReplyDeleteQuite simply, moving forward as a society/culture it is time to recognize this difference and support captivity of marine mammals appropriately and ethically.
-- Samantha Whitcraft
Director, Conservation Biology & Research
www.oceanicdefense.org
Steve Mussman,
ReplyDeleteNo, no evidence that conservation attitudes have been so advanced by the whale, dolphin, sea lion shows. Guess that was an overreaching statement. I will rephrase... To me at least it is a common sence observation that an awful lot of good has come from it and we would not be as far along as we are. It has been extremely good.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteFirst, just like Sea Hunt’s Mike Nelson (Lloyd Bridges) and Jacque Cousteau, your contribution to recreational diving has been beyond measurement! As a Scuba Instructor for 35 years and a dive store owner for 30 years, I consider you my continuing education instructor. I read everything you put in Dive Training. In fact, I require my staff and instructors to read your more insightful stuff. So, I just had to write you when I finally found something you wrote with which I strongly disagree: “Isn’t It time?", May 2010 issue of Dive Training.
Your answer to the tragic accident that happened at Sea World in Orlando bothers me greatly. You concluded that the Orca Whales should no longer be held captive for the entertainment and education of human beings. I wonder if your solution extends to lions, elephants or monkeys which are all also intelligent animals which are captive in zoos. If we close down these marine parks, and by my extension the zoos, what do we do with all the critters? We can’t just turn them loose as they would die just like “Free Willie” did a few years ago. I guess we could turn the parks/zoos into retirement homes for them, but who will pay the bill to care for them with those facilities closed to the public?
I am going to throw some of your own words back at you. You correctly pointed out that the marine parks are in a large part responsible for a world wide change in attitudes toward not just Orcas but all marine life in general. Continuing education is your magazine’s motto and is emphasized in nearly everything you write. You constantly remind us that humans easily forget and need reminding. What will be the attitude changes toward marine life 10 – 20 years from now if the parks are gone? Are you willing to take the chance?
My girlfriend and I live about an hour away from Orlando so as you can imagine this was really big news for locals.
ReplyDeleteWe're have strong opinions about zoos. We don't go to them. I have always felt the strongest voice is to do, not say. We speak from our wallets. We don't go to SeaWorld because we don't agree with animals being used for entertainment. What hurts the most is the 'blame' that fell on the Orca. He didn't choose to be in captivity. Nor does he want his basic instincts suppressed in order to live in captivity. It's not the animals fault when things like this happen. I wish that someday people realize zoos are not a right of passage for human entertainment.
Some people demonize the marine parks as money making enterprises that are just exploiting killer whales for profit. It's the typical anti-capitalism, environmental spew that is simply designed to put an evil face on an issue.
ReplyDeleteThat's a shame because it masks the debate and the real benefit to the public, which ultimately is environmental awareness. And try telling it your way to the trainers and caretakers who are not evil, but are doing this for love of the animals.
Hi Folks: As I was mentioned in the original article by Brylske I thought I should add to this interesting discussion. I have studied dolphins and whales for close to twenty years. I found that they can recognize themselves in mirrors, have brains second only to human brains in relative size, and we now know from my colleagues who study them in the wild, that they possess sophisticated cultural traditions.
ReplyDeleteI've also done a lot of research on the effects of captivity on dolphins and whales and on the claims by the zoo and aquarium industry that visits are educational or endorse conservation. I can tell you unequivocally that there is no compelling evidence that visits to zoos and aquaria are educational or lead to increased conservation efforts. Certainly one feels as though they have been educated when they go to a marine park show but that is different from there being real educational and conservation value associated with the whole enterprise of keeping smart animals captive.
The reality behind the marine park industry is that the dolphins and whales you take your children to see have paid an enormous price for that afternoon of entertainment. There is abundant evidence that dolphins and whales in captivity suffer from stress-related diseases and high mortality rates. The marine parks do not want you to know this, for obvious reasons. But the facts tell the truth about the lives of captive animals - short, stressful, boring and deprived of everything that makes life worth living for any animal, especially an intelligent self-aware being like a dolphin or whale.
If you told your children what these animals have gone through and asked them if they wanted to continue to see the animals under those circumstances, I think you would be pleasantly surprised by the answer. Children know right from wrong. And there are so many other ways that children and adults can learn to appreciate other animals. After all, look at how crazy kids are about dinosaurs and NO ONE has ever seen one!
Most importantly, all of you are members of the diving community. You know, more than anyone, the beauty and joy associated with freedom in the oceans. And you, of most anyone, should know what captive dolphins and whales are missing - what they are deprived of. You can be a strong voice for these animals and I hope you all will. Please feel free to email me if you would like to help.
Thanks!
Lori
lmarino1959@yahoo.com
I think I should expand and detail some of my previous comments.
ReplyDeleteI have no academic degree in dolphin science and I have never worked for any oceanarium. I'm just an old diver and sailor who has passionately loved and studied dolphins for 50 years.
Dolphins are the most intelligent, self aware, sentient beings in the sea. Many who are close to them consider dolphins true "mer-people", people who live in the sea. So do I, even though most scientists dismiss that as anthropomorphic nonsense.
In the wild, dolphins live in pods, close knit matrilinneal extended families. They can not hunt, thrive, or survive without the love, support, and protection of their pod. They are the most social of all beings and experience profound grief and depression if they are isolated. They may commit suicide.
The worst punishment in the wild dolphin world is to be driven away and abandoned by the pod, which happens sometimes, for unkown reasons. It is a virtual death sentence.
Dolphins were first displayed in oceanariums in 1938, at Marineland of Florida, and later at Marineland of the Pacific in 1954, and at the Miami Seaquarium in 1955. Now there are about 1,200 marine mammals in captivity in the USA. Lolita is the oldest orca in captivity at the Miami Seaquarium. She is 43. Dolphins live as long in oceanariums as in the wild, and sometimes longer due to high quality medical care, and top quality food. Dolphins in the wild all have high levels of mercury in their bodies from eating mercury contaminated fish. They sometimes also have ciguratera toxin. 15% of the mammals in captivity were captured in the wild, all before 1989. None have been capured in the USA in 20 years. 14% were rescued, sick, injured, or stranded. They would have all died without our assistance. The rest, 71% of the mammals in captivity were born in captivity. They have never lived in the wild, and can never be released. All of the dolphins who have lived long with humans, especially those born in captivity, could never survive without a pod, and they just can't fit in and be accepted in the wild dolphin world. It would be akin to dumping our relatives on the street, with no food, shelter, or medical care.
Oceanariums were largely created as a way to raise funds for marine research. Marineland of Florida had their own marine research lab, as do all oceanariums. In addition, in 1974, Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney, one of Marinelands founders, donated three acres of land and half the construction costs for the University of Florida's Whitney Marine Laboratory, seperate from their own lab.
Here in Hawaii, in 1965, a marine biologist and his wife, Tap and Karen Pryor, founded Sea Life Park, The Oceanic Institute, and Makai Undersea Research Range (now Makai Research Pier, and Makai Ocean Engineering). Profits from Sea Life Park funded basic aquaculture research at OI, next door, and groundbreaking research and developement in submersibles and the Aegir Undersea Habitat, accross the street at Makai Range.
Oceanariums entertain and amaze the public, and make a lot of money. But they also educate, inspire, and gain public support for ocean research from people who live far from the sea, and otherwise would have little, or no interest in it. They also earn the money to support, enhance, and enrich the lives of the 1,200 Ambassadors of the Sea, to whom we owe a profound debt and responsibilty. The more attendance, and profits oceanariums make, the better we can provide for them. And we need to make sure that they are well treated and well cared for.
Wow, reading all this makes my head swim. There is a lot of good and bad to be considered. First I lean toward stopping captivity, next I'm for it. Maybe there is no right or wrong. Perhaps it's OK to keep and care for (and yes, show off) the animals that we save or are born in captivity. And if we haven't captured an animal in over 20 years that makes a difference too.
ReplyDeleteDear Gary "Frogman",
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments but must correct several of them. First, dolphins do not live longer in captivity. It is just in the past few years that marine parks have been able to keep dolphins alive for as long as they live in the wild. Second, the lifespan of orcas in captivity is half of what it is in the wild. Most do not last more than a few years. In the wild they can live to 40-60 years old. Lolita is an exception and she has lived a long lonely life in captivity away from her natal pod. Quality of life matters even more than length. Third, there is also evidence that belugas do not do well in captivity either. They die of stomach ulcers and other stress-related diseases. Those are just the facts. Plain and simple. Fourth, despite the fact that we are "amazed" by captive marine mammal displays I want to repeat that there is absolutely no evidence that these displays have real lasting educational value. Fifth, I do agree with you that dolphins and whales are intelligent, self-aware beings and also that we would never dump "our relatives on the street, with no food, shelter, or medical care." But neither would we ever rip our relatives from their families and incarcerate them in a closet. And that is precisely what is done to captive marine mammals. The only difference between captive and wild-born is that the captive animals never get even the smallest opportunity to know what it is like to live as a dolphin or whale. It is clear that public opinion is turning towards the idea that we should start phasing out this antiquated spectacle that we call marine parks. People are wisening up! I hope you join us!
It is certainly obvious that Gary holds admiration and sincere concern for dolphins, but I have to take issue with many of his rationalizations.
ReplyDeleteI would assert that the worst thing that can happen to a dolphin in the wild is not rejection by it’s pod, but capture, or slaughter by those involved in the international whaling trade. This still goes on around the world and one consideration should be that support of marine mammal captivity programs often further supports a proliferation of this practice on an international scale. American institutions may adhere to better standards, but they are still setting an unfortunate example. The bottom line is that the life experience of a dolphin in captivity, whether wild caught or captive bred, is severely compromised and restricted.
Statistics on dolphin mortality rates are, at best, difficult to ascertain. But let’s assume that Gary is right and dolphins do live as long in captivity as they do on average in the wild. “Considering that confined dolphins are protected from the inherent dangers they would face in their natural environment (but for which they are specifically adapted), it is significant that captive dolphins do not show improved mortality rates even after sixty years of husbandry refinement. This suggests that dolphins suffer from stress associated with captivity, regardless of their origin. In addition, mortality rates for calves born in captivity are similar to those for calves born in the wild. Since wild-born calves are subject to predation, illness, being separated from their mothers and a host of other natural and human-caused threats, captive-breeding programs should show a much higher survival rate, but this is not the case.” (T. H. Woodley and others, “A comparison of survival rates for free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), killer whales (Orcinus orca), and beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas),”
As far as releasing captive dolphins, these decisions are best considered on a case by case basis, but there is nothing to suggest that a rehabilitated, wild dolphin cannot be successfully released unless reunited with it’s original pod. For a more in depth analysis, I would refer you to the following link.
http://www.dolphinproject.org/the-protocol-.html
I am not suggesting that oceanariums are evil institutions and the trainers are certainly well intentioned and concerned about their animals, but it is also misdirected to characterize most dolphinariums as conservation programs. If these programs were serious about conservation, they would be focusing their efforts on breeding more threatened species of dolphin rather than bottlenose dolphin, a species generally not under threat, and used almost exclusively by these institutions to replenish the supply of dolphins for captive exhibits.
It is not an easy decision to formulate an opinion on this issue and many have agreed to disagree. But, based on my experiences in the underwater world, I have to try to encourage others to find alternative means of inspiration. I believe there are better ways to instill and educate. Our species can show ultimate respect to others more by our acts of conscientiousness than by our ability to control and confine.
One last comment and this doesn’t relate to Gary’s post. It is simply a diversion to refer to critics of marine mammal captivity as ”anti-capitalist” environmentalists. Many people have concerns about this practice and it diminishes the significance of the debate to cast epithets that belittle those interested enough to engage in discussion.
I might add --
ReplyDeleteThere are THREE questions developing here:
1. Do captive cetaceans provide educational opportunities for people?
2. Should cetaceans be brought into captivity from the wild?
3. Should cetaceans, in captivity, be freed?
As to #1, I will simply quote:
“There is about as much educational benefit to be gained in studying dolphins in captivity as there would be studying mankind by only observing prisoners held in solitary confinement.” – Jacques Cousteau
As to #2, one only needs to take the time to see several important documentaries on the subject, specifically "The Cove" and "Lolita: Slave to Entertainment". It is already illegal to do so in the waters of Florida and the last time Sea World successfully got an MMPA capture-permit from NMFS to use in the PNW to get an orca, the public outcry made it impossible. Currently, most captive dolphins are acquired internationally from hunts in Japan and the Solomon Islands, and orcas from Iceland -- all for massive profits to the dealers. In many cases other animals in the pod are injured or killed.
As to #3, I think our experience with "Willy" taught us a lot about how precarious an undertaking this can be, especially for the larger dolphins and animals that have been in captivity for extended periods of time. I think captivity of cetaceans in the U.S. should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by an independent review panel of experts. In one particular case, Lolita at the Miami Seaquarium, who has been in captivity for her entire life, approximately 40 years, in a tank that is shockingly small (and does not comply with any current industry standards or laws) her 'retirement' is more than warranted. She deserves, at the very least, a larger tank for her last years and the institution that houses her has a moral obligation to build it, or move her to one before spending money on bringing in more cetaceans for a purely entertainment captivity, swim-with-dolphins program.
In short, the entertainment value of cetaceans in captivity is questionable and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Taking cetaceans from the wild for captivity of any kind, other than rescue/rehab is ethically wrong, and cetaceans currently in captivity should not necessarily be released; but in extreme cases their situations should be independently evaluated.
Samantha Whitcraft
Director, Conservation Biology
oceanicdefense.org
Kudos, Alex, on your stand against keeping marine mammals in parks and zoos for entertainment and commercial profit. If divers don't speak out for the rights of these animals to be free from slavery, who will?
ReplyDeleteI also learned much from the reader comments on your editorial, especially those of Steve Mussman and Samantha Whitcraft.
Maybe one, or both, of them could be persuaded to expand on their arguments in an article for your magazine and really educate us.
Sitting on the fence is not always a good place to be but with this topic I may have to stay up here. It is hard to watch wonderful creatures held in captivity perform for a free morsel of food, and its tragic when a human life is lost. However, look at all the good these creatures have done that is not easily seen. I’m sure there are many marine biologists, environmentalist, conservationists, etc that may have gotten their motivation to start such careers from one of these shows. The door of possibilities that is opend when our youth have the opportunity to see a creature up close is priceless. I love to see wild creatures in the wild just like the diver next to me. Nothing is more spiritual then being in their environment when they decide its ok for me to see them. But my love affair with nature, the environment, conservation may have not been so strong had my parents not taken me to see all of Earth’s gifts in captivity.
ReplyDeleteIf you will allow me to make a couple of follow-up comments and historical footnotes, I promise to finally let this topic rest.
ReplyDeleteJean-Michel Cousteau and his Ocean Futures Society raised the funds, and organized and directed the rehabilitation and release of Keiko the orca (Free Willy). In an interview with the Santa Barbara Independent on Sat. 02/27/2010, he discussed the release of Keiko and stated that Tilikum (and all the other orcas and dolphins) have been in captivity too long to be released. You can read his interview at:
www.independent.com/news/2010/feb/27/cousteau-seaworld-tragedy/
I stated previously that Sea Life Park, the Oceanic Institue, and Makai Undersea Research Range (now Makai Research Pier) were jointly created so that Sea Life Park revenues could help fund OI and Makai Range.
Today, Oceanic Institute is partnered with the Marine Science Program at Hawaii Pacific University. See:
www.oceanicinstitute.org/ and
www.hpu.edu/index.cfm?section=graduate8789
Makai Research Pier is currently the base for
the University of Hawaii Undersea Research Lab (HURL) See: www.soest.hawaii.edu/HURL/
as well as Makai Ocean Engineering and Sea Engineering. See: www.makai.com/ and
www.seaengineering.com/
All of these organizations are here now, in large part, because dolphins and false killer whales have been entertaining tourists for 45 years at Sea Life Park.
I should also note that I have never been employed or profited in any way from any of these organizations. My interest is independant and purely personal.
Tap Pryor, the founder of Sea Life Park, OI, and Makai Range is currently on the board of
the Center for Cetacean Research & Conservation. You can read his biography at
www.whaleresearch.org/update_biostap.htm
Karen Pryor, co-founder and first dolphin trainer at Sea Life Park is a pioneer in non-coercive training and has written books on Dolphin Societies and Dolphin Training. You can read her biography at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Pryor
Finally, one of my good friends and dive buddies is a senior research scientist and the diving safety officer at Oceanic Institute. She began her career years ago as a diver feeding fish for the entertainment of tourists in the main tank at Sea Life Park.
Those are all some of the ways oceanariums promote marine science funding and education.
Pau. (Hawaiian: finished)
How do we know the animals don't like performing? They sure look like they are enjoying themselves. Dogs do tricks for treats and they sure like doing it. Anyone dispute that? What's the difference.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that we can all agree on is that it is a positive development to just be vigorously discussing this issue in an open forum like the one provided here by Dive Training Magazine. Thanks to Alex Brylske for having the integrity to express an opinion that others in his position might have avoided.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that divers have an inherent responsibility to take a leadership role on any issue affecting marine ecosystems. After all, our experiences in the underwater world connect us in a unique way. Like many other issues of our time, we may ultimately agree to disagree, but we can listen to each other and learn.
For those interested in an in-depth and objective examination of this issue, the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs is conducting an Oceans and Wildlife Oversight Hearing on "Marine Mammals in Captivity: What Constitutes Meaningful Public Education?"
On Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.
You can get all the information, including a link to a live webcast of the hearing at this site:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=61&extmode=view&extid=348
I took the poll and would have said no after reading Alex Brylske's editorial, but after reading some of the comments had to vote that I'm not sure. My wife leans more to "no" but we could only vote once from our home computer.
ReplyDeleteWow, nice to see so many people as compassionate about cetacean captivity as I am. This topic has raised a nerve so deep this is my chosen topic for a research paper in college. The complexity of this issue had me swinging left to right then right to left again. I am behind on my paper from changing my viewpoint so many times, and have come to realize there are good and bad points. If we make it illegal to extract any more mammals from our oceans, moving forward, and create a new regulated set of guidelines to monitor the cetaceans already in captivity, this could be a positive thing. it is hard to get on board completely when our own Navy will not sign up and cooperate.
ReplyDeleteChelli