The discussion in the comments is really good. Christopher from BorderWars (who regularly comments on this blog ) has some really good things to add.
Bottom line: I don’t see how an ethical person of any sort can condone keeping an orca in captivity.
***
But now I am happy.
Look at the topic being discussed on Yahoo! News.
***
Have I mentioned how much I hate Fox News?
Let me explain that etymology again.
They aren’t called killer whales because they are whales that kill things. Biologists don’t call them that (although Fox News biologists might). I prefer the term orca or grampus (although grampus also refers to Risso’s dolphin).
They aren’t actually whales. This is actually the largest species of dolphin.
They were called “whale killers,” because that’s what some populations do. They attack the big baleen whales, usually to kill their calves.
Someone reversed the term “whale killer” to “killer whale,” and that’s where we get the name.
Wow, I totally didn’t know that orca are dolphins. They should call them “killer dolphins”, that sounds a lot more ominous than “killer whales”.
I love how I learn so many new things on your blog.
I disagree with you all. The benefits to the species of having these
animals seen by millions (and I’m not necessicarily talking about doing tricks for frozen herring) far, far outweigh the obvious suffering of the individual specimins.
I gut shot a deer once, that no doubt died a painful death beacuse I could not recover it. I think about it often. But being a hunter has made me more of a steward of the land than I ever would have been if I were an avid golfer.
These whales are, unfortunately “taking one for the team”. It would be nice if people could make economic sacrafices to protect gorilla, cougar and killer dolphin habitat without ever seeing one in captivity, but I don’t think it’s realistic.
That last part is true, but I think these animals suffer far too much for even this calculus.
They are already super popular animals. The only people who want to kill them are in Norway, Iceland, the Faroes, and Japan, where if it swims they want to eat it.
I’m okay with hunting, trapping, and using animals. The Saltwater crocodile has recovered because its skins are valuable. It is possible that re-opening an ivory trade might be good for elephants. I still need more evidence on this. I’m still ambivalent.
I’m not okay putting animals under an enormous amount of stress for their entire lives.
I’m with you on just about every other species but cetaceans and elephants.
Both of those are self-aware species with very complex requirements, which we are entirely unable to provide in captivity.
I can’t believe the argument that keeping animals in jail and showing them to the audience would ensure their success in the wilderness.
Much much more is needed. I don’t believe the audience who go to sea worlds is active at all to make acts and choices in their life to save the nature and its creatures.
I’m afraid they just want to buy cheaper tuna in the jar.
Also, I’ve seen kids at zoo generally acting like they don’t understand a bit about the animals, their value and the ecosystem. Which they of course don’t.
If someone claims that kids can be educated to respect the nature in a zoo, he has fundamentally missed the goal.
I’ve seen that zoo-education mostly gives idiotic audience campaigns like “free Willy”.
There is also an ideology there called “entertaining”, the same with circuses.
That will remain the main experience the audience gets by visiting those places.
A kid must be educated in a culture that values all life via its practises, give him a possibility to care for a life – was it a wild bird that he can feed reguraly. By that he will learn to respect i.e. understand the nature.
No exotic animal at zoo is needed to get that point.
It’s not that people want to kill them, it’s that our kids kids begin to think of them only as images on media, and exploit their habatat accordingly.
Rightly or not, I would feel different about development of a natural area that is home to panthers vs. an area that is home to some exceedingly rare small lizard or rodent.
Have you watched a seven-year-old at the zoo? These animals are making lifelong impressions on __% of those kids.
I understand this, but you don’t need to have orcas in captivity. Whale-watching can do it.
I agree with you for other species, but I think these animals are in a special category. They have very specific requirements to thrive, and none of these can be met in captivity. I mean an orca can travel 100 miles a day at over 30 mph. He’ll never get that opportunity in a tank.
Yes. The economic side of conservation is very important. In a lot of species, this can be the saving grace.
Check out David Quammen’s Monster of God: http://www.amazon.com/Monster-God-Man-Eating-Predator-Jungles/dp/0393051404
Most of this book is a discussion of using the economic value of these species to save them.
But sometimes the needs of the animal totally outweigh that calculus.
I had a summer job in which we took a bunch of rural West Virginia elementary school students to the Pittsburgh Zoo.
Boy, they loved it.
Wild animals are both under our domain and our responsibility to protect for future generations. (not sure if that is a sentence)
that is why it’s ok to shoot, skin, eat, even incacerate, test drugs on, and exhibit individuals, but it is not ok to pollute their habitat, exterminate whole populations, and release invasive non-native species into ecosystems (I’m talking to you, dude in the Ed Hardy shirt holding a Burmese Python).
It might be appropriate to insist on a “wild animal park” type environment for animals like elephants and orcas, but those that are already captive do not make good transistions back to wild life. “Free Willy” was “freed” and was clearly unable to adapt back into the wild. I don’t think that freedom was beneficial for this animal. Like many “tamed” wild animals, it had learned to depend on people and to see them as a food source without learning how to survive on it’s own — and it failed to join up with a pod.
The education value of such animals is truly important. People gain much more empathy for animals they can see than ones they only see on TV. The TV animals are no more “real” than the “walking with dinosaurs” CGI recreations. No zoo animal and even most wild animal parks don’t provide the “room” that many animals require (the wolf enclosures are hardly miles in size either). Does it entail some suffering? sure. Is there a trade off? yes. They aren’t hunted (Orcas may be protected, but there have been dolphin-killing and seal killing incidents by fishermen seeing these animals as competitors), but they are fed regularly and have an “on call” vet. We still can learn a lot from such animals. One of the reasons many wild animals don’t do well in zoos is becasue we simply don’t know enough about them to provide appropriate care. The gorilla is a case in point. Decades passed before an effective breeding program and understanding of care was found.
I’m against going into the wild and taking animals for zoos other than very exceptional cases like the California Condor. But I believe that where the animals are already captive it is more humane to try to find them better care and housing and to use them for educational purposes than to try to reintroduce them back to the wild without knowing how to make such a reintroduction successful.
VR, Peggy Richter
You have $10,000 and two choices:
you could take 10 kids from rural WVa. on a whale watching trip in Puget Sound, or wherever you have to go to see them. You had a 50% chance of seeing a wild Orca in all its majesty for a few minutes.
Or:
Take 200 kids on buses to the closest zoo and aquarium for a day trip, where they saw hundreds of megafauna species alive physically, but in captivity, and likely suffering mentally.
Which would you do?
Actually, what they should do is take these kids hunting.
But that really isn’t PC at all.
I just stumbled across this, from 2006 I guess.
Morals or no, I don’t care what the whale’s value is as a performing animal or a stud…he killed 3 people. It’s time to get him out of there for his own benefit and that of the trainers.
As for the ethics of keeping marine mammals, I will side more with Bill on this one. However, I will say that some things do need changed. It’s good that the US can no longer import or buy killer whales, so they mostly need to be bred and born in captivity (yay more money-makers, everyone loves baby whales), but what about living environments, maybe giving them much more space? Letting them live with a family group and not have to do parlor tricks all day? Unfortunately, that will probably never happen, and my feelings will remain very mixed about the issue.
BBC has an article on the subject http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8536000/8536184.stm.
In it they do point out that there have been attacks on people by wild orcas — here is one of the incidents they relate: “Researcher Chris Pierpoint of the Marine Mammal Observer Association was working in Antarctica when he once subjected to a rather sophisticated, planned attack by a group of orcas.” The article also points out that since Orcas tend to live in cold water, their interaction with people is somewhat limited. They point out the problems with trying to release captive orcas back into the wild.
We’ve created a “lose-lose” situation. Keeping Orcas has humane and moral issues; releasing them may be simply sentencing them to a quick death where “we” can’t see it. The captive environment has issues regarding room and acoustics — but training at least gives the whales something to do besides swim in a small enclosure. If we banned them in the US, it’s likely that the ones in captivity in other countries would be even more valuable — rare and exotic animals always are. And whatever we may think of the US aquariums, the environment provided by them is significantly superior to that in places like Korea.
vr, Peggy Richter
I’m not so sure that’s an actual attack.
And it’s not true that orcas are found only in cold water.
Just google orca range map.
They are not killers of people.
0 people have been killed by orcas. 0.
As far as I can tell, there has only been one attack in which a killer whale ever bit someone.
Now, in Patagonia, there have been people walking on the beach and a whale came ashore very close to the person, but the whale aborted the attack when it realized it wasn’t a sea lion.
Alas, as usual, I’m getting in on this rather late, after everyone has drifted on to other things. But on the chance that someone else is always behind on their computer communications…..Being a Zookeeper by profession, as well as a regular reader and sometimes commenter on this blog, I felt I ought to chime in on the subject of zoos and their worth and value to people/animals. I have to deal with all of these(and more) opinions and philosophies every day as part of my job. And you might be suprised to have a zookeeper like myself say–“In the best of all possible worlds, Dr. Pangloss, there would be no need for zoos!”–especially since my zoo pays for my living! But in the best of all possible worlds, there would also be no need for hospitals, jails, military, police, animal shelters, etc. etc. Sadly, it is NOT the best-of-all-possible worlds. Some zoos are HORRIBLE places, and should be shut down. Others aren’t half bad places to live, if you are a captive animal and have no other choice. Taking animals from the wild to entertain people? I think only to save an endangered species, or only if that individual animal is doomed if left in the wild for some reason, is this acceptable. Lots of animals in zoos are rescues of one sort or another–both cougars I care for are recues from doomed, yea abusive “pet” situations, where if we hadn’t taken them, they would have been euthanized. They are not free to roam where they will, but even animals in the wild have boundaries they must recognize, or else! Most modern people aren’t “free” like nomadic hunter-gatherers, either. I’d love to see the expressions on the average city dwelling human, who goes from their auto to various buildings in a very controlled and artificial environment(spaces and rooms smaller than a good animal exhibit), if I took them and “released them to the wild” in some jungle, forest, or desert! Most people in modern, urban society live lives very similar to zoo animals, and they are quite content(because they know nothing else, just like animals born in captivity)–I love Erwin Lecorre’s website–MovNat–where he is dedicated to rehabilitating what he terms “Zoo-humans”. Is zoo life perfect in a “good” zoo? Of course not, and there is always room for improvement. But if they could speak, I think most captive animals would still tell you they enjoy their lives, and prefer life to death. This is in arguement with those radicals that like to say that such captive animals are better off dead! Yeah, I’d like to give them the same option, and see just how quick they can change their view!……
I do believe in the work of zoos. I love zoos. I’ve been to the NC Zoo.
However, I think certain animals really don’t do well in captivity.
I think we can provide for big cats and other carnivores well. We can do the same with most primates.
But when we get to elephants and whales, we’re not so good.
….And then, in regards to the value of zoos in “educating” people—their is still a tremendous need for this(alas), and if anything, the need is growing as people in modern society become distanced more and more from the natural world. No, not everyone learns something, and some are cruel and abusive–we have to watch the public like hawks! The incident in San Francisco with the tiger being teased and taunted is all too common in all zoos. I regularly have to stop people throwing things, spitting on, yelling at, or trying to pet animals that would fully enjoy removing a digit or two! Despite all this, many people DO learn valuable things, and are influenced positively by their visits to the zoo. You can see animals in books and on film all the time, but it just doesn’t seem to replace actually seeing that creature with one’s own eyes up close–this seems to be a deep-seated, instinctive need in humans. And zoos are often THE ONLY contact many modern people have at all with such creatures–it is pitiful! The ignorance of humans in regard to animals, no longer growing up on farms as so many used to, is apalling. Without zoos, this ignorance and apathy will only get worse. I do my best, when I can, to help people make that connection, and understand the importance of animals. I have had some successes, I think. But please feel free when any of you are visiting your favorite zoo, to give HELL to anyone you see teasing animals or being abusive–as an employee, I am not free to REALLY say what I think or grill jerks like I WANT to, or I’ll likely be fired. But when I visit another zoo myself, lord-have-mercy on anyone I catch spitting on-yelling at-throwing things at-or banging on enclosures!!!!!
I am 100% with you on this one retrieverman.
Some animals simply do not belong in confined spaces like zoos and when I read about resorts in Singapore buying wild caught dolphins to be trained for animal shows I am ashamed of my own species. These same clowns wanted to put a whale shark in an aquarium!
If we take a mans freedom and confine him we use words like prison and punishment but hell we do it to Orcas and Dolphins and we call it entertainment!
As you noted zoos are great places for some animals and indeed serve a very important role. I have a season ticket at a local zoo so I am certainly no zoo hater!
It’s interesting to hear that the man who trained dolphins for the flipper series now campaigns against keeping them in captivity.
By the way that David Quammen is one terrific writer and his “Song of the dodo” is my touchstone.
I really like the way your blog is going with its dog/wildlife mix. There’s enough good content here to please everyone!
It does seem like an insurmountable task to attempt to provide Killer Whales(Orcas, Grampuses, or Giant Oreo Dolphins) with any kind of captive environment that meets THEIR needs sufficiently(I like the idea of somehow fencing off an entire inlet, as long as the indigenous wildlife there were not adversely affected–but good luck coming up with the logistics and funds for THAT!). I think ONLY animals that were in need of rescueing(captivity being their only chance at life) should EVER be considered–including other dolphins. As for elephants, I think they CAN be kept quite happily in captivity IF certain BASIC considerations are met. I agree with the movement to only keep them in warmer climates–some of the Northern zoo elephants spend over half the year in tiny(to them) indoor enclosures–elephants–at least the surviving species–do NOT adapt well to the cold. Then they must have LOTS and LOTS of space, in as natural a surroundings as possible–I’m talking like 50 acres MINIMUM enclosure, with MANDATORY water features! A good mud wallow a MUST!(not to be confused with musthe). And if possible(some individual elephants are like sociopathic people, and really can’t be trusted to get along), some manner of social life with their own kind. The elephant sanctuary/rescue place in Tennessee is like this, and this should be the model for zoos. And, ONLY rescue elephants are kept–sadly, there are way too many of them–old circus elephants, ivory poaching orphans, and from any substandard zoo that doesn’t meet these requirements. Then rescue elephants would have great value, and the best, most suitable zoos would be FIGHTING over them to give them the best homes possible, and there would be no surplus animals anywhere–this would be MY dream for captive elephants. My own zoo(N. C. Zoo) recently made a HUGE($$$expense-wise$$$) investment in renovating their African Elephant and White Rhino exhibits. The rhinos made out like bandits, and got a great 40 acre compound, all grass and trees and lake and wallow. The elephants got a new indoor barn which was superior to the old one, and allows for many more animals to be kept(some came from more Northerly zoos who wanted a more Southerly clime for their elephants), and is MUCH more spacious than most elephant barns(we do get enough cold weather where the elephants need to stay inside some days) but didn’t get nearly the exhibit space, alas. They still have grass and a pool in each–(2)–of the enclosures, but the enclosures are only a coupla-three acres each–I woulda like to have seen MUCH more space allocated to the elephants, alas. But the expense for what they got was ASTRONOMICAL! You cain’t just throw up chicken wire and T-posts when you are fencing elephants!!!! Perhaps in the future they will get more–we certainly have the acreage for it…….