Lee Thomas 1938 - 2024

 

Loro Parque leads the way with study into the hearing of whales

Thursday, 13 November, saw yet another judgment from the Dutch courts on the fate of the young female killer whale, “Morgan," who was stranded on the Dutch coast in June 2010 and was rehabilitated by the group SOS Delfijn and employees from Dolfinarium Harderwijk. The animal was deemed unsuitable for release and was moved to live with a group of other killer whales at Loro Parque, Tenerife, Spain in November 2011.

The recent hearing stated that the permit to move “Morgan” should only be issued if the goal was research or teaching. The judgment concluded that the park in Tenerife conducts research and performs an educational function, and therefore, the whale's move was legal.

The court further saw no reason to believe that the welfare of Morgan was in danger in Tenerife. If The Orca Coalition disagrees, they are open to taking legal action in a Spanish court.

This current judgment is the latest litigation brought by The Orca Coalition, a group of animal-rights activists, including the Free Morgan Foundation, who, along with their supporter Dr. Ingrid Visser, wish to obtain this animal for a reintroduction experiment in Norway.

Dr. Visser has been an active critic of the care of cetaceans in zoos and aquaria, particularly killer whales. While she has researched killer whales in the wild and was the founder of the New Zealand-based Orca Research Trust, she was also a Plaintiff's Next Friend in the infamous lawsuit in October 2011 by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) against SeaWorld theme parks. This case cited slavery and involuntary servitude under the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States for five killer whales displayed at the parks. The lawsuit failed and was subsequently dismissed.

Ironically, Visser is now herself a possible recipient of legal action due to various statements she made against those currently housing and caring for “Morgan”, the killer whale, in the above-cited court hearing.

On 10 December, Dr Visser revealed in an article published in the Digital Journal that she had been threatened with legal action regarding her claims of aberrant behaviour and mistreatment of “Morgan” by Loro Parque. She stated that this was emailed to her on 30 October, before the appearance at the most recent court hearing on 1 November 2012 to which this current judgment relates.

The Digital Journal article was penned by Elizabeth Batt, who, along with writers such as David Kirby and Tim Zimmerman, has been active in promoting the activities of various animal-rights groups and individuals opposed to the display of cetaceans in zoos and aquaria. Interestingly, Zimmerman’s website was allegedly cited in the threatened legal action as a media outlet used by Visser.

This current development raises some serious questions, however, as to the timing and motives of this revelation. Primarily, why was Visser’s dramatic statement not presented at the time of the formal hearing on 1 November, either in court or as a press release? Rather, it was released via a sympathetic journalist to the public weeks later and days before the publishing of the judge's ruling on “Morgan” and her welfare. It could be suggested this was undertaken for maximum publicity value, not fear of litigation.

The Orca Coalition could, of course, counter such suggestions by raising the same kind of criticism with Loro Parque and their supporters regarding the issue of “Morgan’s” alleged hearing impairment and possible deafness, which was officially announced on 15 November 2012.

The Orca Coalition's position on this was predictable. It claimed this was just a ploy by the park and:

“another attempt by the commercial industry to keep the valuable animal in their possession”.

It also questioned the independence of the scientists undertaking the testing, further stating:

“the commercial industry itself selected and hired the scientists for the scientific research, and once again the specialized and experienced scientists of the Free Morgan Foundation are excluded. The involved researchers, who have examined whether Morgan is deaf, also have ties with the Dolphinarium and SeaWorld.”

Although looking at the experts listed by the Coalition, none have specific skills in the hearing assessment of cetaceans. In fact, neither does Loro Parque, which is why they called in independent experts to undertake these tests.

The specialists used by Loro Parque to test the killer whale's hearing were from the Netherlands Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Study (IMARES), the National Foundation for Marine Mammals of the U.S.A., and the Office of Naval Research for the U.S. Armed Forces (U.S. Navy).

The researchers involved included:

Dr. Dorian S. Houser: Director of Biological and Bioacoustical Research for The National Marine Mammal Foundation, who won the Acoustical Society of America’s 2007 R. Bruce Lindsay Award for his contributions to animal bioacoustics and to understanding echolocation and hearing by dolphins. Dr. Houser’s work has been used (among other things) to ascertain the hearing abilities of stranded marine mammals with a view to their suitability for successful release back to the wild after rehabilitation by groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare’s Cape Cod stranding network and The Marine Mammal Center, California. A useful overview of some of Dr. Houser’s work can be found in this video presented at the SCMM 2011 Workshop.

Dr. Klaus Lucke has been involved in and published research on anthropogenic (human-caused) noise and its effects on cetaceans, and his work has involved both wild and captive animals. He was appointed in 2000 to the International Advisory Panel of Experts on Marine Ecology (IAPEME) Danish Energy Authority to comment on the environmental monitoring program on the observed impacts of wind farms on birds, mammals, fish, and benthic ecosystems. He was an invited speaker of the paper Electrophysiological Measures of Hearing in Marine Mammals at the 2006 European Cetacean Society (ECS) Conference in Gdynia, presenting a paper on measuring the hearing of cetaceans and pinnipeds.

Reviewing the background of the scientists undertaking the tests on “Morgan” and the other whales at Loro Parque, one cannot help but think how disingenuous The Orca Coalition is with its comments.

Indeed, both scientists mentioned have worked with captive cetaceans but also extensively with wild animals. Dr Houser has also been involved with hearing assessments of stranded/rehabilitated animals for groups such as IFAW, which have a position against the display of cetaceans in zoos and aquariums.

To suggest that such international specialists in the field of cetacean hearing would jeopardize their professional standing to lie about test results to satisfy Loro Parque or any other zoo and aquarium is ridiculous and offensive. It sadly reveals more about the agenda, credibility, and integrity of The Orca Coalition and Free Morgan Foundation.

So what now for “Morgan”? As an animal which is either deaf or hearing compromised, the option of successful rehabilitation and release to the wild is impossible; dolphins require their hearing to survive in the wild environment not only to hunt but to communicate.

The only option now for “Morgan” is long-term human care or euthanasia.

The Orca Coalition may still campaign for custody of this animal via courts in Spain. To this end, they may wish to place her in another environment, such as a sea pen, but unless they can obtain at least one other killer whale for company, this would mean isolation for this animal, something both sides in this argument have indicated is not acceptable for the long-term health of this animal. Further, it should be noted that one of the reasons “Morgan” was moved to Loro Parque in the first place was so that she could be in the company of other whales.

Reference

Variability in Click-Evoked Potentials in Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) and Determination of a Hearing Impairment in a Rehabilitated Killer Whale (2016) Lucke, Klaus, Finneran, James J., Almunia, Javier, and Houser, Dorian S. Aquatic Mammals. Volume 42 - Issue 2

More on Morgan HERE

This article was reviewed and amended in October 2024.

 _"...The treatment of dolphins is another appalling example of animal cruelty. Activities offered in many tourist venues include swimming with them, interacting with them by touching or feeding them, using them as props for souvenir photographs and selfies, which causes them immense distress, and so-called beaching, the horrible practice where they are trained to propel themselves out of the water on to a stage—a demeaning act that often ends in severe injury to the animal. To prepare them for all this, these highly intelligent creatures are subjected to coercive control, deprived of food to make them respond to training, and kept in confined, featureless tanks that are 200,000 times smaller than their natural home range..."_

The level of ignorance in this statement is astounding. I'm not aware of any of these situations regarding dolphins in human care causing "immense distress". What actual evidence do they have to support such a statement particularly the one regarding animals being trained to breach. Some bottle nosed dolphins actually do this in the wild when hunting for fish and video of this behavior has been shown on various wildlife programmes.  In Holland (many years ago) I remember visiting one facility where the dolphins used to come out and breach and play on the side of the pool before the actual show. The food deprivation trope is often used but there's no evidence support this in a property run establishment. These animals are on public display and if they were food deprived they'd be underweight and this would be very easy to observe when compared to their wild counterparts.

_"...The Bill also has the powerful backing of many of the charities involved in this field of work, among them Save the Asian Elephants, the RSPCA, World Animal Protection and Four Paws UK. I am particularly indebted to Save the Asian Elephants for the comprehensive briefing it has provided to me and others, as indeed I am to our Library for its background document. I am also very grateful to officials at Defra, who have been generous in their time and expertise working on this Bill..."_

It's funny I've just recently made some comments on World Animal Protection's Facebook page. Are these people promoting this bill in Parliament not aware of the Dolphinaria Review that was commissioned by DEFRA in the mid 1980s.

 

https://hakaimagazine.com/news/salish-sea-killer-whales-have-a-surprising-new-way-of-hunting/

Drive Hunts and Marine Parks and Aquariums

Photograph of mother and baby dolphin courtesy of Dolphin Quest

The Cove is a 2009 award-winning documentary that exposes the annual drive fishery hunt of dolphins and whales in the whaling village of Taiji, Wakayama, Japan.

Drive fisheries are not historically new. Several countries aside from Japan have used (or still use) this method to hunt animals, including the Solomon Islands, the Faroe Islands, and Peru. The drive fishery at Taiji is believed to have been in existence for more than 350 years. However, The Cove was not the first to document this controversial hunt—publications such as National Geographic and television series by the late Jacques-Yves Cousteau in the mid-1970s have also highlighted it. Many people have rightly raised concerns about these hunting methods, questioning them on moral, ethical, and animal welfare grounds.

One aspect of the film that has proved particularly controversial is the claim that, in recent years, a percentage of animals from this fishery have not been killed but instead selected for live display in public aquariums and marine parks. In 2007—the year The Cove was made—official figures show that 13,170 dolphins and whales were hunted and killed in Japan. Of that number, 1,239 were taken by the drive fishery method, with 90 (7.3%) removed alive for aquariums.

 

Between 2000 and 2013, a total of 19,092 small cetaceans were taken in the drive fishery at Taiji, Japan. Of these, 17,686 were slaughtered, while 1,406 were captured alive and sold to zoos and aquariums (graph and data courtesy of Cetbase).
 

Unfortunately, the makers of the film suggested that supplying animals to aquariums and marine parks was the primary purpose of the hunt and that if this practice ceased, so would the hunt itself. This is unsurprising, as one of the main figures in The Cove is animal rights activist Ric O'Barry, who is strongly opposed to dolphins being kept in zoological parks.

Additionally, the film implies that animals from the hunt are being transported worldwide, including to the USA, and that visitors to marine parks are unwittingly supporting the killing of dolphins and whales in Japan. This claim is misleading. In reality, most cetaceans held in both the USA and mainland Europe are sustained through captive breeding programs, eliminating the need to acquire animals via live capture from the wild. Animals sourced from hunts such as Taiji are generally supplied to aquariums in Asia and the Middle East. In 2010, it was alleged that 15 dolphins from a Japanese drive fishery were also imported into Turkey.

Moreover, many zoological organizations involved in the care of marine mammals have publicly condemned drive fisheries and consider them inhumane. This included the Japanese Association of Zoos and Aquariums (JAZA) who in a press statement in May 2015 stated:

No animals from drive hunts are displayed or maintained in any public or private facility in the USA. The last such case involved a false killer whale named Kina, originally imported by the U.S. Navy’s Marine Mammal Program from Ocean Park, Hong Kong, in 1987. She was transferred to the Hawaiian Institute of Marine Biology in 2000, where she was used for research rather than public display. In September 2015, Kina and her two bottlenose dolphin companions were relocated to Sea Life Park in Hawaii, where studies on their echolocation and biosonar abilities continued in partnership with the University of Hawaii. Kina passed away at Sea Life Park in October 2019.

An attempt to import false killer whales from a drive fishery to a U.S. marine park in 1993 was blocked by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which deemed such operations inhumane. This effectively banned further imports of animals from drive fisheries into the USA.

Some animal rights groups have also cited SeaWorld California’s 2012 import of a captive pilot whale from a Japanese aquarium. However, this animal was a lone stranding rescue from January 2004, deemed unsuitable for release. It was not acquired through deliberate capture or a drive fishery.

Key Points:

1. The primary motivation behind Japan’s drive fishery is "pest control" and food production, as dolphins and whales are perceived to compete with fisheries. The hunt has taken place for hundreds of years, while live captures for aquariums are a relatively recent development. Even if aquariums stopped acquiring these animals, the hunt would likely continue.


2. No animals from drive fisheries have been imported into mainland Europe since 1980 or into the USA since 1989. The majority of cetaceans displayed in these regions come from captive breeding programs. 

 

 

Article reviewed and amended March 2025