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.

Drive Hunts and Marine Parks and Aquariums

Photograph of mother and baby dolphin courtesy of Dolphin Quest

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

Drive fisheries are not historically new and several countries aside from Japan also hunt (or have hunted) animals by this method such as the Solomon Islands, the Faeroe Islands and Peru. The drive fishery at Taiji is believed to have been in existence for more than 350 years. The Cove was actually not the first to document this controversial hunt which has been highlighted over the years by magazines such as the National Geographic and in the television series by the late Jacques-Yves Cousteau in the mid-1970s. Many have rightly been very concerned regarding these hunting methods and questioned both its operation on moral, ethical and animal welfare grounds.

However, one aspect of the film that has also proved to be controversial is that in recent years a percentage of animals from this fishery has not been killed but selected for live display in public aquaria 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 hunted in by the drive fishery method and 90 (7.3%) removed alive for aquaria. 

Between the years 2000-2013, a total of 19,092 small cetaceans were taken in the drive fishery at Taiji, Japan. 17,686 of those were slaughtered while 1,406 were taken as live-capture for sale to zoos and aquaria. Graph and data courtesy of Cetbase.

Unfortunately, the makers of the film have taken the position that suggested that this supply of animals to aquaria and parks was the prime purpose of the hunt and that if it ceased so would the hunt itself. This is not surprising as one of the main protagonists in The Cove is animal-rights activist Ric O'Barry who is stridently opposed to dolphins being held in the care of humans in zoological parks. 

Moreover, the film suggests that animals from the hunt are being transported globally to countries such as the USA and that persons visiting these parks are in fact support the killing of dolphins and whales in Japan which is basically untrue. In fact, it should be noted that most of the popular cetaceans held in both the USA (and mainland Europe) are sustained via captive breeding and therefore these populations have no need to acquired animals via live capture operations from the wild. Animals from hunts such as Taiji are generally supplied to aquaria in Asia and the Middle-East and it has recently been alleged that 15 dolphins from a Japanese drive fishery have also been imported into Turkey in 2010.

Further, several zoological collections and organisations involved in the captive care of marine animals have made clear statements against drive fishery hunts and consider them inhumane.

The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA),

Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums (AMMPA)

The International Marine Animal Trainers Association (IMATA)

Sea World

Only one drive-fishery animal has until recently been held in the USA. It is a false-killer whale called Kina originally imported by the US Navy's Marine Mammal Program from Ocean Park, Hong Kong in 1987; it was transferred to the Hawaiian Institute of Marine Biology in 2000. This animal was used for research and was not on general public display. In September 2015 Kina and her two bottlenose dolphin companions were transferred to SeaLife Park in Hawaii. Studies on these animals echolocation and biosonar abilities will continue at the park in partnership with the University of Hawaii. Kina died at Sea Life Park in October 2019.

An attempt to import false killer whales to a US marine park acquired from a drive fishery in 1993 was blocked by the National Marine Fisheries Service as they considered such operations inhumane which has effectively banned further imports of animals into the USA from drive fisheries. 

Animal rights supporters elsewhere have also cited that Sea World in California was granted an import permit for a captive pilot whale from a Japanese aquarium which joined its current group of pilot whales at San Diego on in 2012. It should be pointed out that this animal is an alone stranded animal that was rescued in January 2004 and is deemed unsuitable for release. It should be noted that this animal was not acquired by deliberate capture nor from a drive fishery. 

The two facts anyone who watches The Cove should remember are:

(a) that the drive-fishery in Japan prime motive is 'pest control' and food as the animals are perceived to be in competition with fisherman and that the hunt has been undertaken for hundreds of years and animals for zoos and aquaria are a recent development and the numbers taken are small and if this stopped sadly the hunt would still continue;

(b) that no animals have been imported into the mainland Europe since 1980 and in the US since 1989 from any drive-fishery; the majority of animals displayed in these locations have come from captive breeding programs.

Do dolphins commit suicide?

One of the perpetuating myths that surround dolphins in captive care is the accusation that animals have committed suicide. A review of the published evidence reveals various possible sources for this myth.

Perhaps the most populist source for this myth comes from the animal-rights activist and one of the former trainers of dolphins for the 60's TV series Flipper is Ric O'Barry (formerly O''Feldman). He claims that Kathy one of the number of animals that played Flipper committed suicide in his 1989 book "Behind the Dolphin Smile". He maintains that this animal committed suicide in my arms and as dolphins "are not automatic air breathers" she decided to stop breathing. A position that has actually now been scientifically disproved. See veterinarian Michael T. Walsh comments below.

Prior to this the scientist Dr. John Lilly, a neurologist who began work with dolphins in the period between 1955 and 1968, also made this claim. Although Lilly original research led to some interesting discoveries about dolphins, he has been a very controversial figure due, among other things, to his claims regarding dolphin intelligence and his habit of mixing empirical research with imaginative speculation. He also left dolphin research for some period of time and researched in the human mind using isolation flotation tanks; this work also involved him in the use of hallucinogenic drugs, such as LSD.

It was during his initial research that he discovered that general anesthesia could be lethal to dolphins unless their breathing was supported by artificial means. He, therefore, considered that dolphins were voluntary breathers.

From this, he speculated that if dolphins have to 'think to breathe' dolphins could commit suicide by stopping breathing. In his 1979 book Communications between Man and Dolphin he states:

"If, in a oceanarium, any dolphin/porpoise/whale is kept in isolation in solitude...social deprivation may be so severe that the cetacean commits suicide by voluntarily ceasing either breathing and/or eating."

He claimed that at a research facility he set up on the Virgin Islands (The Communication Research Institute) that several of his research animals died in this way.

However, contemporary records of that time in his book Man and Dolphin, note that his first two resident animals at the St. Thomas facility called Lizzie and Baby did not die from suicide. Lizzie died three weeks after arriving on the island from a brain hemorrhage due to an accident when she was dropped prior to transport and also had evidence of a lung infection. When Baby died it was found that he also had a chronic lung infection. Interestingly, Lilly noted that both animals had 'bad-breath' and a nasal discharge when transported from Florida.

Further to this, other animals he used in more contemporary research he undertook in the 1980's did not die by committing suicide. In fact, two, called Rosie and Jim were the subject of a 'release project' and returned to the wild.

In fact, published research on this subject has cast some doubt on Lilly's original belief of voluntary breathing in cetaceans. At the 1991, Conference of the International Association for Aquatic Animal Medicine, veterinarian, Michael T. Walsh, presented a paper aptly entitled "Cetacean Facts and Fallacies". As regards cetaceans being voluntary breathers he states:

"There is no physical or scientific evidence to verify this supposition. It appears to be based partially on early investigations with anaesthetic agents and popular myths. Current clinical investigations into the use of sedatives and anaesthetics have shown that these individuals are involuntary breathers."

Interestingly, Dr. Lilly's opinions on the broader issue of oceanaria and dolphins in captivity are not as damning as may be thought and have seemly (and with good reason) been overlooked by many of the animal-rights groups who are willing to quote him in other areas regarding dolphins.

In his book Communications between Man and Dolphin, he makes his feelings on this issue quite clear, he states at the beginning of chapter twelve in this book:

"Eventually the Oceanaria may be closed by conservation groups...: I hope not."

He then goes on the outlay his own particular feeling on the future development of such facilities.

In an Appendix in the same book, outlining his plans in 1979 to return to work with dolphins, he states why he has not attacked publicly the oceanaria for keeping dolphins:

"The oceanaria have done a very great services for the dolphins and killer whales in acquainting literally hundreds and thousands of humans with their existence and with their capabilities in a circus way. The dolphins and whale are indebted to the oceanaria for educating the human species."

The other source for this accusation of captive suicide may have come from the early research work of diver and broadcaster Jacques Cousteau's experience with captive dolphin whilst making one of the episodes of his television series The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau; later to be published as the book The Undersea Discoveries of Jacques Cousteau: Dolphins published in 1975.

The animals Cousteau used for his early captive research were common dolphins a species known to be a nervous and which remain difficult to maintain in captivity even to this day. In fact, only one institution, the now-closed Marineland in Napier, New Zealand, has been successful in maintaining these animals in a captive environment for an acceptable period of time with their last dolphin caught in 1974 dying in September 2008.

Cousteau admits that their attempts to keep dolphins, at that time, were 'clumsy' and the failure was due to knowing so little about marine mammals. He states in the book, Dolphins published in 1975:

"The species of dolphin that is usually seen giving performance in American marinelands is a species common in Florida's waters, the Tursiops truncatus or bottlenose dolphin. This species adapts fairly well to captivity and has a robust constitution. It is also found in the Mediterranean: but there, the most numerous species is the Delphinus delphis or common dolphin, which is smaller and lighter than the bottlenose dolphin. It is also considered more delicate then the latter, as we were soon to discover."

Photos of Cousteau's dolphin capture and experiments can be found HERE

In October 1957 Cousteau's staff caught a female common dolphin, Kiki, for research at his Oceanographic Museum in Monaco. The animal was at first housed in a 'tank' of undisclosed size at the museum. However, in early November it was moved and housed in a hotel swimming pool and joined by a male Delphinus, Dufduf. Unfortunately, he subsequently died March 1958; his post-mortem revealing he had swallowed pieces of wood and cloth.

Kiki, the original female, was returned to the tank at the Oceanographic museum two weeks after Dufduf death. Here a newly caught pregnant female joined her. However, this new animal died of head injuries due to crashing into the tank wall after it panicked on introduction to the water and escaped from the arms of a handler guiding it around the tank.

The importance of careful handling of newly caught or transferred animals is highlighted in the 1972 book Mammals of the Sea; Biology and Medicine. The book editor, Professor Sam Ridgway - research veterinarian of the US Navy, stated on the issue of newly introduced captured dolphins:

"Occasionally, a new cetacean will have difficulty orienting itself and swimming when place in the water...Sometimes human assistance is needed to keep the porpoise (common term in the US for dolphin) from running in the walls of the tank and to start swimming on its own...Attendants should position themselves around the edge of the tank. if it appears that animal is going to strike the wall the attendant should turn it..."

Aside from deciding to catch an open ocean dolphin species with a highly nervous disposition, Cousteau's animals were caught at sea and removed to the tank at the museum within hours. As mentioned by Ridgway above - in these situations it is common practice to ensure that persons a placed in the water to guide the animal whilst it adjusts to its new surroundings. Clearly, due to his clear lack of knowledge in this area, Cousteau allowed a disorientated animal to run into the tank wall.

It is not by chance that the bottlenose remains the dolphin of choice for captive management, because it adapts to the captive environment well, unlike some other species, such as Cousteau's ill-fated common dolphins.

 

Reviewed and Updated October 2024

Getting the hump: Camels in human care are domesticated

 

 

Picture courtesy:  http://www.peppermintnarwhal.com/

Getting the hump: 

Camels in human care are domesticated 

 

Despite the fact that it has not being supported by bonafide empirical scientific research, the British government has now passed a law that they plan to ban wild animals in circuses by the 20 January 2020. The law does not cover domestic animals but what is intriguing is how the British government define domesticate.

In terms of this British act “wild animal” means: "wild animal” means an animal of a kind which is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain. This is an interesting turn of phrase because it does not allow some animals that are truly domesticated globally to be displayed in British circuses and a case in point is the camel.

Read more »

The Perfect Pair: The Enchanted Mirror and David Holroyd's selective memory

The sad and shameful truth is it was Holroyd himself used 'shake ups'. 'Shake-ups': a training method that no reputable marine animal trainer would have used then or now.

David Holroyd worked as a dolphin trainer from two years from early 1972 for ETAM (the leisure division of Truste House Forte) at Rhyl Dolphinarium in Wales and Knowsley Safari Park, Liverpool. Truste House Forte at this time also own Belle Vue Zoo and later a further dolphinarium at Woburn Safari Park.

In 2012, he published a book with his sister Tracy called: 'The Perfect Pair: The Enchanted Mirror'. The book is part of a now published trilogy with the second volume, The Perfect Pair: The Mirror Cracks, published in February 2014 and the third, The Perfect Pair: Shards from the Mirror, published in 2016.

Read more »

Animal in Circuses: Regulation Not Banning

“Good regulations based on internationally accepted standards for animal care and transport are the most appropriate way to ensure high quality animal care while at the same time preserving the rich and rewarding classical circus art form for the benefit of circus families, their animals and current and future generations of Europeans.” H.S.H. Prince Rainier III of Monaco

Logically, any basis for a ban on animal keeping should be assessed on the available evidence that relates to the actual welfare of the animals contained within these enterprises. Unfortunately, despite the government conceding that there is no such evidence, the UK government has given in to the propaganda of the animal-rights movement and wishes to ban wild animals in circuses on dubious 'ethical' grounds.

"...The 2007 Radford Report on circus animals concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that traveling circuses are unable to meet the welfare needs of wild animals presently being used in the United Kingdom. That position has not changed. Consequently, we are now looking at the means by which a ban could be introduced on ethical ground..."

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. Minister of State for Agriculture and Food (James Paice) 1 March 2012

Read more »