
Vancouver bans whales and dolphins at aquarium - tempestn
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39943267
======
ohthehugemanate
So frustrating.

The Vancouver acquarium was one of the top cetacean health, care, and research
institutes in the world. It was one of the models of how good a captive and
public educational environment can be. Thanks to campaigns like this one, they
had to close down and transfer their rescue orcas to the only organizations
that could take them... Which turned out to be SeaWorld, where they died
shortly after. Of course, SeaWorld is notorious for terrible conditions for
the animals.

It drives me nuts that kids growing up in my hometown now don't understand
these magnificent creatures, don't feel any special connection to them. For
many in my generation, it feels like a betrayal on the part of our local
environmentalist movement. They killed our orcas and disconnected our children
from one of the most amazing parts of their environment. They destroyed the
model that powered legislative attempts to protect cetaceans around the world.

We had a similar story with the beavers in Stanley park - our environmenal
lobby campaigned to have the city stop dredging "Beaver lake", because it
disturbed the beavers. They stopped dredging, the lake filled with silt and
most of the beavers (and other wildlife) died. Now they're debating starting
dredging again, to save the one surviving beaver.

For people like me that care about our environment and the animals we share it
with, it's rage inducing. The naturalist fallacy at work. :/

~~~
jamesgagan
"They killed our orcas" \- really? 2 Belugas just died in captivity at that
aquarium -it wasn't environmentalists who killed them, it was the aquarium. I
have been to that aquarium and it was just depressing. Watching the Orca swim
upside down around and around in circles was the saddest thing I've ever seen.
Making intelligent creatures perform tricks for profit is hardly a noble
enterprise. Have you seen Blackfish?
[http://www.blackfishmovie.com/](http://www.blackfishmovie.com/) Watch it and
then come back and tell us that Tilikum had any kind of good life. These
animals belong in the wild. They don't need to be "rescued". The idea that
gawking at magnificent animals in captivity is somehow required to instill
respect for them is ridiculous. The best way to respect all animals is to
leave them alone.

~~~
deanCommie
Counterpoint: The animals they are rescuing would have died in the wild.

I personally think that although it'll make children watching the local news
cry, we should help animals and immediately return them to the wild. If the
only way to help them means taking them into captivity, we should not help.

~~~
djsumdog
> we should help animals and immediately return them to the wild. If the only
> way to help them means taking them into captivity, we should not help.

It depends on the animal of course, and if they're social animals or prefer
solitude. There are many birds, injured beyond rehabilitation, that seem to do
fine in captivity (so long as it's a good centre with lots of space -- most
places don't though which is sad. The Cincinnati Zoo is an example of a good
centre for rehabilitation).

When it comes to dolphins and whales, I totally agree though. They're simply
too big and they evolved to travel massive distances. If they can be treated
and nursed for a few weeks and immediately released, I think that's the best
thing.

Why should aquatic specialists decide if they'd survive in the wild? If they
are healthy enough to at least be able to find others of their kind, is it not
better to die free than live long in a cage?

~~~
mthoms
>is it not better to die free than live long in a cage?

From an instinctive and evolutionary standpoint, definitely the latter.

~~~
wavefunction
Yeah, as long as you're talking about permanently domesticating an animal so
they'll be 'cage dolphins' or whatever. Otherwise that's absolutely not true.

~~~
mthoms
You misunderstood. The point is, an animal will always attempt to keep living
regardless of how painful or hopeless the situation. It's a basic instinct.

~~~
nojvek
Well that's what we've perfected in animal farming isn't it. Cows, pigs,
chicken injected with vaccines, given food and hormones that makes them live
long enough to produce offspring and maximum human consumable resources. Their
emotional and psychological needs are the least of our concerns.

I am with "letting wild animals be wild". If an animal can be patched up and
let back into the wild after a couple of week, great. I hate aquariums and
zoos for this reason. Its the human equivalent of
[https://popularresistance.org/deep-racism-the-forgotten-
hist...](https://popularresistance.org/deep-racism-the-forgotten-history-of-
human-zoos/)

I would rather prefer reserves. e.g Nairobi national park, serengeti, mara.
Really large spaces where animals can remain wild but conservation programs
can still take place.

Vancouver aquarium in its Vancouver's ridiculously priced real estate doesn't
have enough space to host big intelligent animals.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
My fear is that these laws will ultimately prove to be worse for conservation
efforts. The same applies to zoos.

The vast majority of people in the developed nations, will never actually see
these animals in their native habitat. I would say the majority of the HN
readers have never seen a lion, tiger, rhinoceros, elephant, orca, or shark
outside of a zoo, aquarium, or sanctuary.

The effect of these laws is that more and more people will not have a personal
connection to these animals. Therefore, when it comes to cheaper goods versus
animal extinction, people may say that they feel bad about it, but their
behavior and voting patterns are unlikely to change to prevent the extinction.

For example, if I hear that the giraffe will go extinct, I think back to the
excitement of when I first saw a giraffe, and feel sad that my kids may never
get to experience that and am likely to be more motivated to prevent it. If,
however it is some animal that I have only seen in a video, well, I'll make
sure to download it so I can show it to my kids someday.

Out of sight, out of mind really is a true statement about human attention and
motivation.

~~~
cperciva
There's a more direct impact, too: The Vancouver Aquarium houses animals which
have been rescued and nursed back to health after various injuries. This ban
will result in many of those animals being left to die instead.

~~~
giarc
>This ban will result in many of those animals being left to die instead

I think that is hyperbole. They are only banning the whales, not all the other
animals that are helped by the aquarium. I was at the aquarium this last
summer. There's much more to it than the beluga whales. Sure some people will
choose not to go once the whales are gone, but there's still tons of other
things to see.

~~~
djeikyb
It elides the argument, but it's not hyperbole. Agitating groups like peta
want to end animal captivity, completely. They believe humane captivity is a
moral contradiction, extending to domestic cats and dogs.

------
tuna-piano
What's worse, and why:

-Locking a dolphin up in "jail" or killing a cow/pig?

-Locking the few dolphins up in "jails" or the billions of cows/pigs killed each year?

I think the ethical inconsistencies with regards to animal treatment are huge,
but also understandable. I don't know the answers, but the questions do bother
me.

~~~
wil421
Cows are treated pretty fairly until the end. They are usually grass feed and
graze until they fatten them up for slaughter. They have miles and miles of
fields to roam. You can find pigs that are treated fairly or are "free range".
Both of these animals have been domesticated and lives with humans for a
couple thousand years.

Both of these animals are slaughtered young so they aren't locked up for years
and years.

Putting an dolphin in a small pond and put to work all day doing tricks is
horrible. Whales and dolphins belong in the open ocean where they can swim for
miles and miles. They are not domesticated animals.

My view is that if you have to put the animal in a cage to keep it, you
shouldn't have them. The exception would be a fish tank with nothing exotic.

~~~
maxxxxx
Most animals that are raised for meat are treated horribly. there is no way
around that. I am not for dolphins being held captive but they have it much
better than most cows, pigs or chickens.

~~~
wil421
I agree about chickens. My state is the chicken capital of the world. Those
coops are so nasty you can start to smell them a mile away.

The only way it will change is everyone buys organic or true free range. The
costs are too expensive for me to buy all the time. I think Americans should
rethink eating meat at most meals. I've not been able to do it regularly.

~~~
animal_dude
> The only way it will change is everyone buys organic or true free range. The
> costs are too expensive for me to buy all the time

Both of those terms are pretty meaningless, and their ineffectual enforcement
makes them even less so. The solution isn't to humane-wash, it's to stop
eating things that come out of chickens' anuses.

~~~
freeflight
The terms might be meaningless, but that still shouldn't stop you from
sourcing your meat/poultry locally from a farmer where you can witness the
living conditions of the animals yourself before buying.

That way you are not only doing something healthy for yourself and the
animals, it's also supporting the local economy in a meaningful way.

~~~
animal_dude
> That way you are not only doing something healthy for yourself and the
> animals, it's also supporting the local economy in a meaningful way.

There is nothing healthy about consuming animals. Not for humans, not for
animals, not for this planet, not for anyone. And a similar "supporting the
economy" justification was used in defense of slavery, which you're still
supporting in another form.

~~~
freeflight
>And a similar "supporting the economy" justification was used in defense of
slavery, which you're still supporting in another form.

Seriously... I advocate people being more aware of where they get their food
and cutting down on their meat intake and your first reflex is to compare it
to advocating slavery? Sorry but behavior like that is exactly the reason why
barely anybody likes vegans or takes them seriously.

Change doesn't happen in massive paradigm shifts, it happens slowly. You won't
convince 7 billion people to stop consuming animal products from one day to
another. So let's be a little bit realistic and start with small steps which
people are actually willing to take, wouldn't that be an actual start?

------
hbbio
This is also coming in France as told here:
[http://www.lemonde.fr/biodiversite/article/2017/05/06/la-
cap...](http://www.lemonde.fr/biodiversite/article/2017/05/06/la-captivite-
des-dauphins-et-des-orques-sera-interdite-a-terme-en-
france_5123541_1652692.html) (in French)

From now on, the reproduction of cetaceans is prohibited, as the introduction
of new animals. Therefore, dolphins and whales in captivity will no longer
exist and suffer. This was triggered following an incident at MarineLand, one
of the biggest parks, where a mudslide killed many animals in 2015.

~~~
pythonaut_16
That's are rather bizarre reason to ban captive animals. Why ban them over a
natural disaster rather than whether they can be adequately kept in captivity?

------
jcroll
Rescuers find you in the woods with a broken leg dying and starving. You can
choose:

1) To be left to die of starvation.

2) To be rescued and spend the rest of your life fed but kept in a 6x6 ft
cage.

Pick one.

~~~
mthoms
2b) By choosing to be rescued and studied you are increasing the scientific
knowledge, general awareness and overall compassion for your species.

Thus, you would be contributing to your species' long term survival.

Site note: I don't think a 6x6 human cage is analogous. Maybe a medium-sized
apartment in which you can socialize with other humans is a fairer comparison?
It would be a poor existence indeed. But worse than death?

~~~
tedajax
Quick, someone explain this to the whales!

Give me a break.

~~~
mthoms
Care to present an actual argument?

~~~
tedajax
In what universe can you possibly explain to an anxious, confined whale that
their non-ideal living conditions (read: conditions which kill them) is at
least beneficial to their species?

How does this make the practice any less cruel?

Reading through the comments on this thread I'm actually flabbergasted.

~~~
mthoms
Obviously you can't explain it to a whale. What are you even talking about?
This is a message board for human beings. The topic was _what choice the
animal might make if it had the reasoning skills of a human being (and all the
facts)_.

>How does this make the practice any less cruel?

It doesn't. It's arguing that there might be at least _some_ long term
potential benefit to the practice for the species and therefore morally
defensible (if the alternative is letting the animal die slowly and
painfully).

I don't pretend to know all the answers. But lets at least be clear on what
the question is.

~~~
tedajax
Right and my assertion is that because the whales are incapable of
understanding their "sacrifice" for their species they are simply kept in a
state of anxiety, trapped in a too small enclosure for the remainder of their
days and THAT trumps any argument built on vagueries about the potential
conservation benefits. I'd much rather spend all the money used in housing
these whales on field studies and establishing conservation zones in the
actual environment.

~~~
mthoms
There's nothing whatsoever vague about the benefits it provides researchers
(and therefore the species). To suggest otherwise is anti-science akin to
climate denial.

You're also misunderstanding the choices available:

1) The alternative for the whale in this scenario is __death __. Are you
_sure_ the whale would choose that over living in an aquarium? How sure?

Remember - The overwhelming majority of human beings don't even make that
choice (see: suicide rates of long-term prisoners).

2) > I'd much rather spend all the money used in housing these whales on field
studies and establishing conservation zones in the actual environment.

What money? You mean the money generated from the aquarium? Oh wait. Ummm... I
have some very bad news about your proposed scheme.

It really doesn't sound like you've thought this through. I admire the
compassion of people like you. I really do. But, you seem to be living in some
alternate universe from the rest of us. You might be better served to think
with your heart _and_ your brain.

~~~
tedajax
Tone down the condescension.

Obviously zoos and aquariums can do great work but there are animals in this
world that do not live in captivity very well and if they were capable of
properly weighing the options I'm sure many would choose death. I know many
humans (myself inclused) who would make the same choice. If we can show
certain species of whale can handle captivity well then by all means save
them, house them, whatever but I doubt these particular whales are being let
go lightly and sitting around saying 'think of the missed scientific
opportunity' ignores the well-being of the whale. And maybe if it were
possible to communicate to the whale the benefit of its sacrifice it might be
ok but we can't and to ignore the anxiety of the whale is cruel.

------
bbarn
There used to be a place for these animals in aquariums. When they were they
for research purposes, rehabilitation, and education, like it or not - the
public education benefit was worth it for humans. Most belugas and dolphins
live much longer lives, with much less stress, than they would in the wild.

I say used to be, because the current climate in aquariums is just "Make it
jump for us." and education is a far off second thought.

Our ability to study animals in the wild, with high tech GPS tracking, more
accessible travel options, better sensor data, etc, is much greater than it
was 30-40 years ago when these animals were being put in zoos and aquariums.
We don't need them in there anymore from a scientific point of view. The
argument that people form connections with them? I don't know.

------
kauai73
How about we work on creating a world where we don't need to rescue these
creatures in the first place.

~~~
0xfeba
What? The Garden of Eden? Nature is cruel enough without our intervention.

------
apalmblad
As someone who grew up visiting the Vancouver aquarium, I struggle a bit with
this decision. Vancouver's​aquarium has always tried to brand itself as
research focused, and I have concerns about the loss to research if we stop
allowing the aquarium to work with rescues. Personally, I have no problem with
keeping rescues that are unreleaseable and injured by humans.

A friend who worked there shared the following, which is worth a read if
you're n interested in the topic:. [http://vanmag.com/city/how-working-at-the-
vancouver-aquarium...](http://vanmag.com/city/how-working-at-the-vancouver-
aquarium-changed-my-view-on-cetaceans-in-captivity/)

~~~
drjasonharrison
[http://www.vancouveraquariumuncovered.com/](http://www.vancouveraquariumuncovered.com/)
"Branding"

------
6stringmerc
The way the headline is phrased, it could also be read as "Vancouver will not
allow whales and dolphins admission to the aquarium" which makes me giggle.
Imagining a dolphin with a DSLR camera around its neck and some oversized flip
flops. Reminds me of a book I grew up reading. "The Three Hawaiian Pigs and
the Magic Shark" \- not exactly mainstream, but I really liked it.

------
pvaldes
It seems that somebody poisoned the beluga whales for pushing some agenda and
the aquarium stopped the recovering programme either in fear or as response. I
understand the situation. This is happening at global scale and is totally
upsetting.

------
LoonyBalloony
We cage and kill other humans every day, are any of you surprised we do the
same to animals?

~~~
recon517
When a grown up man picks a fight with another grown up man, it is ok. But if
a grown up man picks a fight with a child, this is just sick.

That is why some people are appalled by what is happening with humans vs other
animals.

------
aluhut
Good. Hope others see the problem too. Especially the US...

------
cavanasm
All discussions of killer whales (which inevitably include Blackfish now)
remind me of that Phoenix Wright case where he defends a killer whale accused
of murder (Spoiler alert: the real killer was a person!).

------
badloginagain
I believe the Aquarium here was against it, saying they've only ever taken
rescues who couldn't survive in the wild anymore. Those rescues would now be
put down.

------
Markoff
why not chimpanzees?

~~~
tonyedgecombe
You have to ask the question why zoos at all, I know most have been promoting
their role in conservation but I'm quite sceptical about that.

~~~
pvaldes
Why zoos?

Because furtivism, habitat loss, contamination, sixth extinction, education
and conservation.

Because some species only survive in zoos today.

Because only 9 of each 10 wild lions in Africa had dissapeared in one human
generation lapse time, etc, etc...

~~~
madshiva
At first the zoo was menagerie only for the pleasure not about conservation.
They evolved to conservation.

Now they see that they can not properly take care of animals, even if they try
to do their best they still do not know how to do it right. New sickness, etc.

The only way to save animals is by decree a land where human do not have any
rights to go their.

~~~
pvaldes
This is just plain old Bullshit. People in zoos are professionals and of
course they know how to care for the animals.

The only way to save animals... [set them free, blah, blah, blah]

Then why the white rhinos are still endangered? Will survive the californian
porpoise four years more? I, and many other people, seriously doubt it.

~~~
lentil_soup
Of course they're professionals, but modern Zoos are there for entertainment
first. The conservation part is not priority anymore. If we need them for
conservation then let's focus on that, no need to have thousands of people
visiting.

~~~
ssully
Many of the conservation efforts contributed by zoos would disappear without
the funds generated by the thousands of people visiting.

------
jmhuret
Are they banned as visitors or as attractions?

------
DaveSapien
WHY!!!??! Their money is as good as anyones!

------
jlebrech
we should ban any form of animal captivity

~~~
abandonliberty
You would likely be well served by watching Penn and Teller's PETA episode.
And perhaps some wildlife documentaries - there's nothing quite like getting
eaten alive.

Most captive animals exist because we tend to them. Are you suggesting that we
let them die of starvation or simply eliminate them (as PETA does with many of
their 'rescued' animals)?

~~~
animal_dude
> Are you suggesting that we let them die of starvation or simply eliminate
> them

A reasonable person might suggest we not purposefully birth 150 billion+
animals every year just so they can be killed. The "let them starve" argument
is a strawman, since the whole world would not eschew animal products
overnight, but rather as a gradual progress.

~~~
abandonliberty
Interesting. Wouldn't it be much more appropriate to argue a false dilemma in
this situation?

You suggested gradual elimination, which is an elimination process. I would
argue that neither fallacy apply.

I wonder what proportion of animals would chose non-existence over existence
if they could understand such concepts. That's quite the decision to make for
them.

~~~
animal_dude
> I wonder what proportion of animals would chose non-existence over existence
> if they could understand such concepts.

May I suggest you look at some footage from slaughterhouses to make that
determination for yourself? Or, if you're particularly stoic, I dare you to
watch Earthlings.

