
Canada to ban keeping whales, dolphins in captivity - pseudolus
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/whales-1.5169138
======
Gpetrium
Zoos can serve as an opportunity for people from different demographics to be
able to see a small sample of what the world has to offer. It can also help
facilitate conservation efforts by allowing people to have direct & indirect
interactions with the animals and professionals in the area, which they would
not have otherwise.

Some people have advised to "Close Zoos and encourage people to see the animal
in nature" without thinking of the unintended consequence of having millions
of people swarming into these animals' natural habitat. If more people were to
see animals in their habitats, it would likely lead to an increase in
pollution, an increase in motor injury to the animals, more dangerous animal-
to-human interaction in nature among many other issues.

If society believes that some animals should not be in captivity at all due to
moral/practical reasons, it is worth asking: What other technologically driven
solutions can be made/used to help people of all demographics experience what
it is like to be in front of X animal? The solution may be to have a moving
replica, a 3D simulator or something entirely different.

~~~
rifung
> If society believes that some animals should not be in captivity at all due
> to moral/practical reasons, it is worth asking: What other technologically
> driven solutions can be made/used to help people of all demographics
> experience what it is like to be in front of X animal

Seems like the perfect use case for VR?

~~~
technovader
Let's solve everything with VR. Throw in some cryptochain as well for good
measure.

~~~
pavelrub
Weird reply. This is precisely a use case where VR in particular is useful.

------
mbostleman
I get all the problems for the animals and not suggesting that they should
continue to endure those problems, but I hate to see the general public's
access to nature further curtailed. The mainstream seems to love wild places
and wild life as long as it's on Youtube yet they spend the entirety of their
own lives in suburbs and retail landscapes with virtually no direct experience
with nature. I wonder how many children's imaginations were broadened over the
years by seeing these beautiful animals up close and because of that how many
ended up in zoology or forestry or whatever.

~~~
braythwayt
I grew up with zoos and aquariums, and I have fond memories of them. But of
course, I wasn't kept in one. And furthermore... Zoos and aquariums are not
nature. They are exhibits in a kind of museum.

If we want people to see nature, we have to preserve actual nature and
encourage people to visit it. Visiting a zoo is not visiting nature, and I
personally worry that equivocating the two is dangerous.

I would not want people to get the impression that as long as we keep a few
breeding pairs of every animal in our museums, there is no need to preserve
places for them to live in actual nature.

~~~
djsumdog
What do you think about national parks? I've been to a few and .. I dunno. I
find it weird we pay to get into a federal park. I feel like the money
exchange encourages them to advertise passes, and draws in more people. These
parks are often overcrowded with so many people filling up parking lots to see
nature.

When you start building paths and roads and hiring rangers, you do make it
safer for people to see these great areas, but you also put a system in place
that's makes it not quite what it was.

~~~
Mikeb85
Can't speak for National Parks in the US, but in Canada they're quite well
protected. Sure, Banff, Jasper and attractions along the highway are built up
(it's kind of the point; have easily accessible attractions which bring in
revenue to pay for real conservation).

But once you get into the backcountry, its pristine wilderness, with a good
number of wild animals. We've certainly been more successful at protecting
bears, wolves, mountain lions and numerous prey animals, than any other
country on earth.

~~~
braythwayt
My favourite National Park is Five Fathoms Marine Park. Where else do you get
to dive pristine shipwrecks in clear freshwater?

(Bring a dry suit, or prepare to put on every scrap of neoprene you can beg,
borrow, or steal. Georgian Bay is damn cold.)

[https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/amnc-
nmca/on/fathomfive](https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/amnc-nmca/on/fathomfive)

~~~
Mikeb85
Had never heard of it. TIL. My favourites are in Alberta: Banff, Jasper, Elk
Island (which has a large bison herd!). Also dreaming of visiting Nahanni
National Park.

------
maxxxxx
Let’s hope this will soon be extended to other animals like bears, mountain
lions and other who have huge ranges they usually live in. They develop a lot
of psychotic behavior in captivity like constant pacing and others. Not sure
if it’s much better but at a minimum they should be kept in large areas like
parks where you then drive through so they have some area to roam.

~~~
gingabriska
What's the good reason for not extending it to cow, dog, cat etc...? Where do
you draw the line?

~~~
Reedx
That's a fair question. Just think about how many cats and dogs are stuck
inside small apartments most of their lives.

~~~
hombre_fatal
Or on a roof/balcony. Living in Guadalajara, I've wanted to put many dogs out
of their misery. Left on the roof as thief-deterrent to go completely crazy.

Our treatment of animals (pets, meat) is one of the indicators of how
primitive we still are as a civilization... or, god forbid, species.

~~~
zokula
The fact that we keep animals as pets and use them as meat indicates that we
are the superior species and by extension we are the most glorious
civilization.

------
blakesterz
"Monday's vote notably impacts Marineland, the Niagara Falls amusement park
and zoo that is considered the last Canadian park committed to keeping
cetaceans in captivity."

Wow, so they passed a national law that essentially targets just a single
park? How often does that happen anywhere? (I know the back story but I never
knew Marineland was the only place... not saying this is wrong or right, just
surprised)

~~~
debacle
I went to Marineland ~10 years ago and it was one of the saddest things I've
ever seen. Very poor wildlife management and obviously exploited orcas. I've
heard it has gotten worse since then.

~~~
jasonlotito
Can confirm. I was there around the same time (2007), and it was sad. My wife
(who grew up seeing commercials to Marineland) had always wanted to go,
because it looked so fun. Was literally the worst part of the trip. She was so
disappointed.

------
vallode
Seems like a move in the right direction but are there any exceptions to this
rule? Surely there are some dolphins being kept in captivity for good reasons
(health, conservation programmes), if such is not the case I don't see much of
a downside to this apart from the obvious impacts on employment in that
industry...

~~~
m-app
From TFA: "The bill has exceptions: cetaceans can be kept in captivity if
they're receiving care or rehabilitation after an injury, or for scientific
research."

~~~
empath75
The scientific research loophole seems like a pretty big one.

~~~
swarnie_
So if you get a couple of marine biologist on your books and pump out a few
papers per year the party can continue?

~~~
Zenbit_UX
You can't make them perform for entertainment regardless of the loophole used
to keep them.

~~~
mcv
It's not hard to think of a couple of research questions that involve them
performing tricks. You might as well invite people to watch the research as it
happens.

(I'm not suggesting that they should do this, just that they will. "Research"
can be an easily abused loophole. Just look at Japan and their whale
"research".)

~~~
ygjb
"Performances" by dolphins at the Vancouver Aquarium for several years have
been feedings, and demonstrating research techniques (e.g. attaching and
removing suction based sensors and tools, demonstrating how the animals have
been trained to allow blood and other samples to be taken safely, etc). I
still maintain my membership at the Vancouver Aquarium because I approve of
pretty much all of their rescue programs, even though the breeding and in
particular the Beluga program has been problematic in the past.

I am not a fan of keeping wild animals in captivity, but I am very much in
favor of the types of rescue programs like those run by Vancouver Aquarium
(and of captive breeding programs for at-risk, endangered, and extinct in the
wild species).

------
75dvtwin
I am happy to see this.

Some wild animals, especially high-functioning ones -- are meant to be seen in
the wild.

If they are in imminent danger, of course -- building city-like habitats to
protect them (whatever a 'city' would mean in their context) -- is more than
appropriate.

We could also invest into building teams of people whose show-business is
around building relationships with animals in the wild, in such a way that
they can periodically visit the team and not be spooked by onlookers.

It takes years, dangerous, and would not always work -- but much more humane
than keeping these creatures in forced captivity.

------
pseudolus
Somewhat on a tangent but the podcast "Undiscovered" featured an episode that
discussed American's evolving relationship with whales and dolphins and how,
in a very short period, they went from being perceived as food and fertilizer
to centerpieces of the environmental movement. It's a great listen [0].

[0] [https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/long-
loneliness](https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/long-loneliness)

------
wk0
Phil Demers, who worked at Marineland (referenced in article), was just on the
Joe Rogan Experience (episode #1297). They discuss this legislation pretty
heavily.

------
Muha_
Yes, it painful for me to look at animals in narrow cages where they slowly go
mad whith monotony. (next - by the Thanos voice) But in general I can't
understand the logic. In the wild, the animal has hard life. It will sooner or
later be injured, sick, starving, and even eaten alive. But these sufferings
are considered as normal because they are "natural". In the well-maintained
zoo, the animals eat, sleep, and a bit bored, but this sufferings are
considered as unacceptable. For billions of years, animals suffered for a
reason: it was evolution. Now biological evolution is complete because it is
displaced by the evolution of civilization. Why do animals have to suffer in
wild nature now? It may happen that our descendants will look at humanism
towards animals completely different: allowing animals to live in the wild
will be considered a crime (like living children unattended).

~~~
uhhhhhhh
Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world
they naturally inhabit. Taking them out of that, putting them in a small cages
where they don't feel safe, they don't understand whats happening. They are
surrounded by things that are threats in the wild, noises they aren't familiar
with, etc..

Putting a wild animal in a cage isn't "boredom", its torture.

> Now biological evolution is complete because it is displaced by the
> evolution of civilization

That's not a true statement.

>Why do animals have to suffer in wild nature now?

Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature.

>allowing animals to live in the wild will be considered a crime (like living
children unattended).

This is... absurd... Animals are not pets, animals ARE wild, they are
dangerous. They are also required for life on this planet to continue. The
ecosystem depends on animals at all levels of the energy/food web for it to
exist and continue and screwing with this on that level would largely ensure
the collapse of the worlds ecosystems.

~~~
Muha_
> Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the
> world they naturally inhabit.

Then what about meerkats as pets, for example?

> Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature.

Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe?
There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right. If we see
suffering that has no any purpose, we can stop it. What is "purpose" is just
our choice too.

> They are also required for life on this planet to continue.

For what? Now we are life on the planet. Nature has evolved and we are the
result and next step.

>The ecosystem depends on animals at all levels ..

Now we have a new ecology: mankind and Earth.

~~~
uhhhhhhh
>Then what about meerkats as pets, for example?

What about it?

>Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of
Universe?

This is what I learned by studying biology and ecology

>There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right.

You're suggesting interrupting a natural ecosystem that is beyond complex,
likely leading to its complete collapse, due to lack of understanding.

You may "think" you're right, but anthropogenic projection and a complete lack
of understanding of how the world works doesn't make your view right, if
anything your an example of someone with good intentions that would utterly
fuck up the world if you were given control

>If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we can stop it. What is
"purpose" is just our choice too.

Suffering is a natural state of existence, we all experience it, it's part of
life, many philosophers would argue a necessary part of life.

>For what? Now we are life on the planet. Nature has evolved and we are the
result and next step.

We rely on a massively complex ecosystem made up of millions of other living
organisms. We are not "the life", we are an example of it on this plane.

Nature is continuing to evolve, we're just one point on a long line of
changes.

>Now we have a new ecology: mankind and Earth.

That is absurd and unjustifiable. Earth's ecosystem is made up of billions and
billions of living things, humans are just one part of it, and one of the most
damaging, destructive, short-sighted living things and we cause significantly
more suffering than anything else.

I would suggest starting with biology and ecology courses, and some history
both geological and human.

~~~
Muha_
> You're suggesting interrupting a natural ecosystem that is beyond complex..

No.We did not understand each other. I'm talking about what we will do when we
completely destroy this ecosystem. May be it will take about hundred years.

> Suffering is a natural state of existence..

Then why do we worry about animals in zoos? We are part of nature too. Then
why do we separate natural and non-natural suffering?

> Nature is continuing to evolve, we're just one point on a long line of
> changes.

Wild nature has no time for this. Evolution requires millions of years. We
will destroy it before anyway. And even if we disappear and let it to evolve
farther, then for what? It has produced conscious cpecies already.

> Earth's ecosystem is made up of billions and billions of living things,
> humans are just one part of it.

Ok. Another point of view: what do you think about the anthropic principle?

I think you equate humans with animals. But that is absurd, because it is the
judgment of man. Animal cannot judge at all. You separate nature and mankind
and then say that it just part of nature. I do'n understand a point.

> I would suggest starting with biology and ecology courses, and some history
> both geological and human.

I think I studied it at school 30 years ago :). Last years I finished with
quantum mechanics and switched to English language (sorry, the hardest subject
for me).

------
rafiki6
Canada should take the opportunity here and offer some funding to develop VR
and AR that can help facilitate the transition away from having animals be
captive...a sort of virtual Zoo. If they aim to build something like that and
offer appropriate funding, I bet it can be a really interesting and
competitive attraction that can be completed in 20 years.

Especially with the death of retail, can you imagine large retail spaces
getting converted into awesome VR parks?

------
tgraham
Do they not still allow quite a lot of whale hunting?

~~~
mc32
I think they allow First Nations to hunt a certain amount —don’t know how that
affects sustainability though; it’s for sustenance.

~~~
SuoDuanDao
First Nations hunting rights typically do not extend to commercial rights
(i.e., first nations can hunt but not sell the meat) so I would be surprised
to learn there's much in the way of whaling still happening nowadays. First I
heard of it still being legal, though I'm not surprised to learn it - treaty
rights are _very_ slow to be renegotiated.

------
spookware
So how do people now see whales or dolphins?

~~~
ygjb
If you want to see Orcas in their natural habitat, take the ferry between
Vancouver and Victoria. I do it frequently and we see Orcas somewhat
regularly. It's not as convenient or predictable, but that much more amazing
when you see them in the wild.

Also, if your very lucky you can walk around the sea wall in Vancouver and
occasionally see Orcas and other aquatic wildlife.

------
tunesmith
Man, I went to a wedding a few years ago, at a big indoor shopping mall with a
connected hotel, in Alberta. This mall had a pool that apparently usually had
dolphins, except they didn't at that time, apparently because "(shrug), they
kept dying" according to someone who lived there.

------
m23khan
animals like Whales and Dolphins should not be kept in captivity. Not only are
they emotionally and intellectually intelligent - they also tend to roam 100s
(in Whales, 1000s) of miles which makes captivity unfeasible and brutal for
these animals.

------
kypro
Is there evidence all these creatures dislike captivity and would prefer
fending for themselves in the wild? Genuinely curious. Not that it means
anything, but dolphins have always seemed happy in captivity so long as they
are being cared for appropriately.

~~~
RankingMember
> It is not a matter of opinion that orca whales, bottlenose dolphins and
> beluga whales die prematurely when kept in captive settings, but rather a
> potent and recurring reality. Marino & Frohoff (2011) show that this is
> especially and most dramatically seen in the orca whale, with males living
> on average 29.2 years in the wild with an observed maximum of 60 years, and
> females living 50.2 years on average with an observed maximum of 90 years.
> Their naturally extensive lifespan is shortened severely when they are
> placed in captive environments, with few orcas living past the age of 20 in
> captivity (p. 3)

> Many cetaceans in captivity develop stereotypies, or unnatural, often
> purposeless behaviors that can be a manifestation of poor mental health.
> Such behaviors include repetitive pacing, swaying, head-bobbing or circling,
> and bar-biting (Cetacean Inspiration, 2011). One of the most prominent
> stereotypies noticed in these whales is an activity known as slide outs. The
> whale will slide out of the water and sit motionless, sometimes for 10
> minutes at a time (Cetacean Inspiration, 2011). This creates safety issues
> for the guests of marine mammal parks like SeaWorld. If a whale did this in
> the wild for too long of a time the weight of the whale could crush its own
> internal organs (Cetacean Inspiration, 2011).

[https://blogs.umass.edu/natsci397a-eross/the-detriments-
of-c...](https://blogs.umass.edu/natsci397a-eross/the-detriments-of-captive-
cetacean-research-2/)

~~~
mcv
Would it be anthropomorphism to consider such a slide out a suicide attempt?

~~~
kekebo
Ric O'Barry, former trainer of the dolphins used for the 'Flipper' TV show
(now animal rights activist) tells a story in the documentary 'The Cove' how
one of the dolphins swam up to him one day, looked him in the eye, took a last
breath and then sank to the bottom of the tank and died [1]. Given that
dolphins have to make a conscious choice for every breath they take gives some
indication for a conscious decision for suicide.

[1]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110926051048/https://blog.sfga...](https://web.archive.org/web/20110926051048/https://blog.sfgate.com/dailydish/2010/04/23/ric-
obarry-flipper-committed-suicide/)

~~~
misnome
Reportedly also Peter, the dolphin in the Margaret Lovatt research in the 60's
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/08/the-
dolp...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/08/the-dolphin-who-
loved-me)

------
pseingatl
Now claim universal jurisdiction to reach anyone who illegally keeps whales,
including US parks. Issue a few Interpol Red notices, make a few extradition
requests.

------
sunkenvicar
Election campaign begins any day now. This is part of a desperate plan to hold
on to power by the Trudeau Liberals. The Conservatives are poised to win
easily so he’s trying to grab votes from the left wing NDP and Green parties.

------
LifeLiverTransp
Why not make water-zoos voluntarily, aka, the animals can return to the ocean,
but can get a free meal & protection at the zoo at certain times? Oh, right,
plastic in the ocean + fishing and dangers.

~~~
andruc
I'm no expert, but can you imagine pitching investors on an idea that involves
selling tickets to see a creature that may or may not ever show up?

------
diveanon
I believe it will one day be possible to use AI techniques to communicate
directly with these animals.

I have often thought about running whale song through a RNN and broadcasting
underwater to listen for responses.

We don't need to go to other planets to find intelligent nonhuman life, it is
already here and we are wiping them out and enslaving them.

Our grandchildren will learn about this genocide in the same way we learn
about the holocaust and conquering of the Americas.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I'm not so sure. Big brain not the same as 'intelligent'.

A story: every year a Japanese dog food company goes to a certain island
lagoon where dolphins migrate to reproduce. They net and kill thousands and
take them away.

Each year some dolphins escape, inevitably. They swim around for a year, and
then the next year come back (with many other dolphins) to the lagoon, and
likely get netted and killed.

Didn't they remember what happened? Didn't they communicate it to other
dolphins? Don't they care?

I have to conclude either

    
    
       Dolphins are not smart enough to remember from year to year,
    
      or Dolphins can't communicate with other dolphins in a sophisticated enough way to say "danger! evil here!" which is pretty basic,
    
     or Dolphins are dicks and don't care if other dolphins are killed,
    
     or heck, maybe Dolphins, like Klingons, enjoy the challenge? "Today is a good day to die!"
    

I conclude that, in none of these scenarios, is there much wrong with killing
dolphins for dog food. Not in a 'killing our sentient brothers!' way.

~~~
codezero
If you spend some time, I bet you can think of lots of reasons a creature
might return to the same place. Many humans engage in self defeating behavior,
should they be made into dog food, or should we empathise with them?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Without communicating with others to warn them of any danger. So, no dolphin
cares about that? If they don't care, should we?

I think its pretty cut-and-dried, dolphins are nowhere near as bright as
humans.

~~~
codezero
My point is brightness or intelligence shouldn’t be the measuring stick for
compassion for living things.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Right. But that goes for everything? When are we required to get concerned?
Just mammals? All the way to bugs?

~~~
codezero
There's lots of grey area, and it all ends up being personal preference, but I
think if one makes it a goal to always empathize it's a great starting point.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Oh yes, the slaughter of dolphins is tragic and wrong. Not because they are
our 'brothers', but because they have value as part of the whole ecosystem.

------
ycombonator
The kid in me says oh no. But this is an applaudable move by the Canadians.
It’s terrible to keep these animals that are used to moving large distances in
glass boxes.

