Abstract

In only three decades, marine mammals, particularly whales and dolphins, have captured the imagination of the Western world as no other animal group ever has. Originally drawn by the plight of the great whales, public attention has now focused on the issue of captivity and is forcing a reexamination of the most basic tenents of why these species are brought into the captive environment. Furthermore, it is ironic that the zoological institutions who originally championed the stimulation of the lay imagination now find themselves accused of maintaining "prisons" for these "gods in wet suits." This paper explores the reasons for this phenomena, bow this trend in public attitudes might be redirected, and possible implications for the future of zoological associations like the IAAAM who are involved with aquatic animals.

".....diviner than the dolphin, there is nothing not created. They were aforetime man and dwelt in cities, but by decree of Diomacies, they took upon themselves the form of fishes and live in the sea."

The foregoing quote was written by the poet Opian in 30A.D. and it is an excellent illustration of what I am going to address here today. In the past three decades, no group of animals has captured the imagination and interest of the public perhaps more than the one collectively known as marine mammals. Composed of a diverse number of species that basically are linked only through their use at some time of an aquatic environment, which is typically marine, they have become for many the symbols of both environmental protection and animal rights activism.

This phenomenon is really not very new to zoological institutions like aquariums and oceanariums. Likewise, it is not new to the majority of the members in the IAAAM, for most of us here at this meeting today have had the unique pleasure of having to deal with some of the problems created by the activities of proponents of environmental protection and animal rights. Virtually all of our facilities have been the subjects of attack by these factions at one time or another. Most of us remember all the noise over the Sea World permit application to capture and study killer whales several years ago. Their permit applications continue to receive closer scrutiny than many other permit applications. Mystic Marinelife Aquarium has been the object of a negative press for some time now and routinely sees its mortality rate on the front page almost every time an animal dies at its facilities. Oddly, this has been true whether or not the animal belonged to the institution or had been recovered through their participation in their local stranding network. Recently the Minnesota Zoo was the object of the cover article in a nationally syndicated Sunday magazine which focused on the problems they had been having with their male beluga whale Big Mouth. The reporter had conducted the interview with the intent to cover the Zoo's dealing with the animal's health problems, but in fact, had ended up writing about whether or not the animal should have been brought into captivity in the first place. And my own institution, the National Aquarium in Baltimore, was the object of a great deal of negative press over our beluga whale permit application some two years ago. We not only had our own mortality rate quoted repeatedly in the press, but unwilling served as a mechanism for a political activist group to expound their views at our expense.

How did this problem come to exist? And why now, when several years ago we were witness to the "dawning of the age of aquariums?" After all, attendance and public interest in our institutions was steadily increasing. Public interest in building new facilities has never been more pronounced. Captive births of animals were becoming increasingly more commonplace and in some instances were becoming too successful. New species were being introduced into our captive environments. It therefore seemed that we were doing everything right. What then was it that we were doing wrong? What were we doing to deserve all this fuss?

During the environmental era of the late 60's and early 70's, several forces began to come together that would culminate in the animal protection movement we see today. It is this combination that has brought us here today. Concern over the environment, pollution, loss of wild habitat, and our apparent loss of being in touch with nature began to develop within our culture a deep sense of guilt over our lack of understanding about the world in which we lived. People began to feel trapped by modern society and the technology that made that society possible. At the same time focus on human rights issues branched into concern for the other living entities that shared the planet with us. Thus, as a society, we grew ever more concerned over how we had separated ourselves from the natural world on which we depended while at the same time growing equally concerned over separating ourselves spiritually from our uniquely human condition. is it any wonder then that today we sometimes appear confused to one another?

And what has been the result from all of this for aquatic animal medicine? First is that the topic of animals in captivity for whatever reason, be it public display, research or wildlife rehabilitation, easily continues to remain in the forefront of the public interest. It has only taken a single statement charging some type of "cruelty", perceived or otherwise, for it to return to the front pages of the media. Secondly we continue to experience a great deal of interference with our work. Questions are continually posed to us as professionals that question our ability to perform as we claim. Thirdly, because we are dealing in the political arena, information has become distorted, whether intentionally or not, and the public has now become increasingly "educationally poor" in what they "know" to be true. An excellent example here is the work of Dr. Pirelli, which most of us are all too familiar with. Thus it is that we oftentimes now feel trapped by the old problem of having to answer "yes" or "no" to the question, "Have your stopped beating your animals?"

Another result has been the great deal of increased activity in the area of governmental regulation. In the U.S. regulations have been expanded and refined: sometimes to the animals benefit; sometimes to their detriment. Australia has now been the scene in the past few years of attempts to prevent any new oceanariums from opening and to phase out the existing ones. The United Kingdom is presently in the process of examining new legislation to regulate the captive care and maintenance of marine mammals similar to the U.S. laws and regulations. France has simply outlawed these activities outright. New Zealand saw fit to issue a statement recognizing the benefits of aquariums and oceanariums, but is reportedly now re-examining the issue. And in the U.S. we are now seeing actions on the state regulatory level such as the California proposal to allow any representative of any humane organization the right to inspect any zoological institution whenever it desires.

And lastly, anthropomorphism and outright rank specieism has become the rule rather than the exception. We now routinely come across issues where certain species "count" more that other species do, We are continually forced to respond to statements that depict marine mammals in forms other than that described by accepted scientific fact. As a result, a generally poor opinion of our science has now been developed in the public mind.

But there has been some cause for hope. Starting several years ago, all of the foregoing activity stimulated action on our parts which has had a positive impact for both the public and the animals they are interested in. We undertook proactive work with both legislators and regulators. We began to tell our own story and focused on our work in conservation issues and wildlife rehabilitation. We answered the public's questions and concerns which further allowed us the opportunity to present the facts surrounding marine mammals as we knew them to be. We found that public education was enhanced by all of this. We found that were relatively quite successful in reaching that "silent" majority who had not yet made their minds up on the subject.

To date the response to ail this has been most positive. And it would appear that we have won the first major battle. But if you take the time to review all the news articles and other media reports about this issue from the past few years, you will realize that we are in a holding action at best. You will also recognize that there is a new factor looming on the horizon that we will have to be deal with soon. This factor has been there all along and in fact had its birth back in the earliest history of marine mammals as indicated by the quote that begins this paper. For now we are no longer dealing with the issue of protection or animal rights. We are now dealing with what is basically a religious belief. (Now throughout this paper I have used the noun "we" because I view this situation as a cultural issue, and it is a situation that "we" must deal with.)

The religious nature of the animal rights issue is not new. There has always been the flavor of religious belief behind most of the actions of the more extreme factions of the animal rights groups. But there are some growing trends that we must be most careful of and continue to watch closely. This is particularly true with the heightened interest in the construction of new aquariums and oceanariums as they are viewed as being built solely out of a profit motive. Our science is now completely distrusted, for it is seen as support for what is described as a profit motivation behind our activities. Anthropomorphism and empathy for animals have now evolved into personification with the animal. We no longer merely describe animals in human terms; we now have a fully developed sympathy and identity directly with them. Wild populations of marine mammals are now no longer resources that need to be managed and conserved: they are individuals who have a right to privacy such that we cannot even study them without their consent for it is an "invasion" of their privacy. Concern rests not so much with the survivability of the species any more as it does with the survivability of the individual marine mammal. Humans are now seen to be interfering in non-human cultures in much the same manner Western culture was seen to interfere with the development of primitive cultures during the age of colonialism. There are numerous examples: Herschel the sea lion; the conflict of commercial fisheries with the increasing stocks of harbor seals and California sea lions; the continued tuna/dolphin controversy. It is now alleged that the rights that marine mammals have are not granted, they are inherent. I do not assert whether or not there is a right or wrong in these issues; I am simply stating that these are some of the issues contributing to this problem that associations like the IAAAM will have to deal with in one way or another in the very near future.

What does all this mean? How are we to deal with this?

We can ignore the issue, not deal with it at all, and hope that it goes away on its own. We can simply continue to only monitor the problem, which is something we probably need to do in any event. We can attack the issue and its proponents head on and actually engage in conflict. However, if we do attack, then we had better go for the quick solution for this will create a conflict that we probably cannot win over the long term. We can maintain the level of what we are doing right now, which is just a responsive/reactive mode. We let them bring the issues forward into the public forum and respond to them as the need to arises. In actuality, what I would recommend is that we broaden the entire issue to the issue of animals in captivity in general, and recognize that we are dealing with not just marine mammals but all animal species, particularly those used in our research laboratories.

To do this we must first recognize that the anti-captivity proponents, or at least the hard-core proponents of the anti-captivity movement, have in fact based their stance on deeply held beliefs that are quite religious in their nature. Several years ago, we would read of issues involving whales and dolphins; now we read of issues that involve "The Whale" and "The Dolphin". These entities have now become the central icons for much of the animal rights movement. This same situation can exist for other animals as well with the giant panda bear serving as an excellent example. It is time that we disavow the "deification" of these animals or any animal for that matter. Furthermore, it is most important to realize and accept the basic truth that this activity will continue to develop if not challenged or answered and in the future may expand to include other animal species.

Ultimately we may see this kind of activity go so far as to encompass the other animal species that this Association has been interested in, starting particularly with those involved in research endeavors and moving on to those that are involved in some type of commercial activity (e.g. catfish, alligators, etc.) Also, it is important to realize and accept the fact that now no longer is the species of animal important, but rather it is the emphasis on the activities involving the individual animal that is of primary concern. Finally, it is no longer a question of what is proper science, but one of spirituality that drives the concerns outlined here. And we as a scientific association must be able to address each of the foregoing issues in such a manner that the entire problem can be adequately addressed, if we are to continue in the work that has brought us together for this meeting.