In a March 15th listserv post, respected marine mammal scientist Naomi A. Rose, Ph.D. alerted members of the MARMAM listserve (marmam@lists.uvic.ca) about a company called Ocean Embassy (www.oceanembassy.com), which has been seeking permission of the Panamanian government to build a resort featuring captive dolphins. Dr. Rose described plans for the company to stock this aquarium with dolphins captured from Panamanian waters. Dr. Rose said: “I am appalled at the misrepresentation of scientific and conservation concepts currently taking place in Panama. In the 14 years I have been working in the field of marine mammal protection advocacy, I have never seen quite such an egregious and propagandistic misuse of science and conservation to sell this type of business development plan.” She has asked that marine mammal biologists speak out against this project. “If companies like Ocean Embassy can masquerade as research and conservation organizations with impunity, when they not only are just business ventures but are actually perverting scientific, conservation, and management principles to further their own commercial interests,” she continues, “then we can hardly expect governments to continue to respect and heed legitimate science.” Dr. Rose has urged biologists and the like to speak out and clarify to Panamanian officials that the manner in which Ocean Embassy represents science and conservation is inconsistent with that of the international marine mammal science, conservation, and management communities. I would echo her request, and also call for input from social scientists and animal studies scholars, especially those with insight on the ethics concerning Ocean Embassy’s plans.
The ways that dolphins are captured, transported, and kept for research, display and/or entertainment raises many ethical concerns. Family groups are broken up when one or more dolphins are taken from their home waters in traumatic takings, and the effects of changing the social structure of the wild population once those individuals are removed from the community are unknown. Many captive dolphins display physiological and behavioral indicators of stress such as elevated adrenocortical hormones, stereotyped behavior, self-destruction, self-mutilation, and excessive aggressiveness towards humans and other dolphins. To be sure, captive dolphin facilities vary around the world, but even if Panama provided the very best in captive dolphin care and management, the decision to keep healthy dolphins in human care at all disregards their moral value. Captivity denies dolphins their psychological, physical, and social integrity, inflicts untold kinds and amounts of stress, and drastically alters the fundamental life experience of being a dolphin.
As far as we know, like other bottlenose dolphins, Panamanian bottlenose dolphins (those targeted for takings from the Caribbean and the Pacific sides of Panama), are not endangered or threatened. Ocean Embassy’s plan to capture, display, and breed local dolphins make no sense as part of a “conservation plan”. Unlike the complicated issues that can come with keeping extremely vulnerable species in zoos as part of a greater species survival plan (great apes, for example), there is no reason to think that we can benefit dolphins, ensuring the survival of their species, by keeping them in human care. On the contrary, the demand for the capture of more wild dolphins to support increasing numbers of captive entertainment and encounter programs has the potential to harm dolphin populations and is therefore a conservation concern as well as a question of individual animal welfare.
Generally, proponents of dolphinariums argue that public display facilities offer opportunities for scientific research as well as a great educational benefit to human visitors. There are currently sufficient numbers of dolphins in captivity to satisfy scientific research demands, and many contend that we have learned all we can from studying dolphins in captivity. As for the educational value of marine parks, that is what essentially exempts United States facilities from the harassment provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The US government can authorize the capture or importation of marine mammals for public display purposes “as long as [such a facility] offers a program for education or conservation purposes that is based on professionally recognized standards of the public display industry,” even if their bottom line centers on commercialization and profit. Why should Panama act any differently?
In fact, there has been no study to date that has tested what, in fact, customers of marine parks learn as a result of their visitation, or what information is retained that helps animals or the environment after their visit. Nor has there been any investigation as to whether marine park visitors have more accurate or in-depth knowledge about marine mammals as compared with those who do not attend marine parks. Furthermore, when it comes to attitudes about animal welfare, conservation, and the environment, there is no empirical evidence to support whether marine park visitors are more environmentally sensitive or knowledgeable about marine mammals and/or their environment-in fact, the opposite may well be true! In short, dolphinariums are no more educationally or scientifically valuable than other, less invasive alternatives.
Panama should reject Ocean Embassy’s current plan. It has so much more to gain from a scientifically valid, environmentally sound, and ethically informed conservation plan that excludes any attempt to capture, display or breed its native dolphins. I visited Panama twice last year. I was in awe if its stunning array of wildlife and kind, beautiful people. Today, more and more Americans and Europeans are vacationing on both the Carribean and Pacific sides of the isthmas, and many are retiring to Panama, in large part because of its pristine and beautiful environment. Panama has a wonderful opportunity to respect and preserve its natural environment and wildlife while enjoying its economic growth with thoughtful, progressive environmental policies. Even if our top priorities are education, scientific advancement, and conservation-even profit-aren’t there better ways to achieve these goals than by harmfully exploiting the residents of the ocean we are seeking to protect? I applaud Panama’s concern for the ocean environment and its desire to move forward with sound conservation initiatives that advance the well-being of Panamanians, local wildlife and their natural environment. Ocean Embassy’s plan to capture and display Panamanian dolphins, however, is morally indefensible and counter to those aims.
For more information:
Naomi A. Rose, Ph.D. is a Marine Mammal Scientist for Humane Society International (www.hsi.org; www.hsus.org).
To learn more about the MARMAM email discussion list, visit whitelab.biology.dal.ca/marmam.htm#para4.
Photo from www.oceanembassy.com