A Mob by Any Other Name

Lori Marino on February 18, 2016

The world is horrified by the recent upsetting story of an infant Franciscana dolphin who was taken out of the water by beachgoers in Argentina and passed around as a prop for selfies, and who then died. The unfortunate infant could cialis sans ordonnance not maintain body temperature, and she likely became dehydrated when out of the water.

But her death is so much more than just a case of a manhandled animal. Her story is a microcosm of what our species does to other animals every day, treating them as objects for our benefit, with value only as long as they provide entertainment.

It is difficult not to see the connection between how this young dolphin was used and what happens at the institutionalized versions known as zoos, aquariums and circuses. The only difference is that one has to pay for a ticket to gawk at, touch or ride on the animals at one of these facilities. But the psychology is the same.

Treating them as objects for our benefit, with value only as long as they provide entertainment.

Zoos and aquariums offer visitors the opportunity to see animals who are also “taken out of the water” and placed in artificial circumstances that often lead to abuse and death. There is little difference between what happened to this infant and what has been happening to dolphins and whales for decades in theme parks. Out of their natural, physical and social environment, these animals not only cannot thrive but often cannot even survive. This is why high mortality rates, low survival rates, abnormal behaviors, and stress-related diseases are rampant in the dolphin and whale captivity industry.

The figures speak for themselves: In the span of just a few months, four marine mammals have perished prematurely at SeaWorld San Antonio: an 18-year old orca, a 12-year old Pacific white-sided dolphin, a 2-year-old beluga whale, and a newborn beluga.

And since its opening in 2005, there have been five premature deaths of belugas at the Georgia Aquarium: a 17-year-old male, a 25-year-old female, and a 21-year-old female and her two calves, each less than a month old. In the case of the mother and her calves, the youngsters failed to thrive, and photos of trainers and other aquarium staff in the water handling the newborns are eerily similar to what happened on the beach. Though the aquarium staff may have been trying to save the infants, their attempts are poignant failures of understanding of who these animals really are and what they need to thrive.

While the world expresses shock and dismay over the death of the infant on the beach in Argentina, we should remind ourselves that this incident sits within a wider context of the exploitation of nonhuman animals for entertainment, and an industry that not only condones but promotes the kind of behavior that leads to worldwide animal abuse and exploitation.

Buying a ticket to be part of the audience at a dolphin or whale show is basically no different from being part of the mob on that Argentinian beach.

The REAL Puppy-Monkey-Baby

Lori Marino on February 10, 2016

puppy-monkey-baby
A soft drink commercial that features a strange chimeric creature called the PuppyMonkeyBaby (a beast that combines human baby legs, a monkey body and a pug dog’s head) premiered during Super Bowl 50. The weird dog-monkey-baby animal is supposed to represent the “awesome” combo of Mountain Dew, juice and caffeine, but many people call it “creepy “, “scary” and just downright “disturbing “. There are even calls for it to never be shown again. As far as many, perhaps most, people are concerned, the idea of a dog-monkey-baby makes for one horrifying creation. How come?

The answer would seem to lie with the fact that we implicitly recognize that such a chimera would never exist in nature and represents something unnatural, even monstrous. A PuppyMonkeyBaby is just not “meant to be.”

Chimeras: a life of confinement, exploitation and invasive procedures that invariably ends in death.

But chimeras (genetic mixtures of different types of animals) like these are not just advertising gimmicks; they are already being created on a routine basis in laboratories around the globe. For example, there’s the MouseHuman: mice who have had some of their brain cells replaced with human brain cells, and who, as a result, have better memories and learning abilities. And the PigHuman: pigs with human hearts that can be “harvested ” and implanted in human beings. And the SpiderGoat: goats who have been engineered to secrete spider’s silk in their milk. (Silk is useful for a variety of applications in materials science and medicine, and it’s hard to get spiders to make enough of it.)

These victims of genetic technology are touted as “living laboratories” in whom human researchers can manipulate the very nature of other living beings for medical and scientific “progress “. While the Mountain Dew commercial shows PuppyMonkeyBaby dancing down a hallway at the end, nothing like this happens to the real chimeras. Instead they are subjected to a life of confinement, exploitation and invasive procedures that invariably ends in death.

Most of the “ethical ” questions or objections to this kind of research focus on the potential risk to humans, like concerns over whether any genetically engineered animals will get into our food supply or cause some kind of out-of-control disease. Little ink is spilled over the moral dimensions of creating and using those sentient beings themselves. Yet genetic engineering of animals comes at a high price. Many of the embryos that undergo genetic engineering procedures do not survive, and of those that do survive only a small proportion (often as few as one out of a hundred) carry the genetic alteration of interest.

This means that increasingly larger numbers of genetically modified animals are being produced, manipulated and killed than ever before. Their cloned offspring often suffer devastating health effects, such as under-developed organs, skeletal and weight abnormalities, and a vastly shortened lifespan.

Beyond the obvious health and welfare problems suffered by these animals, using them in such an egregiously invasive way violates any reasonable arguments for fairness in human-nonhuman relationships and erodes their standing as sentient individuals with a basic right not to be turned into something artificial. (A recent review of these issues can be found here.)

But rather than giving thought to any of these considerations, it is “full speed ahead” for these new genetic techniques. And when government steps in to limit funding for these highly questionable projects, the new bioengineers simply head to the private sector, where funding for these new creations is to be had at every turn.

PuppyMonkeyBabies aren’t just TV commercial fantasies any longer. Animal chimeras are being produced in laboratories all over the world. We need to take every opportunity to voice our concerns and opposition to such monstrous activities. If we don’t do it, no one will.

Sea Sanctuaries for Cetaceans: A Growing Reality

Lori Marino on December 19, 2015

This past Sunday, December 13th, Dr. Lori Marino, Executive Director of The Kimmela Center, and Dr. Naomi Rose, marine mammal scientist for the Animal Welfare Institute, presented a day-long public workshop entitled Sea-Pen Sanctuaries: Progressing Toward Better Welfare for Captive Cetaceans.

The workshop focused on the key issues relevant to developing and maintaining a permanent sea sanctuary in North America for formerly captive and injured/sick whales and dolphins. There are sanctuaries for other large highly social and wide-ranging mammals, such as the Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) sanctuary in California, but there are none anywhere in the world yet for dolphins and whales.

The standing-room-only workshop was held at the 2015 Society for Marine Mammalogy conference in San Francisco and included presentations from some of the most experienced scientists, veterinary clinicians, engineers, attorneys, trainers, business experts and advocates in this field.

Wildlife veterinarian Dr. Heather Rally discussed the particular psychological and medical issues that would need to be addressed when caring for dolphins or whales who come from years of exploitation in the theme-park industry. She described the effort to develop a sea sanctuary for cetaceans as “an unprecedented undertaking for the scientific and veterinary communities in this country, with great potential to dramatically improve that lives of captive orcas in the U. S.”

Don Baur, an attorney previously on the Marine Mammal Commission, explored the legal issues that would need to be navigated to set up a sanctuary on the North American coast.

John Hargrove, a former orca trainer at SeaWorld and author of Beneath the Surface, presented information about the striking differences between sanctuary life and theme park life for orcas from a training perspective.

Ed Stewart, cofounder of PAWS, laid out the common challenges of creating a sanctuary for large wild animals either on land or in the sea.

Joan Gonzalvo, a biologist with the Tethys Research Institute, discussed similar efforts for formerly captive bottlenose dolphins in Italy.

Courtney Vail, campaigns manager for Whale and Dolphin Conservation, brought us up to date on further ongoing efforts in Europe.

Rob Laidlaw, Executive Director of Zoocheck, discussed candidate sites for a sanctuary in Canada and some of the advantages and disadvantages of locating such a facility in various provinces.

And Michael Parks, field engineer for the Keiko Project, educated everyone on the “nuts and bolts” of building a sanctuary for orcas.

The audience consisted mainly of marine mammal scientists, advocates and business experts, along with some members of the captive theme park industry.

All in all, the workshop was a valuable exploration of the new frontier in our changing relationship with dolphins and whales: from captives, born and bred for our entertainment, to fellow beings who deserve respite from the ways our species continues to abuse and exploit them, both in captivity and in the wild.

There’s Nothing "Natural" About SeaWorld’s New Plan

Lori Marino on November 10, 2015

It didn’t take long for the major media to figure out that the latest announcement from SeaWorld was largely smoke and mirrors.

Yesterday, in the wake of mounting protests over its treatment of animals and hemorrhaging revenue from its downwardly spiraling public attendance, SeaWorld announced it would end the “theatrical killer whale experience” in San Diego by the end of 2016.

SeaWorld’s chief executive Joel Manby said:

“We are listening to our guests, evolving as a company, we are always changing. In 2017 we will launch an all-new orca experience focused on natural environment [of whales]. 2016 will be the last year of our theatrical killer whale experience in San Diego.”

This “natural environment”, called the Blue World Project, is basically a larger tank, motorized water currents, and live fish and kelp. Instead of their current offerings, SeaWorld promises a more educational form of entertainment.

Killer whales have three basic needs: space, social complexity and choice, and mental challenges. None of these are addressed
in SeaWorld’s new plan.

But none of the real issues have been addressed, and this new plan is essentially an attempt to create a distraction from the critical issues for which SeaWorld continues to draw criticism. Just for starters, SeaWorld will continue its “theatrical” orca shows at its other two U.S. facilities in Orlando and San Antonio. And the company intends to continue breeding orcas for entertainment at all three parks. From an orca’s point of view, nothing is basically going to change.

In order to thrive, killer whales have three basic needs: space, social complexity and choice, and mental challenges. None of these are being addressed in SeaWorld’s new plan:

Space: SeaWorld says its new tanks in the proposed Blue World expansion are going to be twice the size of their current tanks, claiming that “the enlarged environment will provide killer whales with even more dynamic opportunities. It will support the whales’ broad range of behaviors and provide choices that can challenge them both physically and mentally.”

But the new tanks are a minute fraction the size of even the smallest orca natural habitats. The new 10 million-gallon tank will be 50 feet deep and have a 1.5-acre surface area. Orcas naturally travel over 75 miles a day and dive to depths of over 300 feet. The new tanks would not even accommodate diving to a depth of two body lengths in whales, who can grow to 32 feet long. The new tanks may seem large from a human perspective, but from an orca perspective the change is negligible.

Social Complexity and Choice: SeaWorld’s plans continue the same model of forcing the whales into artificial social groups in which mothers and children are separated and individuals from different natural subpopulations and cultures are thrown together and forced to mate. Orcas are highly intelligent and socially complex animals who naturally live in cultural subgroups in which every individual has a role in the social network. Mothers and children are deeply bonded and stay together sometimes for life, and life is based on a long period of learning from each other. Whether hunting, playing, resting or traveling, orcas always travel in groups with other family members and friends. Their complex social structure, long-term relationships, and exquisite cultural traditions are comparable to those of humans and elephants.

Orcas are not interchangeable units and cannot be moved around and forced together in unnatural ways without severe consequences for their mental health.

Mental Challenges: SeaWorld claims its new tanks are going to be more “naturalistic”, providing the whales with more enrichment features which “maximizes the health and wellbeing of the animals,” like a fast running water current to simulate the dynamism of the natural environment.

But orca brains are among the largest of all living mammals, more than two and a half times the size one would expect for their body size, and more convoluted (i.e. more grey matter surface area) than even human brains. Their brains have highly elaborated structures that are thought to be involved in self-awareness, social cognition, and emotions. In other words, orcas are among the most psychologically and behaviorally complex animals on the planet.

Animals with brains like orcas are not enriched by unchanging, one-dimensional features of their environment that pose no new challenges. The new features of Blue World do not even come close to the complexity and mental challenges they enjoy in the wild.

SeaWorld cannot provide a “natural environment” for these whales while ignoring the facts about who orcas are.

To make a real change SeaWorld would need to do two things:

First, end the (mostly artificial) breeding and display of orcas for the benefit of entertainment and ticket sales.

And second, assume leadership in the growing movement towards sea pen sanctuaries for orcas and other marine mammals, where they can either be rehabilitated and returned to the ocean or, at very least, spend the rest of their lives in a setting that’s as close as possible to the open ocean.

Only then will SeaWorld be the welfare and conservation organization it only pretends to be now.

How Smart Are Dolphins? A TED-Ed Video

Lori Marino on September 1, 2015

Dr. Lori Marino has created a TED-Ed video, “Why Dolphins Are So Smart” as part of the series Lessons Worth Sharing.

Dr. Marino worked with the TED folks and a group of talented producers and artists from Zedem Media, Inc. to produce this animated lesson on dolphin intelligence (also available on TED’s YouTube channel).

There’s also a lesson plan with multiple-choice questions, a “Dig Deeper” section with lots of links to explore, and a discussion area that poses the question:

“A lot of scientific research shows that dolphins are not happy or healthy performing tricks in marine parks. How would you propose to solve this problem?”

(Go ahead and respond with your own view on what could and should be done.)

TED is well known for featuring cutting edge ideas from around the world and TED-Ed uses short, engaging videos to share those ideas. Take a moment to check out the video, and encourage other people to watch it, too, and to share their responses to the final question.

Why We Can’t Stand It when Other Animals Treat Us like Animals

Lori Marino on August 12, 2015

So, on the heels of Cecil the lion being killed by someone who thinks animal lives are inherently worthless (except as trophies), Yellowstone National Park is expected to kill the mother bear who attacked and partially consumed a hiker last week.

First, the Park should not be allowed to get away with the euphemism “euthanasia”. What they plan to do has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. It is cold-blooded murder – the imposition of the death penalty on a member of another species for just being a member of that species.

Second, the Park is appealing to “protecting the public” as a justification for the killing. But the chances of being killed by a bear – even one who has killed before – are infinitesimal compared with other dangers in national parks, including just driving to the park! In the entire 142-year history of Yellowstone National Park, there have been a reported eight deaths (including this one), most likely (but not certainly) caused by grizzly bears. And between 1980 and 2011 there have been over 90 million visitors to the park and only 43 injured by bears. That gives you the odds of 2.1 million to one of being injured by a bear, let alone killed. This decision is like trying to prevent lightning strikes (statistically it is the same risk) by preventing people from going outside during storms. And there are no data that I am aware of to support the claim that once a bear “tastes human flesh” he/she will kill again. This is such a rare occurrence that there could not possible be any reliable data on the matter.

In a paper entitled Denial of Death and the Relationship between Humans and Other Animals, my co-author Michael Mountain and
I explain how our anxiety about being mortal drives us to separate ourselves from the other animals. Anything that reminds us that we, just like them, are going to die and disintegrate into the ground, is something we need to distance ourselves from. And nothing reminds us of our animal nature and mortality more than being preyed upon by another animal. (A further paper on this topic by some colleagues at the University of Arizona provides new data demonstrating that when people are reminded of their mortality they tend to be more in favor of abusing and exploiting other animals.)

The mother bear who killed the hiker who had gone off-trail into her territory was simply protecting her cubs. But from our human viewpoint she had the audacity to remind us that we are animals. And that’s a truth we cannot seem to come to terms with.