# Whales at the Vancouver Aquarium - For or Against?



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

This promises to be an interesting meeting:

Vancouver Park Board holding special meeting tonight on future of whales at Vancouver Aquarium - British Columbia - CBC News

I guess I lean more toward getting rid of the whales at the aquarium; perhaps replace them with rescued dolphins from Japan, etc.?

Alternatively, can you imagine what kind of Amazon biotope they could create if they tripled the size of the current Amazon Gallery?


----------



## Gaia (Jun 20, 2016)

Completely against. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Longimanus (Apr 21, 2010)

I'm only for it if they are rescued whales with no hope of survival unless they are brought in. Such as injured whales that couldn't survive in the wild. With focus on rehabilitation and release.


----------



## troutsniffer (Dec 10, 2015)

Whales belong in the ocean.


----------



## ddcool (Jul 31, 2012)

strongly against, I hear their ads all the time on the radio station I listen to and it pisses me off..
We will only display cetaceans that are born in captivity or injured and unable to be released, blah blah blah.
Starting the "spin" early as I hear they plan to bring back their 5 loaner belugas.


----------



## tony1928 (Apr 22, 2010)

Definitely against caught for the purposes of display. If it's an injured whale that has no prospect of survival in the wild, I'm a bit more ok with that. 

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## AWW (Apr 22, 2010)

The black and white answer should be that whales belong in the ocean. Captivity of whales has its positives too though, as a collective informed we need to understand that. For whales and humans, scientific and social. 

People say tigers belong in the wild. Elephants rhinos, any wild animal really. We live in a changed world and integration may be there only chance at survival. Not only that, the things we learn from captive species tell us so much about wild populations. 

Dolphins are Suitable for captivity, belugas could be too. The aquarium is expanding the exhibit. I fell sorry for all the poor killer whales in captivity because that is an animal that needs to roam free. If the animals are happy they are where they belong.


----------



## Cstar_BC (Sep 24, 2016)

I am completely for it - under certain conditions. If the whale was bred in captivity or injured and unable to survive in the wild. 

Having whales in the aquarium is paramount to their research , and furthermore our understanding of what amazing creatures they are .

If you look at all amazing stories of research and conservation it started with a trip to the aquarium- it brings the joy of the ocean close to ones heart - and gets kids involved and starts a dialogue of why recycling is good and plastic is bad . You're not doing it for some abstract animal you saw in a book or on tv . 

Now yes some people will say they belong in the ocean , free . Well humans have destroyed the ocean - both overfishing/polluting and we need a plan B .
How better to learn to have them than to keep them - I mean we keep wild amazing fish in boxes ?


----------



## troutsniffer (Dec 10, 2015)

The problem is, in my view, is dolphins and whales are very intelligent. The fish we keep in an aquarium are not even close to the same level. Whales and dolphins have a bond with humans not because we keep them in tanks and feed them, because they have the intelligence and emotional capability. This is why I'm against keeping whales and dolphins in captivity. Same with gorillas and some monkeys. It's just wrong in that aspect.


----------



## davefrombc (Apr 21, 2010)

troutsniffer said:


> The problem is, in my view, is dolphins and whales are very intelligent. The fish we keep in an aquarium are not even close to the same level. Whales and dolphins have a bond with humans not because we keep them in tanks and feed them, because they have the intelligence and emotional capability. This is why I'm against keeping whales and dolphins in captivity. Same with gorillas and some monkeys. It's just wrong in that aspect.


It is precisely because they bond with people that keeping them in captivity is not the horror PETA and the anti-captivity people paint it to be. They are well fed, they have activity around and with them to entertain them and their health is monitored. Beluga are often trapped in the arctic in very small spaces when in winter ice makes it impossible to travel beyond a small breathing hole. Sometimes even that hole closes up ..... and no more pod. Cetaceans in some ways are like our dogs and cats, only much more massive. They are generally healthier and safer in captivity and despite human emotions that think they only want to be free, many want to stay with their human family.
Veterinarians can only really learn what ails them and what treatments aid them from captive specimens. Even though they are in a much more restricted environment than they are in the wild, a lot can be learned about their "personalities" and interactions. Whales in captivity help those in the wild, and go a long way to educating the public about them.
Nobody wants to say it out loud at the aquarium, but I am thoroughly convinced Aurora and Qila were poisoned by some radical anti-captivity nut that thinks they are better off dead than in captivity. They certainly didn't die of boredom or from longing for freedom.


----------



## Cstar_BC (Sep 24, 2016)

Unfortunately with the world we live in - the only way the next generation will ever know what a rhinoceros, orangutan, and damn maybe even Bees will be captive in a zoo, conservation breeding program (and that's not even safe)


----------



## dino (Aug 29, 2011)

well the truth is all the creature that we keep also belong in their natural habitat. I know most of us treat our creature like family and give them great care but the truth is many die in peoples care and even more in shipping and in pet stores. I am often torn when thinking this but when I get a fish or coral or whatever I try to give them the best home possible and I guess that makes it ok for me


----------



## DBam (Aug 9, 2010)

Case in point look at the ground that things like Project Piaba and Rio Xingu/Belo Monte awareness get due to the aquarium trade. Keeping anything in captivity is an imperfect solution to keeping us connected to nature and the environment.


----------



## ddcool (Jul 31, 2012)

I can guarantee you that in 50- 100 years the population will wonder why we *ever* thought keeping whales in captivity was ok.
I went to that aquarium and watched the beluga swimming in her endless repetitive loop, she looked far from enriched to me.
We studied them to death..


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

Its done - NO more whales - or cetaceans of any kind - are to be imported for display at the Vancouver Aquarium!

See: Vancouver Park Board votes to end display of cetaceans at aquarium - British Columbia - CBC News

So maybe a triple sized Amazon Gallery is not such a far-out idea after all?


----------



## Cstar_BC (Sep 24, 2016)

In 50-100 years people might look back and go "they had the cure for cancer in the common goldfish and they put them in pretty bowls ... bwa-ha-ha-ha"


----------



## cgjedi (Nov 11, 2013)

Anyone who is against the humane captivity of whales etc. should immediately dismantle their aquarium set up. Put up or shut up.


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

> VANCOUVER - An aquarium and zoo industry group says a park board vote to ban cetacean captivity at the Vancouver Aquarium is "troubling" and it will work with the facility to influence the policy.
> 
> Dan Ashe of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums says if the board prohibits whales, dolphins and porpoises at the facility it will hinder scientific research supporting conservation and deprive visitors from the opportunity to see marine mammals up close.
> 
> ...


Aquarium association calls Vancouver vote to ban cetacean captivity 'troubling' - NEWS 1130


----------



## Cstar_BC (Sep 24, 2016)

I feel bad for Chester and the dolphin and porpoise . The vancouver Aquarium is all they've ever know , they have their handlers they trust and now they're going to be shipped to a different facility .... talk about a traumatic experience


----------



## sysyhus (Jan 30, 2015)

cgjedi said:


> Anyone who is against the humane captivity of whales etc. should immediately dismantle their aquarium set up. Put up or shut up.


Agreed. It is kinda ironic.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 21, 2017)

I cannot say I agree with the park boards decision. There comes a point for me where there is a benefit to the practice and in my humble opinion the aquarium in Vancouver is a prime example. This will not only limit their ability to study the animals but depending on how the bi-law is written it could vastly impact the aquariums ability to operate as a marine wildlife refuge and rehabilitation center. There are, I know, many documented cases of animal cruelty and mistreatment at the hands of their keepers however this is not a traveling circus with ball dancing bears and chained elephants. Those belugas are going to be housed somewhere, they will never be candidates for release. Why not bring them home where they could be cared for, monitored and studied.


----------



## rhennessey (Jul 25, 2014)

What a shame....The action taken by the Vancouver Parks board is a knee jerk one that is founded on no scientific basis nor is it based on logic it seems. Looks like they took BlackFish as the bible and have closed their eyes and ears to logic. What I see is a glorified strata council with a short time to make some noise. What's worse, they are nominated (not elected) and are patronage hiring's by the current city council. Again what's worse is they don't have the necessary knowledge nor experience to make decisions about animal welfare. And if they did they would understand that what they are asking means that we should not keep any critters in cages...dogs, cats, birds, fish....fish....hmmmm. I also would challenge any one of them to stand up to the bar set by the Vancouver Aquarium to help conserve and protect the environment. They are the parks board but they only think of human stuff not the native creatures that inhabit this land. Take a look at any Vancouver Park and it's full of captive non native animals like dogs and racoons etc. many of them on leashes and caged at home....HYPOCRICY is alive and well here in Vancouver... What a shame and what a mess they are and followed by the blind masses who quite frankly don't do a damn thing to help conserve or protect the environment. They Vancouver Aquarium is a world leader in conservation and science along with creating public awareness and change and to be critiqued by the uninformed and more importantly to be judged and sentenced by them is a travesty. Once again the Government of BC and in this case the VPB shows it's uneducated and purely self glory seeking "modus operandi" and for me its an embarrassment and only the environment and our critters are going to suffer. Shame on you and shame on us for buying into your BS.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 21, 2017)

is it OK that I want to hug you for all of that??

I could not agree with you more if I tried. Kudos


----------



## Haven (Dec 26, 2012)

I had mixed emotions when they made that decision. I agree they do belong in the oceans, but we can observe and enjoy the rescued ones. I used to sit for hours in front of the downstairs viewing area. It gave me great comfort and was always in awe with what majestic creatures they are. At times it seem like they were observing me, it was amazing when they would look right at me .later I would bring my kids there and those pictures of the kids touching the whale and belugas through the glass are priceless. I'm saddened that my future grand kids will not have these moments.


----------



## rhennessey (Jul 25, 2014)

agreed.. It these early impressions on the children that makes them want to help the environment and not become lawyers or bankers etc. that do nothing but profit from suffering.... We need places like this to help to change the world for the better...


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

How interesting - according to an article in the Georgia Straight, the issue of whales in captivity could become a provincial election issue:

Like it or not, park board vote turns whales in captivity into provincial election issue | Georgia Straight Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly


----------



## Livyding (Feb 6, 2013)

davefrombc said:


> It is precisely because they bond with people that keeping them in captivity is not the horror PETA and the anti-captivity people paint it to be. They are well fed, they have activity around and with them to entertain them and their health is monitored. Beluga are often trapped in the arctic in very small spaces when in winter ice makes it impossible to travel beyond a small breathing hole. Sometimes even that hole closes up ..... and no more pod. Cetaceans in some ways are like our dogs and cats, only much more massive. They are generally healthier and safer in captivity and despite human emotions that think they only want to be free, many want to stay with their human family.
> Veterinarians can only really learn what ails them and what treatments aid them from captive specimens. Even though they are in a much more restricted environment than they are in the wild, a lot can be learned about their "personalities" and interactions. Whales in captivity help those in the wild, and go a long way to educating the public about them.
> Nobody wants to say it out loud at the aquarium, but I am thoroughly convinced Aurora and Qila were poisoned by some radical anti-captivity nut that thinks they are better off dead than in captivity. They certainly didn't die of boredom or from longing for freedom.


No one wants to say it out loud? They've said it in every single article that they've been interviewed in, without a shred of evidence to support it.

"Staff said the toxins they believe killed the whales may have been planted intentionally by humans, and that the Vancouver police will be involved in an ongoing investigation.
But shortly after the aquarium press conference, the VPD spokesperson said no formal investigation has been requested.
"At this time, we are not aware of any evidence to suggest that the unfortunate deaths of the Beluga whales at the Vancouver Aquarium were as a result of a criminal act," said Const. Jason Doucette."

--- "Aquarium to bring back belugas, but will close display by 2029"

Vancouver Aquarium to bring back belugas, but will close public display by 2029 | CTV Vancouver News


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

Most of my earliest & best memories (as well as for my children) of the Vancouver Aquarium involve the whales & dolphins at the VAq. I used to enjoy guiding the Night Stalker tours in the 1980s, where we took groups of kids behind the scenes at night and then ended up in sleeping bags in the beluga whale observation room. This was the best. Without the whales and dolphins, fewer people will pay the high entrance fee to go see the remaining animals (virtually everyone I know consider the cetaceans to be the highlight of any visit to the VAq.). Yes, the jellyfish & Amazon sections are cool, but I've kept jellies, caiman, and arros in the past. I will never have a chance to keep a dolphin or whale And now I'll never see a live beluga in BC, which makes me very sad. I definitely would not pay a hundred plus for the overnight tours offered by the VanAqua if it doesn't include a closeup encounter with whales or dolphins. I'm very sad for my little girls who will now not have the same opportunities in the future to enjoy watching these beautiful, majestic creatures up close and locally. 

I used to know a lot of the staff there and I know they were & are extremely dedicated to giving these creatures in their care the very best life humanly possible. The Parks Board decision basically spits on all their efforts and will cost quite a number of jobs there. 

Taking away the cetaceans will be like taking away the anchor store in a shopping mall. The other displays will draw some visitors, but it will probably be a struggle to remain financially viable without their big "draw". If and when the VanAqua closes due to low attendance and financial losses, will people still feel this Parks Board decision is a good idea or just a political knee jerk reaction with unintended consequences.

Anthony


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

davefrombc said:


> It is precisely because they bond with people that keeping them in captivity is not the horror PETA and the anti-captivity people paint it to be. They are well fed, they have activity around and with them to entertain them and their health is monitored. Beluga are often trapped in the arctic in very small spaces when in winter ice makes it impossible to travel beyond a small breathing hole. Sometimes even that hole closes up ..... and no more pod. Cetaceans in some ways are like our dogs and cats, only much more massive. They are generally healthier and safer in captivity and despite human emotions that think they only want to be free, many want to stay with their human family.
> Veterinarians can only really learn what ails them and what treatments aid them from captive specimens. Even though they are in a much more restricted environment than they are in the wild, a lot can be learned about their "personalities" and interactions. Whales in captivity help those in the wild, and go a long way to educating the public about them.
> Nobody wants to say it out loud at the aquarium, but I am thoroughly convinced Aurora and Qila were poisoned by some radical anti-captivity nut that thinks they are better off dead than in captivity. They certainly didn't die of boredom or from longing for freedom.


I agree completely with Dave, especially the poisoning by radicals part. It is what I've suspected all along but we may never know. There are a lot of dangerous nutjobs out there who would see Aurora and Qila as a necessary sacrifice for the "greater good".


----------



## Livyding (Feb 6, 2013)

SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> I agree completely with Dave, especially the poisoning by radicals part. It is what I've suspected all along but we may never know. There are a lot of dangerous nutjobs out there who would see Aurora and Qila as a necessary sacrifice for the "greater good".


How is that possible? No trace of any toxin was found in the samples, and they were tested extensively. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this theory, other than the lack of any other ideas as to what could have happened. I find it very irresponsible that the VA is constantly implying that one of their critics must have broken in and poisoned their animals. People are angry and hurting on both sides, and this is just like "adding fuel to the fire".

There are also a number of other possibilities, including zoonotic disease passed from a guest, while feeding the animals, and also chemical runoff from plants nearby, which hadn't been properly secured. Frankly, the beluga enclosure was a mess. Not that it's necessarily the fault of the VA. They have been trying to upgrade for ages, but the park board always blocks them, but still, it's no mystery to me that they couldn't keep any of the calves alive, and it's no mystery that the animals are dead. The new pool they were planning (twice the surface area) wouldn't have been big enough either. Ten times the size would still be a bit on the small side for five belugas.

--- ""They have ruled out bacterial, viral and fungal causes, and narrowed it down to a toxin that vanished quickly. They can't rule out that it was somehow introduced to the whales.
"The chain of events leads us to be highly suspect of a toxin," said head veterinarian Dr. Martin Haulena. "We did not identify any persistent toxins, so whatever happened was introduced to the whales or the whales were introduced to something in the weeks prior to their mortality. It did its damage and it seems to have gone undetected."

--- "Vancouver Aquarium shutting down beluga conservation program by 2029"

Vancouver Aquarium shutting down beluga conservation program by 2029 | Globalnews.ca

--- Staff said the toxins they believe killed the whales may have been planted intentionally by humans, and that the Vancouver police will be involved in an ongoing investigation.
But shortly after the aquarium press conference, the VPD spokesperson said no formal investigation has been requested.
"At this time, we are not aware of any evidence to suggest that the unfortunate deaths of the Beluga whales at the Vancouver Aquarium were as a result of a criminal act," said Const. Jason Doucette."

--- "Aquarium to bring back belugas, but will close display by 2029"

Vancouver Aquarium to bring back belugas, but will close public display by 2029 | CTV Vancouver News

---The aquarium now suspects that a toxin is responsible, although no lingering contaminants have been found in the tissues of the dead whales. While intentional poisoning hasn't been ruled out, it's also possible that a naturally occurring toxin is responsible.

"The epidemiology of the scenario, the chain of events, lead us to be highly suspect of a toxin that came and went - and one that we may not identify," Haulena said.

He added that the investigation is ongoing, and described the two deaths as unprecedented..."

--- "Aquarium to undergo ambitious expansion plan, despite phasing out belugas"
Aquarium to undergo ambitious expansion plan, despite phasing out belugas

---

"The aquarium's findings so far suggest it was a toxin that killed Qila, a 21-year-old beluga, and its 30-year-old mother, Aurora, 10 days later.
"It's the worst thing that has happened in my professional career" said Dr. Haulena.

The aquarium has spent more than $100,000 on an ongoing investigation into the belugas' deaths. Dr. Haulena said new belugas will not be brought into the facility until modifications have been made including increased security, better pest control and an examination of the run-off from soil surrounding the tank..."

--- "Despite mystery over deaths, belugas to return to Vancouver aquarium"

Despite mystery over deaths, belugas to return to Vancouver aquarium - The Globe and Mail

---
"We have not found a definitive cause of why the animals died," said Dr. Martin Haulena, the aquarium's chief veterinarian.
The investigation is ongoing, with the most likely cause being a toxin that may never be identified, said Haulena."

--- "Vancouver Aquarium bringing back belugas despite mysterious deaths"

Vancouver Aquarium bringing back belugas despite mysterious deaths - British Columbia - CBC News

--- 
"SCIENTISTS: ZOONOSIS MAY HAVE KILLED BELUGAS

The mysterious deaths of belugas Qila and Aurora still puzzle the Vancouver Aquarium. However, a growing body of scientific evidence suggest we should consider the possibility of zoonosis, the medical term for transmission of disease between animals and humans.

For an additional fee, the Vancouver Aquarium's encounter program allows the public to touch and feed their whales and dolphins. "This strikes me as being a very dangerous thing to do because there's a potential for transmitting disease from people into the belugas," commented Dr. Lawrence Dill, SFU Professor Emeritus.

Epidemiologist Dr. Meredith C. Faires investigated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) transmission between humans and animals. In one case a deceased bottlenose dolphin in a Canadian aquarium was identified with MRSA, human interaction may have been the cause.
Dr. J Scott Weese Professor, Dept of Pathobiology, University of Guelph says, "Close contact with captive marine mammals creates the potential for transmission of various microbes, in both directions. The more contact, the more risk."

The International Whaling Commission states, "Some infectious diseases that impact cetaceans have also been shown to infect humans as well" (1). Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 infectious diseases in humans are spread from animals (2). A child spent weeks in the hospital undergoing multiple surgeries after developing a bacterial infection from an aquarium encounter and in late 2016, a 4-year-old boy was bitten by a stingray at a zoo's touch tank.

Visitors have received several injuries such as broken bones with mammal encounters in aquaria.
There are mounting concerns that the Vancouver Aquarium is placing its other cetaceans and the public in danger through their encounter programs.

1. https://iwc.int/infectious-disease
2. Cornell University



__ https://www.facebook.com/CornellVet/posts/10153119857358897



---

I also don't think it's exactly fair to call all critics of the program "radicals", if that was what you meant. There are intelligent and caring people on both sides of the issue, and the fact that we don't all see eye to eye shouldn't mean that we can't treat each other with respect and work together for a better outcome.

I think I can sort of understand both points of view, here. One side sees the Vancouver Aquarium as unethical and wants the dolphins, whales and porpoises released into the wild, without any compromise. They believe that cetaceans do not belong in captivity, (and I agree, personally, that this should be the goal. Some very successful public aquariums keep no mammals at all, and enjoy a lot of support from local animal rights groups and the scientific community at large, for that reason).

The other side, (the people who keep and care for the animals and work with the whales, dolphins and porpoises every day), care just as deeply about the animals and want to see them in their natural habitat, but have valid concerns about their welfare in the open ocean.

If neither side can agree on a common ground, which we can move forward on, no progress can be made, and the animals are the ones who suffer for it. We can say captivity is not the,"right thing for Vancouver anymore", but if not, then what?

If both sides would only sit down and talk together, we might realize that we all have a lot more in common than we might think, and that some of the more intelligent and reasonable people on the other side actually have some pretty good ideas about how we can improve things a bit, for the animals who can't be released, (and I think we can all agree that there are at least some marine mammals who will have to live their lives in captivity, whether we like it or not).

I feel that marine sanctuaries and/or closed-system ocean-based aquariums, (a large sea pen sanctuary, cut off from the ocean by a divider which filters the water before delivering it to the enclosure, and filters it again on the way back to the ocean, similar to the current system in the ex-beluga enclosure, but possibly with an additional filter or circulation pump inside of the new enclosure), may be part of the solution for Vancouver.

The idea of captive cetaceans in marine sanctuaries may sound like a pipe dream to some, but it's coming close to reality in other places, and I predict that the first public aquarium to achieve it will receive a lot of praise for it, as well as a lot of support from activists, and from the scientific community.

It seems to me that injured or stranded wild animals which need to be rescued and rehabilitated would also be much more comfortable if they were able to remain in the ocean while they recover, and then they wouldn't have to deal with the stress of being transported to swimming pools.

From what I understand, the modified sea pen, (with a filter built in), wouldn't actually be very different from what they had in the beluga tank, which as I believe was done using water from the ocean, filtered on its way to the enclosure, then filtered again on the way out.

From a recent conversation with a VA volunteer however, I was left with the impression that the beluga tank didn't actually have any filter at all inside of the enclosure. Could that possibly be true? I'm not an expert, but it seems a bit strange to me.

NEWS ARTICLES ON SEA SANCTUARIES:

For Dolphins, a Bold Decision by the National Aquarium

National Aquarium moving dolphins to ocean refuge

Baltimore aquariumâ€™s move to retire dolphins to sea refuge could increase pressure on SeaWorld. - The San Diego Union-Tribune

https://aqua.org/care/national-marine-sanctuaries

MARINE SANCTUARY PLANS

***Critical: 
"Shocking Plans Reveal Motivation in Push for Sea Pens"

Shocking Plans Reveal Motivation in Push for Sea Pens
-

***Supportive: 
"Shocking Plans Reveal Motivation in Push for Sea Pens - It Is Brilliant!"

Shocking Plans Reveal Motivation in Push for Sea Pens - It Is Brilliant! - Candace Calloway Whiting
-

VIDEO "Dr. Ingrid Visser at Superpod 4" (Discussion of her detailed plan for the world's first marine sanctuary, including a closed system/medical/quarantine pen):


----------



## davefrombc (Apr 21, 2010)

Livyding, It is not the ones who oppose having captive cetaceans that are the problem for those that do not .. It is that small segment of those who are radical in their beliefs enough that they will kill the animals to "save them from their captivity". You see it in many of the PETA ads where it has been shown many times their supposed clandestine videos have been produced by them to attempt to swing people to their point of view. I mention PETA because they are the most vocal and radical of the ones that don't want to see any animal products used, or pets kept.. There are others, but most fall under the radar in the shadow of PETA. 
Zoos and aquariums that keep wildlife on display should have the duty to make those displays as close to the animals natural environment as possible. Long gone are the days where a lion or other big cat or any other large animal should be kept in a confining cage where there is no stimulus for them to break the boredom of pacing back and forth. Believe it or not , but many wild animals that have been rescued from injury and / or disease and released back into the wild will return to the rescue facility if they can. That is why such facilities do everything they can to have as little interaction with the rescue as possible. Once a wild animal has become habituated to people many will continue to seek out people for attention and food. Cetaceans in captivity are no different than any other animal on display .. They need interaction, either with their own or with humans to keep them stimulated; and they will seek it out. The more intelligent the animal the more it requires the stimulation.Yes, their enclosures should be as large as possible, but to claim any pool is too small for a creature accustomed to roaming over a very large area is false. Especially for those born in captivity. To go from an environment where they are totally familiar to one where they see no boundaries is more scary to them than coming from the wild to an adequately sized display. People who come from the flat land prairies to the mountainous ares like ours, or from areas like ours to the flatlands can understand that feeling somewhat. I made one trip into the flat, flat part of Saskatchewan where a clump of brush could be considered a forest and I was quite uncomfortable to not see the mountains or any landscape beyond either side of road in the city, and outside the city to see virtually a table top to the horizon in all directions.. friends who have grown up on the flat lands and moved here felt uncomfortably closed in. Just like us , other animals do feel uncomfortable with the changes but do adapt and come to prefer their present home.
Sea sanctuaries are not what you paint them to be .. If you build an enclosure in the sea where there is no contact with the water inside the enclosure with that outside then you have in effect the same as that pool built on land .. Sea enclosures are normally net pens where the inhabitants are fully exposed to the marine environment with all its pollutants and only confine them.. Fish farms are the best example of that. By the way .. I am opposed to sea pens.. If they want to farm fish, do it on land based tanks / ponds where the water is treated incoming to the tanks, and especially on the outflow to stop the pollution, disease and parasite problems those net pens create.


----------



## Livyding (Feb 6, 2013)

davefrombc said:


> Livyding, It is not the ones who oppose having captive cetaceans that are the problem for those that do not .. It is that small segment of those who are radical in their beliefs enough that they will kill the animals to "save them from their captivity". You see it in many of the PETA ads where it has been shown many times their supposed clandestine videos have been produced by them to attempt to swing people to their point of view. I mention PETA because they are the most vocal and radical of the ones that don't want to see any animal products used, or pets kept.. There are others, but most fall under the radar in the shadow of PETA.
> Zoos and aquariums that keep wildlife on display should have the duty to make those displays as close to the animals natural environment as possible. Long gone are the days where a lion or other big cat or any other large animal should be kept in a confining cage where there is no stimulus for them to break the boredom of pacing back and forth. Believe it or not , but many wild animals that have been rescued from injury and / or disease and released back into the wild will return to the rescue facility if they can. That is why such facilities do everything they can to have as little interaction with the rescue as possible. Once a wild animal has become habituated to people many will continue to seek out people for attention and food. Cetaceans in captivity are no different than any other animal on display .. They need interaction, either with their own or with humans to keep them stimulated; and they will seek it out. The more intelligent the animal the more it requires the stimulation.Yes, their enclosures should be as large as possible, but to claim any pool is too small for a creature accustomed to roaming over a very large area is false. Especially for those born in captivity. To go from an environment where they are totally familiar to one where they see no boundaries is more scary to them than coming from the wild to an adequately sized display. People who come from the flat land prairies to the mountainous ares like ours, or from areas like ours to the flatlands can understand that feeling somewhat. I made one trip into the flat, flat part of Saskatchewan where a clump of brush could be considered a forest and I was quite uncomfortable to not see the mountains or any landscape beyond either side of road in the city, and outside the city to see virtually a table top to the horizon in all directions.. friends who have grown up on the flat lands and moved here felt uncomfortably closed in. Just like us , other animals do feel uncomfortable with the changes but do adapt and come to prefer their present home.
> Sea sanctuaries are not what you paint them to be .. If you build an enclosure in the sea where there is no contact with the water inside the enclosure with that outside then you have in effect the same as that pool built on land .. Sea enclosures are normally net pens where the inhabitants are fully exposed to the marine environment with all its pollutants and only confine them.. Fish farms are the best example of that. By the way .. I am opposed to sea pens.. If they want to farm fish, do it on land based tanks / ponds where the water is treated incoming to the tanks, and especially on the outflow to stop the pollution, disease and parasite problems those net pens create.


I am aware that there are some groups and individuals with more extreme views, including some who claim to believe that all cetaceans are better off dead than in captivity. (I think that the majority would simply much rather see them in larger, more suitable enclosures). Some people believe that keeping a large, intelligent animal in a tiny cage amounts to torture, and that an animal which is living that way has no quality of life, and would be better off dead, to spare them the suffering.

That is a bit of a "black and white" view, in my opinion, and I think it would be possible to make a large enough enclosure to keep the belugas successfully, but I can still understand how someone might feel that way. That doesn't mean that one of them went and murdered the whales, though.

Think about it. During our day to day lives, whenever we leave our homes, we are constantly being filmed. When we're in public places, it's just a part of reality. How could anyone have just assumed that there would be no cameras watching the beluga enclosure? It seems to me that if they were deliberately poisoned, it would have had to have been someone who knew that there were no cameras, in other words, an "inside job". That said, I don't think that is what happened.

Is it possible that someone broke in and deliberately poisoned the belugas? Sure. We have no idea what happened, so really, anything is possible at this point. If the VA has any evidence of this, however, they apparently haven't shared it with the police, and to go repeating this theory over and over in the news, as if it were fact, (which it isn't), reeks of fear mongering, to me.

It strikes me as a bit ironic that the "no captivity" side is celebrating this as a victory, when the fact is that banning the import of cetaceans only means that the five other belugas that the VA has on loan are going to continue suffering in the tiny swimming pools that they live in now, at various locations in North America, whereas if they were moved here, to live in marine sanctuaries, we would have have a chance to be the first in the world to see captive cetaceans in their natural habitat. The VA would also become world famous, and not infamous in the unfortunate way that they are now.

I have no trouble believing that wild animals that have been cared for and fed by humans have trouble adapting to life in the wild, once they're released. Keiko would be a prime example of that. To me, that is just another argument in favor of the sea pens rather than swimming pools, since being kept inside of the actual ocean would seem to make it much easier for them to go back to the ocean again. If they had little to no interaction with humans during that time, I don't see how they would become too tame to be released back into the wild.

I don't quite agree with this statement, "Long gone are the days where a lion or other big cat or any other large animal should be kept in a confining cage where there is no stimulus for them to break the boredom of pacing back and forth."

Stereotypy, (sometimes called "cage psychosis"), was well documented in the belugas in the years before they died, and that pacing back in forth which you'd see in a big cat is the exact same behaviour that we all saw in the beluga enclosure, according to Dr. Lori Marino, quoted in this article:

---
""Stereotypies are abnormal behaviours," she said. "A stereotypy is not a habit or a scheduled activity. It is nothing like having dinner at the same time or sleeping for eight hours a night.

"They (the aquarium) are trying to convince you that this circling behaviour is normal. It is not. When you see this kind of repetitive behaviour you know that the animal is not thriving. "

Aquarium vet Marty Haulena notes that all the tests and observations, including weight and appetite and X-rays, show that Qila is a "very healthy" beluga. Her swimming pattern could be a combination of patrolling, exercising and sleeping.

"Does Qila have some bad days? For sure, we all do," Haulena said.

He added that her repetitive swimming may be the beluga equivalent of humans chilling out. "Is it just her way of zoning out and not having to think about something? Likely."

Marino countered that while Qila may be sleeping some of the time, the overall behaviour "is not normal behaviour and is a stereotypy."

She added: "It is particularly clear when she is swimming quite vigorously and even looking around. At that time she isn't sleeping and yet she keeps circling and repeating the same pattern. &#8230; It is a stereotypy and indicative of psychological disturbance."

A 2014 report on care of captive marine mammals by the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services noted that stereotypy behaviour can be a strong indicator of "suboptimal holding conditions or other sources of stress."

It also cautioned that "seemingly repetitive swimming patterns should be classified with caution, as they may be the natural result of physical restrictions of the habitat &#8230;"

"...Transfer of the belugas to sea pens is an alternative to captivity, she noted. But the aquarium is not convinced of the idea. Marino is leading an initiative for the creation of a network of retirement sanctuaries or refuges for captive cetaceans in North America.

"I guess they're worried about their bottom line," Ledger said of the aquarium, which operates on a $40-million annual budget. "These are a huge attraction. And this is an organization that makes a lot of money."

The aquarium is confident it can provide the belugas with a high level of care in less-than-perfect surroundings.

"It would be awesome to have a more appropriate social network for these guys," Haulena said. "But we have what we have. Is it ideal? No. You'd want five or eight whales, unrelated animals, lots of mating, lots of calves. That would be awesome. That's not our world." ..."

--- Vancouver Aquarium's belugas showing key signs of stress, boredom, experts say | The Province

I also don't agree with you when you say, "Yes, their enclosures should be as large as possible, but to claim any pool is too small for a creature accustomed to roaming over a very large area is false."

The enclosure the belugas were in was apparently only 7 meters wide. I'm not any kind of expert and I don't pretend to be, but does that seem right to you? It seems to me that a 2 meter long animal in a 7 meter wide enclosure couldn't possibly be comfortable.

I understand that not all of the belugas were wild caught, but some of them were, and I'm guessing that those ones especially must have suffered horribly from such close confinement.

--- ""Kavna, the Vancouver Aquarium's first beluga whale, was captured pregnant in the wild and came to the aquarium in 1976, giving birth in 1977 to a calf who died at four months old. Kavna herself died at the aquarium in August 2012 of cancer. Children's entertainer Raffi was inspired to write the song Baby Beluga after meeting Kavna in 1979.

Two male belugas, Nanuq and Imaq, were taken from Hudson Bay in the 1980s and brought to the aquarium. Nanuq would go on to sire Qila, the first beluga born in captivity. Qila's mother, Aurora, was taken from the wild at about age three in 1990. Aurora gave birth to a second calf, Tuvaq, in 2002. Tuvaq died three years later..."

--- Gene pool: Vancouver's beluga whales over the years | Vancouver Sun

Again, I am not saying that it's necessarily the VA's fault that they had to keep the animals like that. They applied to be able to expand the beluga enclosure numerous times over the years and were denied over and over by the park board, but I believe that it's a plain fact that they were cramped, and I think that the VA would be the first to admit that.

Yes, I understand that a fully enclosed sea pen would be essentially the same as an aquarium built on land, which you may notice I said myself in the previous post.

"From what I understand, the modified sea pen, (with a filter built in), wouldn't actually be very different from what they had in the beluga tank, which as I believe was done using water from the ocean, filtered on its way to the enclosure, then filtered again on the way out..."

The key difference is that the sea pens would be built in the ocean, and they could be built in practically any size, and could be made much, much larger than the previous beluga enclosure, and more suitable for a large animal.

I also said this though, which I think is something that really should be addressed.

"From a recent conversation with a VA volunteer however, I was left with the impression that the beluga tank didn't actually have any filter at all inside of the enclosure..."

Can someone please explain this to me? What kind of public aquarium doesn't have at least one filter running in every aquarium, and relies on partial water changes only to dilute the ammonia and other toxins that are produced from their waste and feedings? I would be curious to find out what the ammonia levels were in the water, when the belugas got sick.

---

You can see the tiny black dot in the middle of the medical pens, which are supposed to be an adult orcas, to imagine how large even those relatively small pens would be. If you watch the video where Dr. Visser discusses this, you'll notice that she also proposes that these animals could be viewed by the public, and that the money charged could go towards rescue and rehabilitation of wild animals, which would be kept in the outermost pens.










Here's the link again, if you're curious: Shocking Plans Reveal Motivation in Push for Sea Pens - It Is Brilliant! - Candace Calloway Whiting
-

VIDEO "Dr. Ingrid Visser at Superpod 4": (Discussion of marine sanctuary plans)






---

Here is the link to the documentary on this subject. If you haven't seen it, you probably should. Love them or hate them, I believe that we all owe it to the other side to at least hear what they have to say.

VANCOUVER AQUARIUM UNCOVERED (FILM)


----------



## Cstar_BC (Sep 24, 2016)

Well good job people , now you really will have to accept that deaths are on your hands . ?

http://globalnews.ca/news/3331833/v...-mean-animals-will-have-to-be-euthanized-dfo/


----------



## fireweed (Jan 7, 2013)

I was at the aquarium last weekend. I love all of their incredible displays, I'd say they are better than when I as a kid dropping by in the 80's. 
But the whales. Belugas, no opinion. They seemed "content" but certainly were incapable of leading a normal life with activities with their massive migrations. Remember these are NOT domestic animals, they are not bred for life in captivity, they are just bred.

But if you think there's any benefit having the young false killer whale there, then go view the poor thing and then make up your mind. As social animals this one is all alone and always will be, the species isn't commonly kept. He was floating near the surface repeatedly bumping his head on a rubber buoy. It was awful to watch. I appreciate where their hearts were when saving this baby whale. But this awful outcome one must question whether it was saved for the whales sake.

And there is also a tiny porpoise calf, all alone. If you know anything about whales you know this baby living alone is probably the saddest thing you will come across. I don't think the poor thing is benefiting from its new life. It has no family. Euthanasia seems harsh. But a long crappy life in solitary confinement?


----------



## fireweed (Jan 7, 2013)

Why stop at whales. There was a shark swimming in complete loops for the half hour I was in that section. Reminded me of brain damage. Perhaps it was sick. Or maybe just went insane. 
It's like sticking an arrowana or sting ray into a 75. It's ..... Selfish. You aren't doing it for the animal, you are simply trying to fill some weird void in your own life and should consider more suitable species. Whales and certain sharks species... The aquarium needs to learn they just can't give them what they need and best leave them in the wild where they can lead normal lives.


----------



## rhennessey (Jul 25, 2014)

interesting fireweed, you seem to have a bipolar attitiude and I am not sure if you considered what you speak of. I guess that you keep aquarium fish and probably a dog or cat and I then wonder where your head is at. You thoughtfully went out and purchased your pets and you then put them in an environment that is definitely not their natural one. The Aquarium did not go out and purchase the harbour porpoise or the false killer whale, they were rescued, rehabilitated and then deemed non releasable by government agencies. To be accurate, the Aquarium has provided a home for these animals and if you think that they should have been euthanized then I wonder what you would do with invalids and other people that are kept in hospice ? Should we euthanize them just because they can't live what you consider a "normal" life?


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 21, 2017)

I have to say on a personal level I am against captured species of whales in the aquarium. I do however fully endorse the aquariums rescue and retain policy. These animals are destined for one thing otherwise, perhaps they do live a lesser existence. That would be hard to argue against, the alternative would be death. Call my greedy but if we can glean some understanding from the captivity of animals that would be euthanized otherwise, or for that matter education and lastly amusement then so be it in my eyes. I'm not about to release my dog into the woods or my fish into the lake but that is just my opinion. It would be amazing if every animal that came into the marine rescue at the aquarium could be remedied and released back into their natural habitat, this is unfortunately not possible. Godspeed a reasonable and rational solution to this problem.


----------



## Cstar_BC (Sep 24, 2016)

I feel you have outlined why it is so vital they continue to Learn from these animals . A false killer whale has never been kept - but now not only have they raised Chester they can learn vocalisations among other vital information that can help protect and understand the rest of the species .

You liken the shark in the tank to an Arowana in a 75 , but an arowana in a 1000gallon is still a mere fraction of its natural habitat - so what are you getting at? Confinement is only deemed acceptable if it falls within realms "you" are happy with ? 

Then who is to decide what is abuse and what is an adequate life . Who is to decide that Chester does not enjoy life . Maybe Chester has favourite members of staff that enrich his life and he views them as family and when they are away he feels their loss and so bobs against a buoy . 

But I digress - I can not project human emotions to a whale. I can not even say that he feels joys or despair. I can not tell you that my dog , or cat , or tank of discus and corys and plecos enjoy their life . They perk up when I'm in the room, when I spend time with them and definitely when I feed them - but are they happy ?!! Well maybe my dog is...


----------



## fireweed (Jan 7, 2013)

I guess to be more clear, go visit Chester, spend some time and watch what he's up to. Banging his head on a rubber buoy. All day. If that's ok with you, then I guess we must agree to disagree. 
It's a complicated issue basically all within the 'grey'. 
Don't call me bipolar. Don't judge me. If you only value your own opinions then perhaps don't frequent forums as they are a great place to hear differing opinions. No attacks needed.


----------



## joeyk (May 30, 2016)

It might be an unpopular opinion, but I am pro-cetaceans at the Vancouver Aquarium. 

From what I understand, all of their cetaceans are rescued, rehabilitated, and deemed unfit to return to the wild. While this is obviously an unfortunate situation, it is very different than actively seeking to acquire otherwise healthy specimens from the wild. Something I would have a much harder time supporting, especially with the conservation status of many of these beautiful animals. 

There would be significantly less public knowledge, compassion, and awareness about these animals without a few of them being kept in captivity. Not to mention the scientific knowledge gained about these animals by having the ability to study them in a controlled environment. That scientific knowledge can potentially be used to bolster, protect, and ensure the continued survival of wild populations. 

TL;DR I would rather see an animal kept in captivity and used to both educate the public and further scientific knowledge than be euthanized or left to die in the wild.


----------



## Cstar_BC (Sep 24, 2016)

I'm sorry you feel attacked . That is not the intent . My statement was merely to promote further thought. More in depth critical thinking. 

I love people who question things , but to simply base arguments that are affecting the lives of cetaceans and those that need rescuing on emotion is detrimental. Not to me , people are allowed to have an opinion , but when hundreds of people push an opinion based on emotion - it's not the people that suffer the consequences.


----------



## dino (Aug 29, 2011)

I believe its just absolutely hypocritical to bash the aquarium for keeping animals when that's exactly what we do. most of the animals we keep have been plucked from their natural habitat.


----------



## fireweed (Jan 7, 2013)

That is true, near all salt and a surprising amount of fresh are WC. 
I struggle with the ethics and tend to keep smaller species in larger tanks where they can school and live in a naturescape but I grew up with blue gravel/plastic plants like everyone. 

Fyi, besides the two rescue whale/dolphins at the aquarium, the belugas were WC (they had several calves but I believe all died from unknown causes). 
The orcas were all WC, they also I believe had a calf or two that died. I remember being at a show as a kid right after Hyack died in his late 20's. VA claimed old age. Turns out they can live to 100 in the wild! That always bugged me. 

I love all animals, have had captive and WC critters around me whole life. Fish, reptiles, house pets and farm animals. And I love going to the aquarium, what I learned there as a kid is likely why I care greatly for conservation. I've travelled to the Amazon/Antarctica for the love of seeing animals in the wild. But when I see an animal suffering due to loneliness, I'm calling it what it is. Watch some planet earth docs on whales and dolphins, their languages/dialects and family life. Then, go to the VA and watch what's going on with the whales. They are doing their best, the best vets and the best habitat they can handle with a misinformed parks board. If I came across a stranded calf the VA is who I'd call. But go look at Chester, his life sucks so bad. It's complicated. 
I'd be 100% for rehabbing at the aquarium and then penning off a bay along the coast so they can live out their life if can't be released. But in a concrete tank? Not ok imo.


----------



## Livyding (Feb 6, 2013)

fireweed said:


> That is true, near all salt and a surprising amount of fresh are WC.
> I struggle with the ethics and tend to keep smaller species in larger tanks where they can school and live in a naturescape but I grew up with blue gravel/plastic plants like everyone.
> 
> Fyi, besides the two rescue whale/dolphins at the aquarium, the belugas were WC (they had several calves but I believe all died from unknown causes).
> ...


That's correct. They have taken plenty of cetaceans from the wild, and only stopped when they were ordered to.

"1. VanAqua's belugas were captured from the wild

Although it's common belief that all the Aquarium's cetaceans were rescued, VanAqua captured belugas from the wild near Churchill Manitoba in 1990. Beluga captures were so violent that the Canadian government soon after outlawed the practice. The beluga shown on the left suffered serious injuries from the ropes used during capture, and so being unwanted for public display, was simply released to fend for itself.

2. VanAqua still supports wild capture

VanAqua likes to claim it was the first aquarium to agree to not capture cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises,etc) from the wild. The truth is that this policy is a city bylaw that they agreed to only when faced with the threat of an all-out ban on cetacean captivity. However, this hasn't stopped them from supporting others that still take animals from the wild. Blockbuster revelations in the Georgia Straight revealed that VanAqua supported the Georgia Aquarium's application to import 18 wild-caught belugas from Russia.. VanAqua is now preparing to manage the L'Oceanografic marine park in Valencia, Spain, which has one of the largest collections of wild-caught dolphins in Europe..." --- #VanAquaFacts ---

And yes, there have been lots of premature deaths.

"Past Belugas:

Kavna was estimated to be around 46 years of age at the time of her death on August 6, 2012. Cancerous lesions found on her reproductive tract may have contributed to her death.[21] She was distinguishable from the other belugas by the fact that she was the whitest, due to her age.

Nanuq, a male beluga who was around 31 years old. Nanuq was Qila's father and was on breeding loan to SeaWorld since July 1997 until 2015 when he died of a jaw infection.

Tuaq was born to Kavna and an unknown wild beluga in 1977 but sadly died 4 months later due to malnutrition and a bacterial infection.

Tuvaq was born to Aurora and Imaq in 2002 but died unexpectedly in 2005.

Nala was also born to Aurora and Imaq in 2009 but died a year after due to foreign objects found inside her respiratory tract.

Tiqa was born in 2008 to Qila and Imaq and was the first 3rd generation beluga to be born at the aquarium. She died in 2011 due to pneumonia and heart failure..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Aquarium#Controversy
-

"Kavna, the Vancouver Aquarium's first beluga whale, was captured pregnant in the wild and came to the aquarium in 1976, giving birth in 1977 to a calf who died at four months old. Kavna herself died at the aquarium in August 2012 of cancer...

Two male belugas, Nanuq and Imaq, were taken from Hudson Bay in the 1980s and brought to the aquarium. Nanuq would go on to sire Qila, the first beluga born in captivity. Qila's mother, Aurora, was taken from the wild at about age three in 1990. Aurora gave birth to a second calf, Tuvaq, in 2002. Tuvaq died three years later.

Qila herself gave birth to a calf, Tiqa, in June 2008, fathered by Imaq. Tiqa died in September 2011 of an infection. Imaq would go on to father a calf in 2009 with Qila's mother, Aurora. That calf, Nala, died a year later, with stones and a coin blocking her larynx.

Nanuq was moved to Orlando Seaworld in 1997 for breeding purposes, where he died in February 2015 of a broken jaw suffered in an encounter with other animals. He was 31 or 32 years old.

Imaq was moved in 2011 on breeding loan to SeaWorld San Antonio, Texas. A calf he sired there died at three weeks old in July 2015."

http://vancouversun.com/g00/news/local-news/gene-pool-vancouvers-beluga-whales-over-the-years


----------



## Livyding (Feb 6, 2013)

I have mixed feelings on this also, and I would love to be able to go back to the Vancouver Aquarium, but I just can't support them anymore. If any of you visited after a death of a calf, I'm sure that you also will never forget the sound that the mother made. It was the most horrible thing I've ever heard, and it'll haunt me for the rest of my life.

I don't hate the Vancouver Aquarium, despite everything, and I don't want to see them go out of business, but I feel that they are making a huge mistake by keeping the marine mammals in swimming pools (and the mammals aren't the only ones that are in tanks that are much too small). Pointing fingers and trying to paint the park board as villains who only want to see cetaceans euthanized is not going to get them what they want.

If you guys have been following the comments in the various articles which have been published on this subject, you must have noticed how angry people are already. If the Park Board haven't begun receiving death threats already, I'm sure they'll start to get them soon enough.

Building more concrete pools and fish tanks isn't going to satisfy the people on the other side of this fight though. The people in charge at the VA need to give up this idea. It's just not going to happen. Pointing fingers and fanning the flames of anger and resentment is just going to make this thing uglier and uglier. We need to work to find a solution that we can all live with, even if no one gets exactly what they want. This isn't about some ideological victory. There are living, feeling creatures who are paying the price, as we sit here and debate what's right and wrong.

We all care about the animals and I believe that we would all like to see things improve, even if the improvement is marginal. I know that the people in charge at the VA aren't happy with the way they are housing the marine mammals. They wouldn't have applied over and over to build new enclosures, if they weren't aware that there are problems with the current arrangement, and they wouldn't be going to the lengths that they are now, to stir up resentment towards the park board, if they didn't feel that the situation is critical.

Yes, there are some people who have extreme views, who feel that any sort of captivity is a fate worse than death, but there are also people with what some may consider to be an extreme view, that wild cetaceans should be kept in swimming pools for their entire lives, if they can't return to the wild. I think that most of us fall somewhere in between, and we're the ones who need to meet in the middle, and work on figuring out what to do.

From a conversation that I had with a volunteer from the VA, the main objection to sea pens seemed to be exposure to toxins in the ocean, and exposure to pathogens, (from wild animals to captive animals and vice versa) and lack of circulation, and I don't see why the modified sea pens with closed off quarantine/medical pens, with filtration systems incorporated, couldn't address those concerns.

If you haven't seen the video where Dr. Ingrid Visser speaks about her proposed plans for the sea pen sanctuary system which includes what appear to be closed medical pens, I would really recommend at least watching it before making up your mind one way or another. I understand that it's not a simple solution, and that there would be a lot of barriers to overcome, but if hardly anyone knows that it's even a possibility, what chance do we stand of making it a reality? --- 



 --- http://www.seeker.com/first-sea-sanctuary-for-whales-dolphins-considered-1770159890.html --- Could Vancouver be home to the first sea sanctuary for cetaceans? | Vancouver Observer

As for Chester the false killer whale, there are some problems with the idea of moving him to a sea pen sanctuary. For one, his species is apparently from a warmer climate, and he would be vulnerable to hypothermia in an unheated ocean pen, but I believe that the medical/quarantine pens wouldn't actually be directly in contact with the ocean any more than the ex-beluga enclosures were, (water taken from the Burrard Inlet, filtered on the way to the beluga tank, then filtered again, on the way out), so I don't see why they couldn't simply heat the water, the way they are doing currently, but I understand that there may be a lot of other factors to consider, and that it may not be as simple as I imagine. It may well be that he'd be better off being transported to another facility, if he can't be moved to a larger, more suitable environment here in BC.

I was also under the impression that false killer whales were social species, like all cetaceans, and that social species have an innate need to be with their own species, not just with other cetaceans. If this is true, don't you think it would be better for him to be transported to some other location where he could be with other false killer whales? I don't see how it could be considered humane to deprive a social animal of any contact with its own species, but then again, I'm not an expert, and besides, from what I've read at least, there don't seem to be any members of his species left in captivity in North America at all.

There will apparently be the world's first sea pen sanctuary system in the world made by the Baltimore Aquarium, which is aiming to be built within the next several years, however, and the Baltimore Aquarium will be keeping several dolphins in large sea pens, so I think that might turn out to be a much more suitable environment for Chester, if it isn't possible to house him with his own species, to at least keep him in the ocean with a large group of somewhat closely related cetaceans.

--- For Dolphins, a Bold Decision by the National Aquarium

As far as research goes, it seems to me that research done on animals in large sea pens would have a lot more potential to benefit wild populations than research done on stressed and sickly ones, living in concrete swimming pools, and I don't see any reason why viewing these animals in a non-invasive way should be any less educational to the public than viewing them in pools.


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

Sounds like the ban is a done deal - the Aquarium gets to keep its current three cetaceans, but no more can be brought in.

See: Park Board votes to ban cetaceans at Vancouver Aquarium - NEWS 1130


----------



## rhennessey (Jul 25, 2014)

That's a lot of cut and paste from the internet.... i find it hard to believe anything coming from the mouth of someone who keeps the following in a cage. 
90G Cleithracara maronii, Farlowella vitatta, Corydoras (arcuatus, julii, loxonus), Ancistrus (Calico, leucistic/L144, silvertip), Hypancistrus sp. (L340 / "Mega Clown")
75G Ambystoma mexicanum (Melanistic, golden albino, white albino, silver eyed leucistic, black eyed leucistic, wild type)
30G Procambarus alleni ("Electric Blue")
10G Neocaridina sp. ("Red Cherry"), Planorbis sp. (Red, Pink, Golden, Blue), Tylomelania sp. (Stripes)
10G Hymenochirus boettgeri, Betta splendens (Crown tail)
Your words on cetaceans in captivity are very hard to read without four letter words coming to my mind. But I will let it settle on the one word that is most appropriate-Hypocrite.


----------



## davefrombc (Apr 21, 2010)

I won't get into name calling but one member posting in here has to give his head a shake if he thinks the parks board did the right thing ..... Reality check .... Mother cetaceans have just as strong a reaction when they lose a calf in the wild as they do if one dies in the aquarium... and believe it or not , the calf has a better chance of living to adulthood in the aquarium than in the wild; as long as some idiot PETA type doesn't poison them in the warped thinking that he is "saving" them. I hope the Aquarium takes the parks board to court over this.. I would like to see the aquarium property split off from the park board and be administered by a separate board that actually understands aquariums and marine life research. The park would very quickly run into financial trouble without the revenue from the aquarium. There is not a whole lot there to justify the excessive parking fees for anyone visiting there for anything else .


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

Another alternative would be for the Parks Board to not renew the lease for the aquarium and then take over its management directly. I remember when I was a kid in the 1970's it was called the "Vancouver Public Aquarium". Somewhere along the line the "public" got dropped from the name. There was a lot of controversy some years back about the Aquarium not releasing the salaries of its senior management. My guess is the City of Vancouver could make a lot of money if it took over the direct management of the aquarium. They could then farm out the research aspects of the facility to UBC perhaps? Kind of radical, but then so is the banning of cetaceans.


----------



## davefrombc (Apr 21, 2010)

stratos said:


> Another alternative would be for the Parks Board to not renew the lease for the aquarium and then take over its management directly. I remember when I was a kid in the 1970's it was called the "Vancouver Public Aquarium". Somewhere along the line the "public" got dropped from the name. There was a lot of controversy some years back about the Aquarium not releasing the salaries of its senior management. My guess is the City of Vancouver could make a lot of money if it took over the direct management of the aquarium. They could then farm out the research aspects of the facility to UBC perhaps? Kind of radical, but then so is the banning of cetaceans.


Actually , I would like to see the UBC look into establishing an aquarium and cetacean research facility on their endowment lands and let the Vancouver Parks people have their lands back. They obviously aren't interested in facts , only in appeasing the PETA types that have infiltrated their ranks.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 21, 2017)

This whole thing is just a silly mess. No one can ever win when people's emotions overrule their good sense. I don't personally care if people are for or against cetations in captivity, doesn't really make one lick of difference to me. What irks me about this story is the fact that they are removing the RESCUE side of the operation. It's OK to rescue and rehabilitate every species of animal of this earth of ours, but somehow marine mammals are off limits?? There are countless deer, raccoons and bears that are rescued and rehabilitated every year, the ones that cannot be released back into their natural habitat are either culled or placed in sanctuary or a zoo. Most I assume are culled when it comes to larger predatory species, not up to hearts to decide but cold and calculated guidelines outlined with the best intentions of the animals and human population in mind. We cannot ask the animals what they want, they cannot communicate it to us, by I have good money on LIVE!


----------



## The Guy (Nov 26, 2010)

Yes the rescue part is what I think should continue, why is the vancouver council having a say in that part of the aquarium topic anyway, I don't think they thought this through very well at all. Now with this newest turn of events sick or injured animals in the ocean get no help at all and left to die, makes no sense at all.


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

I could be wrong on this, but suppose the rescued cetaceans "accidentally" mate, producing young that could not be released to the wild? And suppose the number of rescued cetaceans was greater than the ability of the aquarium to house them. What then? Sell the rescues to Seaworld where they could end up in trick-shows? I am being a bit sarcastic here, but then again... 

One thing the press hasn't picked up on is the relentless expansion of the aquarium. They just keep growing and growing, expanding the whale tanks every few years. I think the Parks Board wants to put a stop to this endless expansion. As a taxpayer I just hope Vancouverites are getting a good deal for whatever we rent the land out to the Aquarium for. I wish the Aquarium was forced to publish its accounting books for the public to see.


----------



## fireweed (Jan 7, 2013)

I was at the aquarium a few weeks ago and it hasn't really expanded much, just some rearrangement and larger entry/gift shop from what I can see. 
The orca pool has become several habitats for rescues. 
But relentless expansion?


----------



## cgjedi (Nov 11, 2013)

More stupidity by the greenie liberals who won't stop until everyone else is as miserable as they themselves are. They give even granola a bad name.


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

fireweed said:


> I was at the aquarium a few weeks ago and it hasn't really expanded much, just some rearrangement and larger entry/gift shop from what I can see.
> The orca pool has become several habitats for rescues.
> But relentless expansion?


It was only in 2014 they opened their last expansion: Client Validation

Now they have plans for another expansion: http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-aquarium-phasing-out-its-captive-beluga-program

https://www.google.ca/search?q=vanc...rUn_fTAhVLVWMKHdkeD-cQsAQIMQ&biw=1280&bih=800

I remember 20 years ago a lot of people were upset by the aquarium wanting to expand almost all the way down to Lumberman's Arch. The public put a stop to that, but the Aquarium was allowed to expand its footprint to the west. At the time I remember the Aquarium saying "That's it. We won't expand any more!". 

The Aquarium is all about business and tourism now. It is "infotainment" and an economic generator. I have no problem with that, but again I just hope the city is getting a fair slice of the $$$ pie. And maybe it is time to say "enough is enough" as far as their development goes, and their keeping of whales. Either that or say to hell with it and relocate the PNE there and put in a world class theme park with a super high roller-coaster that provides views of English Bay. I am sure that would pack in even more tourists! :bigsmile:


----------



## fireweed (Jan 7, 2013)

Some of us work in tourist driven industries and directly see the benefits of tourist dollars. 
And all of us benefit from taxes. 
As mentioned I don't like seeing even rescued whales in captivity as that alone if for the benefit of busybodies and bleeding hearts and yes even profit, but again as mentioned the aquarium does a tonne of work with conservation and education and as with everything a compromise should be considered.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

Any ban by the current Parks Board, from what I heard on the news a few days ago, may be reversed by future Parks Board directors if they vote to allow whales for rescue purposes.


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

Off to court we go: Vancouver Aquarium takes legal action over park board cetacean ban | Vancouver Sun


----------



## Livyding (Feb 6, 2013)

davefrombc said:


> I won't get into name calling but one member posting in here has to give his head a shake if he thinks the parks board did the right thing ..... Reality check .... Mother cetaceans have just as strong a reaction when they lose a calf in the wild as they do if one dies in the aquarium... and believe it or not , the calf has a better chance of living to adulthood in the aquarium than in the wild; as long as some idiot PETA type doesn't poison them in the warped thinking that he is "saving" them. I hope the Aquarium takes the parks board to court over this.. I would like to see the aquarium property split off from the park board and be administered by a separate board that actually understands aquariums and marine life research. The park would very quickly run into financial trouble without the revenue from the aquarium. There is not a whole lot there to justify the excessive parking fees for anyone visiting there for anything else .


Out of ten calves born at the Vancouver Aquarium, all ten are dead. Are you saying that all ten of these were murdered by some deranged individual who somehow knew that there would be no security or video footage of the enclosure? Even in the populations of cetaceans which have been devastated by high levels of noise pollution, like the St. Lawrence belugas, which everyone loves to point to as proof of how belugas are only supposed to live to 30 years of age, the survival rate is better than that, even though they have to deal with a hostile environment. Also, have you read the list of the various causes of death? Bacterial infection? Choking on pennies? How could that be the result of anything other than negligence on the part of the keepers?


----------



## Livyding (Feb 6, 2013)

*edit: double post*


----------



## Livyding (Feb 6, 2013)

rhennessey said:


> That's a lot of cut and paste from the internet.... i find it hard to believe anything coming from the mouth of someone who keeps the following in a cage.
> 90G Cleithracara maronii, Farlowella vitatta, Corydoras (arcuatus, julii, loxonus), Ancistrus (Calico, leucistic/L144, silvertip), Hypancistrus sp. (L340 / "Mega Clown")
> 75G Ambystoma mexicanum (Melanistic, golden albino, white albino, silver eyed leucistic, black eyed leucistic, wild type)
> 30G Procambarus alleni ("Electric Blue")
> ...


My problem is with the conditions that the animals are living in, not with the Vancouver Aquarium itself. If you have a criticism regarding the way my own animals are being kept, I'd be happy to hear it. I'm always interested in improving my standards of care. If your objection is to me criticizing the inhumane treatment of the cetaceans, considering the fact that I have aquatic pets, then I think you might have missed the point. I want the cetaceans to be kept in captivity, here in BC. I just want to see them kept in a way that they can be healthy and comfortable. Dr. Lori Marino did a presentation on this topic when she came to Vancouver recently. I would highly recommend that you watch it, if you want to be able to have a constructive conversation on this topic. ---


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

So the whales are gone. According to this article, Douglas Coupland of "Generation X" fame is going to do a major conceptual art piece at the aquarium, high-liting plastic pollution in the oceans; they are also putting in a major arctic exhibit with walruses and other arctic species:

https://biv.com/article/2018/02/cor...d-construction-new-arctic-gallery-set-attract



> *Vancouver Aquarium sees bright post-cetacean future*
> By Glen Korstrom | February 6, 2018, 8:08am
> 
> *The Vancouver Aquarium is building a permanent Arctic gallery and is readying for an exhibit in May that Douglas Coupland designed | Chung Chow*
> ...


----------

