Editor’s Note: In pursuit of ONEOCEAN.ORG’s objective to provide an open forum for discussions on coastal and marine environmental issues, we are running below the Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium’s response to environmental and animal welfare groups’ call to “Close down SBME!” . As of press time, SBME’s controversial whale and dolphin show called “Ocean Adventure” continues to operate, despite a cease-and-desist order from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

The Ocean Adventure controversy -- SBME responds:
“A few well-cared-for animals in tanks could save thousands or millions in the sea”
(From a letter from Tim Desmond, Chairman and CEO, Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium (SBME), to Felicito Payumo, Chairman, Subic Bay Management Authority (SBMA) in response to critics of the SBME’s dolphin and whale show.)

e of Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., understand the concerns expressed for whale and dolphin welfare by those opposed to keeping cetaceans for display and education. We share their concerns. We differ with them on how to best care for whales and dolphins as a whole. These groups believe that the best way to protect dolphins is to not keep them in captivity. This position is a reflection of the powerful emotional attachment to individual animals held by many Americans and western Europeans who support animal welfare movements. In fact, we share that emotional attachment with the animals that will come to our Ocean Adventure Park in Subic Bay. We will cry with joy and happiness when they are born, we will watch with pride as they grow. We will worry when they are sick. And we will cry when they die as all living things do.

Where groups such as Earth Island Institute (EII) fall into a distinct minority position is that they believe that the welfare of the individual animal outweighs the need to protect the species and biological diversity as a whole. Because of their emotional investment in the individual, they turn a blind eye to the benefits the display of animals holds for education and conservation purposes.

The ethical basis for our plan for display and educational use of marine mammals is drawn directly from a watershed book on environmental policy called Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation (Smithsonian, 1995). This was, to cite the editors, “a passionate multi-vocal discussion among zoo professional, activists, conservation biologists, and philosophers about the future of zoos and aquariums, the treatment of animals in captivity, and the question of whether the individual, species or eco-system is the most important focus in conservation”. These eminent thinkers attempted to reach consensus on 6 issues over which these groups had battled for years. The issues are the same for a dolphin, as a chimp, as an elephant. Two of the consensus answers that they came up pertain to this discussion. After dealing with these two concerns, I will deal briefly with the final issue raised by EII: that of swimmer safety.

Procurement of Animals

The consensus opinion among these experts was that there were three legitimate reasons to collect wild animals: 1) for a breeding programs; 2) to maintain the genetic or demographic integrity of breeding programs; and 3) to serve other compelling conservation goals (this specifically includes public display for conservation education). The Ocean Adventure marine mammal program adheres to these guidelines exactly including the very specific set of ethical guidelines that they established for acquisitions.

In addition, there is great need for captive breeding and display in Asia and in particular the Philippines. The Philippines is ranked fourth in biodiversity and it has a host of very real threats to the survival of that bio-diversity. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), East Asian Action Plan 1995 plan for the Biology and Conservation of Small Cetaceans and Dugongs of Southeast Asia in 1995 called for establishment of captive breeding of cetaceans. Our program is specifically designed as a breeding program. We put into action exactly what UNEP asked for. This is what EII attacked in 1996.

In 1996, members abused their positions on a PAWB [Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau] citizens review committee [the Intra-Agency Task for on Marine Mammals and the Committee on Animal Welfare] to attack the project. They took information submitted to the panel for review and comment and used it to craft an EII letter-writing campaign to PAWB, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and the Subic Bay Management Authority (SBMA) opposing the project.

We were given no chance to respond to any reservations about our application. All of the agencies then cited that letter writing campaign as a reason for not proceeding with the permit (which was not denied, just not processed). It was no matter that a larger number of positive letters were ultimately received from scientists and other experts from all over the world supporting the permit. It was too late.

This is as clear an example as I have ever seen of an activist usurping the legitimate function of a citizens review committee and using it to implement an activist effort to short circuit legitimate regulatory process. Regardless of our current situation, this circumstance needs the attention of those who oversee and protect the legitimacy of this committee within Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). As far as needing to present anything to this committee, our legal counsel, Chairman Payumo and Secretary Angara of Agriculture and Director Sarmiento of BFAR agreed that all the permits required for our Ocean Adventure project, located in the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, fell under the auspices of SBMA and BFAR and that no review was necessary because none of these animals originate in Philippine waters which is the DENR purview.

Where we differ with those opposed to display of marine mammals is that our actions directly support calls to protect biodiversity and the survival of species through display and captive breeding, and their do not. Some of these calls are specific to the Philippines. In the recently published book Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals (Edited By: John R Twiss Jr. and Randall R Reeves; Smithsonian, 1999), Chapter 13 (“Selected Examples of Small Cetaceans At Risk”) author Bill Perrin gives voice to the belief of the vast majority of people concerned with the environment who disagree with EII.

Under the Section (page 306) entitled “Oceanariums and Whale Watching Offer Important Educational Opportunities and Should Be Encouraged” Dr. Perrin writes “ . . the fact remains that most Peruvians, Sri Lankans and Filipinos have no opportunity to see live cetaceans at close hand; . . . a close encounter with live whales or dolphins can change an individuals perceptions and evoke active concern about marine mammal conservation . . . simply stated a few well-cared-for animals in tanks could save thousands or millions in the sea."

We see the actions of EII and similar groups as extremely damaging to efforts to protect species and bio-diversity.

The final point I want to address in this section is the comment about the source of the animals we are bringing from Beijing. We are deeply offended by the charge that our collection of animals from the Japanese cause drive fisheries to occur. We had other options, but we went to Japan precisely because these were doomed animals (a recommended course of action for responsible acquisition). Japan is a whaling nation. Efforts -- noble efforts -- to educate the Japanese as to the values of those who oppose whaling have not succeeded in changing public opinion enough to affect the law. In fact, Japan and other whaling nations have increased whaling in the last few years. Japan sets limits for the take of whales and dolphins the same as other nations do for fishing. Every whale or dolphin that is taken is gone from the wild and forever lost to the gene pool. The only question is whether they will stay alive or die.

A couple of years ago, a scientist determined that animals caught in the drive fisheries had high levels of toxic chemicals in their meat. The drives were immediately stopped. Aquarium orders for live dolphins were left unfilled -- clear evidence (and there is more) that the Japanese coastal whaling is an activity based on producing food for human consumption. Collection of our animals was a side-product. This was and is the lowest impact way to collect wild animals for public display. These are animals that have already been captured and who are literally minutes from death. Claims to the contrary by EII and others are a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Our current collection plan includes exploring purchase options from animals already in captivity and those that are doomed. We have no plans to collect directly from the wild.

Care of Animals

The second issue is the captive care and maintenance of these animals. The consensus arrived at in the Ethics on the Ark discussion was that those that keep marine mammals must provide a good environment, provide good care, evaluate their mental and physical well-being, enforce standards, and participate in professional efforts to improve standards. Ocean Adventure meets all of these criteria. Our people are experts and recognized pioneers in development of new techniques to improve the care and welfare of land and marine animals. We are long standing members of some of the foremost animal care organizations in the world including the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, International Association for Aquatic Animal Medicine, and the International Association of Marine Animal Trainers Association. We have contributed heavily to the technical advancement of each of these organizations and are recognized as pioneers in the care and management of marine mammals, elephants and primates. Our record speaks for itself.

Regarding survivorship of cetaceans in captivity, the information presented by these groups does more to reveal their philosophical orientation than to accurately present the facts. It was hard to discern which claim was directed at which group in the email circulated by Earth Island Institute. However, it is the pattern of these types of groups, whether by the power of their belief or deliberate misrepresentation, to get the facts wrong while making blanket statements about all marine mammals display facilities. Here are some facts on survivorship of animals All are derived from peer reviewed scientific articles or government publications which can be provided on request.

As to a statement attributed to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) by EII in a newspaper article in Beijing which stated that the mortality rate of captured cetaceans is 60% over 10 years, what they fail to state is the record in the wild. Dr. Randy Wells has been studying a wild population of dolphins in Sarasota, Florida for almost 25 years. It is a classic study on the order of Jane Goodal’s work with chimpanzees. It is the only extensively studied population of wild dolphins where the age of virtually every dolphin in the community is known. His studies revealed that 64% of that wild population died before they were 10 years old.

The Whale Dolphin Conservation Society reported in an article in Beijing that, at Sea World, dolphins survive 25-30 years in captivity and approximately 40 years in the wild. This is typical of the inaccurate information that [our critics] introduce as facts. What they did was compare statistical apples and oranges.

Dr. Wells and Dr. Deborah Duffield, who has extensively studied captive populations of dolphins, and found that the average age for wild dolphins is 13.9 years for males and 14.2 years for females. The average age for dolphins in marine parks (in the US) is 14.9 years for males and 12.7 years for females. The same study reveals that there is no statistically significant difference between the average life span of wild and captive dolphins, which is in the low 20's. The oldest accurately aged dolphin in the wild was 48. I know at least four captive cetaceans who were still alive in their forties. The available scientific information led NMFS to conclude in its environmental impact statement on swim-with-the-dolphin programs "Current data indicates that survival rates in captive dolphins may be similar to and in some cases, possibly better than survival rates in free-ranging dolphins." (Swim With The Dolphin - EIS, pg. 68, 1990).

We are not satisfied with matching survivorship of the wild dolphins or whales or any animal for that matter. We know that they pay a price for being in captivity. The answer, for us, is commitment to making the highest and best use of these animals AND to maximize the quality of their care.

Swimmer Safety

The NMFS EIS cited study ultimately concluded that swim-with-the-programs were safe. These programs are currently authorized under US law. The number of these programs has expanded dramatically worldwide in the last 5 years.

Again, we understand the emotional basis of the concerns of the activists who have contacted you. However, emotion alone does not save animals or protect biological diversity. We believe Earth Island Institute was wrong for attacking our facility in 1996 and wrong for attacking it now. Furthermore, we believe that the Ocean Adventure Park at Subic Bay will play an important role in the Republic of the Philippines coming to terms with its relationship with nature. It will help further educate and motivate the Filipino people to take action to preserve their biological diversity and clean up their environment.

***