-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Lou the manatee and three dolphins being relocated from EPCOT
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
@Haymarket Disagreeing with people who are experts in a field is weird and extreme when you are not an expert in the field. Calling someone weird and sickening because you do not like what they believe in when they are trying to do well for animals is a bit different then what you tried to quote.
Last edited:
zipadee999
Well-Known Member
As much as I support animal rehab centers that allow the public to enjoy and respect recovering marine life that they normally wouldn’t get to encounter, I never thought the Seas was the best place for mammals. I always had a tough time with the idea that those dolphins never got to see the sun. Especially for a pelagic, surface-dwelling species, they’re meant to constantly be in the sun when in the wild. The fish are fine because sunlight is not present in ways that the Seas can’t recreate in their natural range, but for dolphins who live right at the surface and are intelligent, social creatures, they really need to be in an outdoor rehab enclosure that at least gives them the vitamin D they need
A nice thought but a danger on feeling vs facts with this final statement
This post dangerously insinuated they don't get the vitamin D they need.
Go ahead and look up the best source of Vitamin D. Or I will save you the time, it is Fish. The things Dolphins eat.
No EPCOT Dolphin has been low on Vitamin D.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
True they may not need it for Vitamin D but captivity in general has led to a lot of depressive behaviors in many dolphins, orcas, whales, bears, elephants, gorillas, many big cats, etc.
I do think it can be done right for some species however, large sea life doesn't fall into that category. We just can't provide an environment to mimic the real thing they evolved to exist in. A smaller animal that dens and doesn't like to roam? Sure. We can do that if it is done well and in a way that the animal experiences no detrimental effects. A dolphin that wants to travel 50+ miles a day in large groups? No, we just can't really pull that off despite our best efforts.
Some leeway should certainly be given when we are talking about recuses that cannot be returned to nature for legit reasons, but the goal should ALWAYS be a return to the wild and even more so when we are talking about a species that we physically can't provide an equivalent natural environment for.
That is a separate argument from Vitamin D that is a nicely proposed argument that can, should and does go case by case. You also have to look at the locations case by case and what was provided. Can you cite many depression cases in many AZA accredited facilities? There are many animals that respected facilities to make those calls on But it is not just based on size of animal alone as that would not reflect its needs. there is the MMPA and committees of experts that actually make these decisions.
There is a reason Sea World Orlando has Manta, Mako as their coaster themes. They can't have a Mako in Captivity with facilities. It is not based on sentient or not, or intelligence at all but how the animal would thrive. And same for Manta Rays. And of course they are not mammals.
There are certainly large mammals that do great in husbandry, rehabilitation and lifelong captivity.
Certain Killer Whales(a member of the Dolphin family) are actually one of them.
Last edited:
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
We don’t have to squabble about this one. The director of the National Aquarium, who is far more qualified than any of us in this regard, has acknowledged that dolphins shouldn’t be kept in the sorts of conditions found at Epcot and other entertainment venues, which is why the dolphins under his charge are being relocated to a sanctuary. What’s left to argue?
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
This just isn’t true.
They are. Largest of the Dolphin family actually.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Agreed. It was meant to be separate.
True, size does not always matter but the larger an animal is, the harder and more expensive it is to provide a realistic equivalent.
For example, (and I fully admit up front that this is an extreme example to make the point) we can create a nice, natural habitat much easier and cheaper for a common skink that only roams about 100 meters a year vs. dolphins that migrate 1000s of miles a year. Sure, we can make a tank big enough for a group of dolphins to swim around, and we have gotten MUCH better at recognizing distress from captivity and alleviating it (at least at the more responsible facilities) but it is no where near the same as a natural habitat they would experience in the wild.
There are likely members of any species that could do well in lifelong captivity. More so if they have never known anything else, but I would be willing to bet that isn't the norm or even close to common for a species like Killer Whales or dolphins.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I’m not disputing that they’re dolphins. I’m disagreeing with your claim that they “do great” in captivity. They don’t.
Because EPCOT is a very different environment from thousands of things around. Ever been to the National Aquarium? They have Dolphins.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Yes, and the director in charge of them agrees it’s not a suitable environment for them. That’s why they’re being relocated to a sanctuary.
We don't need to mimic entire rivers of 50 miles or the entire Ocean. Dolphins at many great facilities have pods and have their needs met. The traveling 50 miles you mention happen due to changing temperatures of waters for migration and survival of food and avoiding being hunted or polluted environments. A well designed habitat with care teams don't have these issues.
Since we are going with extreme examples for scale. Your backyard does not need to mimic the entire distance your canine animal would roam. The backyard and stimulation meets his needs.
Last edited:
Being built by the National Aquarium, in the human care. Captivity with human parameters. More akin to facilities at many marine life parks, just a larger scale. (This new facilitiy will have more dolphins. They will also be preventing pregnancies. So there is plenty of arguable intervention. It is a form of captivity. It just goes back to what we said earlier, that facilities should indeed improve and develop with science. It is still a habitat, just a prototype for a better one. No argument.
zipadee999
Well-Known Member
I’m not doubting that they’re physically fit and healthily sufficient on vitamins, I was just getting at the fact that natural sunlight probably makes for healthier dolphins. I always love looking at the Epcot dolphins and can feel how much the staff loves and cares for them, I just think that outdoor enclosures are probably healthier
Probably. If nothing else why not? But stating they they can get the vitamin D they have have been needing was just a thing that was an unfounded claim.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
No-one is suggesting they should be released into the wild; that would be impossible. The sanctuary isn’t meant as a prototype for future forms of captivity; it’s essentially a retirement home for a final generation of captive dolphins. Even SeaWorld announced in 2016 that the current generation of orcas in their parks would be their last. When the industry itself has acknowledged its own obsolescence, there isn’t much room for debate.
There are many things not true about this. There will be MMPA rescues and needs at many other facilities. Breeding and having Dolphins in Captivity are different things.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Rescued dolphins are a separate matter. The vast majority of animals in captivity (including dolphins) aren’t rescues. The days of dolphins and whales being captured and bred purely for human entertainment are thankfully numbered—and the industry itself has acknowledged as much.