News Lou the manatee and three dolphins being relocated from EPCOT

C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
LittleBuford said:
Epcot is no place for dolphins. The story of how they came to be there in the first place is pretty shocking by today’s standards. That said, I’m not convinced that they’ll be much better off at another amusement park.
Click to expand...

What would convince you that a Zoological establishment would be a good place for their remaining years?
 
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
celluloid said:
What would convince you that a Zoological establishment would be a good place for their remaining years?
Click to expand...
It’s primarily a place for human entertainment, as the website makes clear. Nothing would convince me that it’s appropriate to keep dolphins in such an environment, even if I acknowledge that it may be a step up from their current circumstances at Epcot.
 
Coaster Lover

Coaster Lover

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I know the National Aquarium is working on creating a dolphin sanctuary (basically, a sectioned off cove which allows the dolphins to be in a natural environment but sectioned off from being fully in the "wild"). I believe the hope this that not only will the National Aquarium dolphins be moved here, but others from other aquariums when it is available:

https://aqua.org/support/dolphin-sanctuary
 
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Stupido said:
Yeah, I always felt really uncomfortable with the Dolphins in captivity. I actually avoided the entire seas pavilion because of it. This is a very welcomed change for me.
Click to expand...
I don't know the stories of these particular dolphins, but there are plenty in capacity that are rescues with no ability to re-release. Rescues and endangered animals are two very good reasons (and maybe the only two) for some animals to exist in captivity permanently, IMO.

And that doesn't account for the ones there temporarily to rehabilitate. I believe they had a juvenile manatee in Epcot for this reason just recently...
 
V

V_L_Raptor

Well-Known Member
Coaster Lover said:
I know the National Aquarium is working on creating a dolphin sanctuary (basically, a sectioned off cove which allows the dolphins to be in a natural environment but sectioned off from being cruelly in the "wild"). I believe the hope this that not only will the National Aquarium dolphins be moved here, but others from other aquariums when it is available:

https://aqua.org/support/dolphin-sanctuary
Click to expand...

There was, at least at one time, a plan to prepare this sanctuary somewhere along the Florida coast. I suspect that Florida's ongoing coastal water quality issues, as well as questions of how best to shelter the dolphins in the event of severe tropical weather, have put an indefinite hold on that move.
 
V

V_L_Raptor

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
I don't know the stories of these particular dolphins, but there are plenty in capacity that are rescues with no ability to re-release. Rescues and endangered animals are two very good reasons (and maybe the only two) for some animals to exist in captivity permanently, IMO.

And that doesn't account for the ones there temporarily to rehabilitate. I believe they had a juvenile manatee in Epcot for this reason just recently...
Click to expand...

Rescued animals that can't be released are one thing. Endangered species are a completely different ballgame, because then you're more likely than not talking about a breeding program. (Bottlenose dolphins aren't listed as endangered.)

Breeding gets to be a thorny issue, because source populations and genetics become important points of discussion -- especially with marine mammals. SeaWorld used to make claims that they could breed animals (yes, including orcas) to reintroduce into the wild, but it doesn't work if the pairing is such that the sire and the dam are from populations that wouldn't interbreed in the wild. When you see animals (any animals!) on SSP's in zoos and aquaria, there is extensive documentation and tracking behind the scenes to make sure that animals released from captive breeding aren't introducing genes that wouldn't have been in the receiving population to begin with. That's part of what makes that work so amazing; on the other hand, it shows pretty clearly if there's a claim beyond the animals' true history. Just saying, "Well, maybe they would meet," wouldn't cut it.
 
StarWarsGirl

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Coaster Lover said:
I know the National Aquarium is working on creating a dolphin sanctuary (basically, a sectioned off cove which allows the dolphins to be in a natural environment but sectioned off from being fully in the "wild"). I believe the hope this that not only will the National Aquarium dolphins be moved here, but others from other aquariums when it is available:

https://aqua.org/support/dolphin-sanctuary
Click to expand...
I think they'll still have their existing area for when they need to rehab dolphins. But it's a much larger area than what the Seas has. It's been a while since I've gone to the aquarium, but I believe it also has natural light.
 
Stupido

Stupido

Well-Known Member
Andrew C said:
I don't know the stories of these particular dolphins, but there are plenty in capacity that are rescues with no ability to re-release. Rescues and endangered animals are two very good reasons (and maybe the only two) for some animals to exist in captivity permanently, IMO.

And that doesn't account for the ones there temporarily to rehabilitate. I believe they had a juvenile manatee in Epcot for this reason just recently...
Click to expand...

There are more options than release unfit animals into the wild to die or keep them in smaller than ideal tanks with no natural sunlight where they're constantly exposed to the public and humans banging on the glass. My friend dragged me on Nemo this summer because she had never experienced it, and I was horrified at how many groups of full blown adults were banging on the glass trying to get the dolphins to come closer.

As mentioned several times in this thread there are sanctuaries that give these animals the ability to live out their lives with their dignity. Creating habitats that are as close to their natural setting where they have as much autonomy as possible should be the baseline. I understand we want to be able to get as close to these animals as possible for our own interest and entertainment, but that's not what's best for these animals.
 
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
V_L_Raptor said:
Rescued animals that can't be released are one thing. Endangered species are a completely different ballgame, because then you're more likely than not talking about a breeding program. (Bottlenose dolphins aren't listed as endangered.)

Breeding gets to be a thorny issue, because source populations and genetics become important points of discussion -- especially with marine mammals. SeaWorld used to make claims that they could breed animals (yes, including orcas) to reintroduce into the wild, but it doesn't work if the pairing is such that the sire and the dam are from populations that wouldn't interbreed in the wild. When you see animals (any animals!) on SSP's in zoos and aquaria, there is extensive documentation and tracking behind the scenes to make sure that animals released from captive breeding aren't introducing genes that wouldn't have been in the receiving population to begin with. That's part of what makes that work so amazing; on the other hand, it shows pretty clearly if there's a claim beyond the animals' true history. Just saying, "Well, maybe they would meet," wouldn't cut it.
Click to expand...
I think many convince themselves that most animals in captivity are endangered, injured, or otherwise vulnerable. That just isn't the case.

Back when the original Epcot (I suppose EPCOT) dolphins were captured, the motivation was undisguised; they were being "collected" for display to Disney park-goers, not for any purposes relating to their own wellbeing:

Dolphins-capture-4559.jpg


ETA: These are not the same dolphins as those currently at Epcot. Four of the six that Sweeney captured died within five years.
 
Last edited:
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Stupido said:
keep them in smaller than ideal tanks with no natural sunlight where they're constantly exposed to the public and humans banging on the glass.
Click to expand...
Understood. That is why my first post here was in support of moving them to an environment more suited to a better standard/quality of living. At no point did I argue for keeping them in their current setup.
 
Q

Quietmouse

Well-Known Member
The whole concept of keeping animals caged up for humans enjoyment to look at is extremely weird.

I understand if it’s a critically endangered species, or has severe health issues where they can’t survive in the wild…but otherwise the concept of animals at zoos (yes that includes animal kingdom) is extreme, extremely weird.
 
Figments Friend

Figments Friend

Well-Known Member
Humans have a natural interest in viewing other life forms they share this planet with.
For many, our first introduction to such life forms is viewing them when we are children In a captive environment.
Zoos, fairs, circuses, aquariums, and the like.

—
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom