3 ms·

On the plus side it seems like they've learned their lesson with this regulation. Instead of shipping off these animals to poorly run facilities, they're just s

On the plus side it seems like they've learned their lesson with this regulation. Instead of shipping off these animals to poorly run facilities, they're just stopping the import of all new animals. I feel fairly mixed about all of this, but if you want to end whale and dolphin exhibits in aquariums then this is probably the best way to go. Let them live out their lives with their peer group and in an environment they are familiar with. I also wonder if they can shift away from the 'orphanage' model to a more 'foster' model by bringing in sick animals, nursing them to health, then releasing them shortly after. Not sure if this is in the cards politically, but it would be a middle ground between traditional aquariums and a total ban. Its important to note many of these animals get to aquariums because they've been injured by humans. We should feel a responsibility to help them if we are the ones hurting them. Washing our hands of this responsibility seems irresponsible to me and justifying it with feel good politics seems highly questionable.

kobeya 9y ago
> I also wonder if they can shift away from the 'orphanage' model to a more 'foster' model by bringing in sick animals, nursing them to health, then releasing them shortly after This is exactly how the Monterey bay aquarium works, fwiw.
- hhw 9y ago
  That is already being done. The Department of Fisheries determines which animals go back to the wild, not VanAqua. The main detriment of this new ban is that now if there is a rescue that cannot realistically be later be returned to the wild after being rehabilitated, it will be necessary to euthanize instead. And this is PETA's intention, they'd rather see an animal euthanized than be in captivity.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Ah yes, the let's-euthanize-the-Jews-instead-of-keeping-them-in-ghettos approach.
allannienhuis 9y ago
'fostering' is exactly what the Vancouver aquarium has been doing for years. We see news stories all the time about them releasing rescued marine animals. The ones that they had been keeping long-term were the ones they determined were not able to survive in the wild. I agree that the 'feel good' politics get in the way of sound decisions by professionals who really do have the best interest of the animals at heart. I really dislike when bystanders reading the daily headlines question the motivations of people who have dedicated their whole lives to understanding and improving the lives of the animals in their care. That's not to say that how things are done should never change and we should never question the professionals or those in authority. But decisions like this really seem like they do more harm than good. Politics and science don't mix well but I guess we don't get much of one without the other, as that's how the bulk of science funding is done...

kobeya 9y ago

> I also wonder if they can shift away from the 'orphanage' model to a more 'foster' model by bringing in sick animals, nursing them to health, then releasing them shortly after This is exactly how the Monterey bay aquarium works, fwiw.

hhw 9y ago
That is already being done. The Department of Fisheries determines which animals go back to the wild, not VanAqua. The main detriment of this new ban is that now if there is a rescue that cannot realistically be later be returned to the wild after being rehabilitated, it will be necessary to euthanize instead. And this is PETA's intention, they'd rather see an animal euthanized than be in captivity.
- kobeya 9y ago
  Ah yes, the let's-euthanize-the-Jews-instead-of-keeping-them-in-ghettos approach.

allannienhuis 9y ago

'fostering' is exactly what the Vancouver aquarium has been doing for years. We see news stories all the time about them releasing rescued marine animals. The ones that they had been keeping long-term were the ones they determined were not able to survive in the wild. I agree that the 'feel good' politics get in the way of sound decisions by professionals who really do have the best interest of the animals at heart. I really dislike when bystanders reading the daily headlines question the motivations of people who have dedicated their whole lives to understanding and improving the lives of the animals in their care. That's not to say that how things are done should never change and we should never question the professionals or those in authority. But decisions like this really seem like they do more harm than good. Politics and science don't mix well but I guess we don't get much of one without the other, as that's how the bulk of science funding is done...