Imagine that you’ve experienced a significant trauma, like a car accident.
You are taken to a hospital, where the hospital finds that you require emergency care and a prolonged rehabilitation with physical and occupational therapy.
After two and a half years, you can finally walk again, and you are able to resume your normal life.
But imagine that the hospital staff, instead of discharging you, claims that you must stay in the hospital indefinitely because the decision about your future was made at the two-year mark and that there is nothing mandating that your condition be re-evaluated.
Imagine that during those two years of rehabilitation, the hospital staff, instead of teaching you how to feed yourself, insisted on spoon-feeding you your every meal. Imagine that the food they fed you wasn’t anything you’d ever eaten, but was merely what the hospital insisted on providing. And, to add insult to injury, imagine that you could have fed yourself, but that the decision to spoon-feed you was based on nothing to do with you as an individual, but was based purely on hospital policy and practice, a practice that was a function of cost, convenience to and, perhaps, an ulterior motive of the institution, rather than a decision based upon your well-being.
That is the life of many stranded marine mammals, especially cetaceans.
So, there are several questions:
- Who makes the recommendations and determinations regarding the releasability of stranded marine mammals?
- What are the criteria of releasability and are these criteria being followed?
- When is this decision made?
- Once made, can the decision be changed (or is the deck stacked against release)?
Who? For marine mammals who have the (mis)fortune of becoming stranded and rescued in the United States, it is up to NOAA to determine whether they can be released to the wild. The criteria for “releasability” are not well-defined in regulation and, like many federal programs, are better-defined in guidance issued by the agency. NOAA’s guidance on releasability provides more detail, where it states that it is not NOAA that actually performs the evaluation or makes the recommendation, but rather,
The attending veterinarian and their Assessment Team (i.e., veterinarians, lead animal care supervisor, and/or consulting biologist with knowledge of species behavior and life history) representing the Stranding Network Participant, Designee, or 109(h) Stranding Participant will assess the animal and make a written recommendation for release or non-release.
Part if not much of the team performing the evaluation and making the recommendation to NOAA is often occupied by SeaWorld staff. NOAA reviews the written recommendation and uses it to make its determination. Contrast that with the trainer message in the SeaWorld video below, where the trainer seems to go to great lengths to suggest to its paying audience that NOAA, without assistance from SeaWorld or others in the network, makes the recommendation to keep marine mammals at SeaWorld.
What? The evaluation criteria in the guidance states that “[b]ehavioral clearance also should include confirmation that the cetacean is able to recognize, capture, and consume live prey when such tests are practical” and that “[b]asic behavioral conditioning of wild cetaceans for husbandry and medical procedures may be necessary during rehabilitation as long as every effort is made to limit reinforced contact with humans.” In contrast with the guidance, the predominance of husbandry and maintaining human contact are evidenced in the SeaWorld video below, where the trainer states to the audience, “So, we teach [Fredi] lots of behaviors. A lot of the behaviors we first started teaching her are called “husbandry” behaviors.”
When? Further, releasability is a determination that is conducted no later than six months after a stranding, continued, theoretically, during the remainder of the first two years after the event, and effectively terminated after two years. In your case, as with marine mammals, if the “hospital” has you at two years, they likely have you for life. Especially if they never teach you how to feed yourself.
Meet Fredi, Ace, Ava, and Piper. They stranded in separate events. Fredi stranded in 2011 and Ace, Ava and Piper stranded in 2012. They were all deemed unreleasable by NOAA on recommendation by, you guessed it.
This is a video of the event in which Ace, Ava and Piper and members of their pod stranded on a beach in Fort Pierce, Florida.
Ave, Ace and Piper, as Fredi before them, were turned over to SeaWorld.
See how they were doing in 2013. And how SeaWorld wants to “invite you all back over the next days, weeks, months, and years, to come back to see how these guys are growing, and learned over time, because hopefully, one day you’ll see these four pilot whales do their own segment in the Blue Horizons show.”
I think I can hear you, thinking, along with many others who are becoming aware of the many secrets of the aquarium industry, that it is less than clear that SeaWorld, as part of its rehabilitation program, made any effort to teach Fredi, Ava, Ace and Piper to catch their own fish. And doesn’t it suggest that SeaWorld did not follow NOAA guidance in its program?
It’s hard to know. Obtaining documents through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (whining here) isn’t always successful, especially if your fact-finding is constrained by being able to afford the cost of the request.
A change is clearly needed that will end the deck-stacking in favor of “unreleasability.” And that change will likely come only if we insist that the deck should not be stacked, it should be neutral, and cetaceans should be taught to hunt, with husbandry used only to administer procedures beneficial to the once-free, now captive marine mammals.
But if the deck should be stacked at all, shouldn’t it stacked in favor of freedom? Just as with your car wreck, cetaceans no more than you should have to worry about becoming victims of a system that spoon-feeds, and then blames the one injured for it.
What you can do:
- Specify that if the institution who will be receiving the marine mammal is part of the display industry, it is not a member of the review and recommendation team (or a more straightforward but also more dramatic change – and one I like better – would be to remove all members of the display industry from being part of the review teams).
- Specify the behaviors that must be taught, if practicable, including a requirement that natural feeding behaviors be taught during rehabilitation, with a directive to remove the animal if there is no effort to teach natural behaviors, like feeding and hunting.
- Require that the two-year “rebuttable presumption” be removed in favor of a neutral evaluation of the animal at each independent time period.
- Require that reports of the rehabilitation agencies be made publicly available on NOAA’s website (rather than enduring the – ugh – FOIA process).