I shall basically be explaining the use of cetaceans in the Navy- how they got them, taught them, kept them and used them- and addressing the ethical issues behind using these animals for such risky and unnatural tasks. I shall then go on to explain the recent phenomenon of dolphin therapy- why it is a myth and yet why it is still so popular. I will then explain the ethical implications regarding the captivity of dolphins for a use that results in no known real cures.
Firstly I will write about the Navy's use of cetaceans, where I will be focusing on the US Navy's use of orcas and dolphins. Pilot whales, false killer whales, porpoises, belugas, seals, sea lions and even sharks have been used too, but I will try and focus on the use of orcas and dolphins, as there is more information regarding them and the ethical questions surrounding them.
In the 1950s, the US Navy realised the potential of using marine mammals in research and training exercises, so created the Marine Mammal Program in 1960. It was created in order to train marine mammals to do all sorts of things to help out the Navy- such as retrieving weapons and protecting ports and Navy bases. They also wanted to research the underwater sonar capabilities of dolphins in order to improve their own weapon retrieval and sonar technology, and also research into how they can swim so fast and deep in order to improve their boat and submarine technology. Dolphins though, were also supposedly used to detect and defend against enemy swimmers in wars such as the Vietnam war and Persian Gulf war, by swimming around stationed ships and making sure no enemy swimmers could swim by and plant bombs. Dolphins were also allegedly trained to attack enemy swimmers in the Vietnam war, but the Navy denies it and there is not much proof, only speculation.
The fact that cetaceans could dive to huge depths without getting the bends or needing specialist equipment made them ideal candidates, so in 1968 the US Navy acquired their first orcas- 2 males named Ishmael and Ahab. The two orcas were part of the J Pod resident orcas in the Pacific Northwest, and were caught along with 3 other members of their pod by the Seattle Public Aquarium. J1, aka Ruffles, was caught at the very same time, but was too big to transfer and so got released. He has only just passed away, proving just how the free life compares to captivity. Once the Navy purchased them, they transferred them to Point Mugu in California to their Navy base, in order to get preliminary training and to be used in physiological research- I will discuss these methods of training later on. After they could perform basic tasks, such as towing a swimmer and allowing their eyes to be covered, they were both transferred to Mugu Lagoon in order to be trained for open-water work and retrieving. After these behaviours were taught, they were eventually transferred to Hawaii, Ahab on October the 22nd 1969, and Ishmael on January the 8th 1970. There they were trained to dive to extreme depths, hence the name Project Deep Ops- Ahab reached 850 metres at one stage. They were also used out in the open ocean, but in 1971 Ishmael swam away during an exercise and was never found. Ahab died in 1974, yet the cause of death was never released, so it could be argued that Ishmael had a lucky escape- as who knows what happened to Ahab to make him die so young- he was only about 15.
Now, the first point to consider here regarding ethics would obviously be the capture of the orcas in the first place, but of course I have gone over and over this issue many a time, so it is easy to say that the US Navy should never have endorsed the live-capture of orcas and other cetaceans. However, capturing is one thing- where they took them and what they did with them is a whole different ballgame all together. Where they took them was of course Hawaii- a place so hot and humid, with an average sea temperature of about 25 degrees- that it is a wonder how the orcas ever acclimatised, as after all where they were taken from was colder and a lot wetter, with a sea temperature of about 7 degrees. This is inhumane and totally unethical, as surely if they wish to exploit and use animals for their own benefit they should at least have the decency to ensure a relatively similar habitat and climate? The Navy were even expecting things to go wrong with the acclimatisation process, as that is why the two orcas were shipped out at slightly different times. They therefore knew it was wrong, yet proceeded anyway.
The second thing regarding the ethics of the orca's habitat would be the size of their tank and living spaces. In the Navy report about Project Deep Ops, it states that in California both orcas were housed in a concrete pool, 50 foot in diameter and 8 foot deep. Now when you consider the size of the orcas, who were averaging at about 4,000 lbs, the size and depth of that pool was no where near sufficient. Especially when you consider what they were expected to be trained to do- dive to extreme depths in the open ocean- depths that even reached ten times the depth of their pool. In the report, it also states that the cetaceans had to be housed in tanks as small as possible due to 'costs'. Now this is the American Navy we are talking about, would it have killed then to have doubled the tank size?
It was reported that Ishmael was the one who had the most issues with the living environment- he took 5 days to adapt to the new 40x60 foot floating pen in Hawaii, and would even retreat back to the Navy base when on open water exercises. It seems as though he may he suffered from mild agoraphobia, which isn't surprising considering his small tank in California. However, it was Ahab who had the most behavioural problems. Apparently they had to terminate open-sea exercises due to 'behavioural control problems', which again is no surprise considering the appalling facilities they were kept in. The open ocean probably sent him literally wild.
The biggest issue I came across when researching was the method of training. It was all about 'operant conditioning', or 'positive reinforcement' if you like. Now anyone who has seen The Cove or ever heard Ric O'Barry speak about dolphin training will know what this means- food deprivation. When I read it in the flesh though, I was still a bit shocked, even though I knew what it meant. The report openly talks about the training techniques as if they are normal- which I guess in the captivity industry they are- but these people were using these animals for science, for research, not just to do flips and jumps. They were under too much pressure anyway to be deprived of food as well. The report states that the primary reinforcer was fish, and that sometimes if the 'animal's motivation and response levels were extremely low, his diet was reduced or he was denied food for 24 hours. These deprivations usually produced a higher level of motivation on the following day.' The techniques used to 'train' them are nothing short of abuse- they are using starvation as a kind of punishment-- what way is this to treat sentient, self-aware and social animals? It is no wonder they performed better the next day, they were starving and had no other choice. The report also explains how aversive stimuli had to be used when training the dolphins to go through a gate. They used crowding nets to force them through, and then fed them at the other side. This is surely the worst possible way to train such an intelligent and aware animal- they are not stupid and so will just feel afraid at the claustrophobia of the net, rather than make the connection to go through.
The actual use of the orcas involved using certain specially-made hardware- which was basically 'head gear' made for the orcas to wear so they can retrieve certain things off the ocean floor. However, when looking at the pictures of such equipment, I cannot help but think how much it resembles animal testing- weird things coming out of and being put on animals. It is all very unnatural and inhumane, and begs the question- is all this even worth it? Was the research worth their suffering and confinement? What did the Navy actually achieve from the lives of Ishmael and Ahab? It is all very uncertain, yet what we can be sure of is that they will never be forgotten in our community.
Another orca that was used by the Navy was Ramu, who was rented out to them for a year. According to John Hall, a Navy scientist who then went on to work for SeaWorld, Ramu was rented due to his aggressiveness and the fact that he was left in the back pool 'where he kind of languished' as none of the trainers wanted to work with him. When Ramu arrived at the Navy facility, he had never done anything similar to what the Navy wanted him to do before, so he had to be trained to do the experimental research from the start.
The research he was used for was to do with hearing and the sequence of the research trials went like this: 'He had to position in a redwood enclosure that was sound baffled. Hold very still. Wait for the cue sequence. Listen very carefully for a period of time. If he heard the tone, he then had to back out of the listening enclosure, very carefully, turn around and go over and press a lever. If he didn't hear it, he had to just remain stationed for the sequence to start again.' This was what he did, over and over, and in John Hall's words, 'he would do that for a hundred trials in a row!'. According to Mr. Hall, Ramu was such a 'workaholic' that he had to be careful when working with him as when they would finish the session Ramu would become very aggressive and agitated. It is unclear as to whether this has any legitimacy at all, as some people would argue that an orca (one of the most intelligent, social and active cetaceans) would not be too happy staying in a concrete tank performing stressful tasks over and over again. However, this is what Mr. Hall proclaims in the statement that can be found on the Frontline website here. He goes on to explain a particular event in which Ramu began to become conditioned to link a certain gesture with ending work for the day. Mr. Hall explains that when working with Ramu, he used to put his fish bucket on the tank wall, which was about 3ft high from the top of the pool. When work was over for the day, he used to reach over to the bucket and take it off the wall. Ramu then began to link these two events- the bucket off the wall meant the end of the interaction for that day. However, what Mr. Hall argues as that Ramu used to get agitated and angry when the bucket was taken off the wall due to him not wanting to end the work- he claims that Ramu enjoyed it so much that it would enrage him to learn that it was over for day. So one day, when work was over and Mr. Hall lent across to get the bucket off the wall, Ramu 'kinda leaned back in the water and he started this high pitched moan, kind of a warbling rising falling moan, and the whites of his eyes instantly got blood shot'. Mr. Hall then put the bucket back on the wall and the warbling stopped, and realised the link that Ramu had been conditioned to recognise. What happened next confirms the aggression of Ramu, and also questions Mr. Hall's theory that he 'loved' the work.
Mr. Hall went to get the bucket and took a little run up, ready to dash out the way if anything were to happen. As he did so, he slipped over, spilling the blood from the fish all over him and landing just a few feet away from the edge of the water and the wall. Ramu then 'came right up over the wall, screaming, just screaming--right up to where his shoulder were--where his pectoral flippers hit the wall, he could go no further, reaching out--just this giant mouth'. Ramu was then trying to rake at Mr. Hall, and when he rolled out of the way, Ramu backed down and began to swim very fast and frantically around the tank, creating a huge wall of water in his wake. Mr. Hall then left him for 20 minutes 'to cool off' and then came back with another bucket of fish to start work again, after which Ramu was 'totally chilled'. Another incident like this one was when the researchers were trying to figure out if Ramu was prospecting- which means randomly cheating in the tests. At one point, he did cheat and moved forward and touched the lever even though no tone was played, to which Mr. Hall then clinked the plexiglass wall between him and the tank with a bit of metal. A few times later, Ramu did it again, and so Mr. Hall clinked the wall again, however Ramu got so mad that he came right through the plexiglass window and water gushed through onto all of their equipment. Mr. Hall claims that this outburst was also due to the 'cessation of work' also, yet how would Ramu know when that particular trial was ending? It seems as though Mr. Hall was almost in denial as to what the captivity and testing of Ramu was doing to him. He was an aggressive and unstable orca in captivity anyway, so it seems nigh on impossible that doing repetitive boring and stressful tests in captivity would be any benefit to his mental state.
As for the conditioning theory- that Ramu was angry as the work had finished- this is highly unlikely, as Ramu was probably aggressive due to the fact he began to realise the removal of the bucket meant no more food and no more interaction for that day. I am sure that it was nothing to do with him enjoying the work, but more about him being hungry and stressed and not wanting to be left starving on his own again. It seems worryingly naive that Mr. Hall would think he enjoyed the work, as Ramu was clearly a very agitated orca who would have been better off being rehabilitated, not given to the Navy to perform routine and unnatural tests. Eventually Ramu was taken back by SeaWorld, but sadly he died from cardiopulmonary decomposition, which is basically a failure of the heart, brought on by stress, fatigue or illness. He was only 18.
Regarding the ethics of this program, it is hard to understand the supposed justifications of keeping such wild and intelligent animals and making them perform unnatural and potentially dangerous tasks all in the name of research. It seems more like enslavement really, as these cetaceans were ripped from their natural habitat, taken to a below-par facility and then coerced into doing endless repetitions of the same exercise without any respite. The report on Project Deep Ops provides a very tragic insight into the whole process of the capturing, training and keeping of these cetaceans in the Marine Mammal Program, and highlights just how used these animals were. The way they were trained and kept just proves that they were no more than commodities and thus deserved only the bare minimum of care and quality of facilities. As for the research and testing itself- it very much resembles animal testing in its unnaturalness and encroachment on the natural life of the animals. For example, the headgear that they had to wear was very debilitating and unnatural and must have put added stress onto the procedures and indeed onto their lives as a whole.
A bottlenose with what looks like a very intrusive and uncomfortable head piece on. Note how it acts as a muzzle, so the dolphin will be unable to open it's mouth. (Photo from Google images)
The use of the dolphins, seals, belugas and other mammals for these procedures and tasks raises a lot of ethical questions anyway, as of course the things they are forced to do are very unnatural and in some cases very dangerous, for example the deep diving for torpedo retrieval or the swimming around potentially dangerous enemy swimmers. As for the use of actual live dolphins in real combat situations- it is totally unnecessary and inhumane, and should never have been allowed to happen, which was clearly obvious when you consider the fact that they only dared implement it for the Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars. It is of course no worse than using horses or dogs for combat situations, but obviously they are easier to keep as their natural habitat is on land anyway. I think the main qualm with using dolphins for combat was the fact that it was (and is) very difficult to keep them healthy and of good mind while in captivity, as keeping them in strange waters in order to have them perform strange tasks is surely enough to cause them distress, let alone getting them to perform warfare-type exercises. After all, cetaceans and dolphins in particular are hugely self-aware, and are capable of feeling complex emotions, as well as recognising them (see earlier posts for this in depth), so it would seem obvious that performing these stressful and highly emotional tasks would be traumatic. They would no doubt be able to sense the fear and pain etc in the 'enemy'.
However, despite the very modern and well-kept facilities that the US Navy Marine Mammal Program no doubt has, the fact still remains- using animals, of any breed, species, intelligence, whatever- for anything that is for our own benefit, advancement or advantage, is unethical and unjust. They are not ours to use, and they do not consent- no matter how much people promote the 'positive reinforcement' training methods. So, that sums up the ethics and the basic background of the US Navy Marine Mammal Program- I know I have mainly focused on the ethics behind it, but if you would like to know the ins and outs of their programs and protocols in their earlier years, check out the report- found at the bottom of the page on this OrcaHome link. There are still approximately 75 dolphins in the Program.
Now onto the other immense topic for this post- the use of dolphins for therapy. Again, I will briefly outline the history and findings regarding this 'new' form of therapy, and then move on to focus on the ethics behind it.
To begin- a brief history of the creation and development of dolphin assisted therapy, from here on in, to be referred to as DAT. It was in the early 1970s that the concept of dolphin assisted therapy was first thought of, by an anthropologist at Florida University- a Dr. Betsy Smith. She was researching neurological impairments and autism, as well as human/dolphin interaction. During that research period she let her mentally challenged brother swim with two adolescent dolphins, who were in her care at the research facility. She described them as 'quite rough'- yet noticed that they were considerably gentle when her brother was in the water with the, thus prompting the creation of DAT. Dr. Smith then went on to win various awards for her research developments, but due to the rising ethical concerns over dolphin captivity, has ceased her research on captive dolphins. In 1978, another researcher by the name of Dr. David Nathanson conducted research into the effects of dolphins on disabled children and their capability to learn. He found that many of the Down's Syndrome and autistic children benefited from the presence of dolphins, and this supposedly improved their learning.He went on to create the Dolphin Research Centre. Another key name in the early conception of DAT is Dr. John Lilly, an American neuroscientist who believed he could communicate with dolphins- after taking LSD. He focused on the discovery of the human consciousness and believed dolphins were an important part of his research.
From these initial researchers, many other beliefs and findings have been developed, with people believing all sorts about the so-called benefits of dolphin therapy. For example, some more science-based theorists, like that of David Cole, head of the AquaThought Foundation (a group of DAT researchers), believe that the sonar dolphins use is what helps to heal humans. Cole believes that the sonar causes a reaction in the body tissue called cavitation, a process that basically rips apart the molecules within the soft body tissue, causing a change in the biomolecules. It sounds very complicated, and that is probably because it is, but the basis of his reasoning for DAT is thus- the change in the biomolecules caused by the sonar will then lead to a heightened production of endorphins, T cells and hormones, therefore helping to stimulate the immune system.
However, some other researchers believe that the benefits of DAT are due to the spiritual connection felt between man and dolphin. They believe that the happiness felt when people swim with dolphins is what makes them feel better- and some even go as far as to believe that the dolphin is an angelic being, says Cole. It could be argued that this belief system is based on nothing but whimsical ideologies- and that the more scientific theories must be more trustworthy. The fact remains though, that the evidence behind each is very thin. One study published by the British Medical Journal stated that dolphin interaction helped alleviate mild depression. Mind you, the study contained 25 people, all of which were taken on a holiday to Honduras- 12 were just 'on holiday', and the rest were to swim with dolphins regularly, as well as just being on holiday. All of the group saw an improvement- but the 13 who swam with dolphins had their depression slightly more alleviated. The words 'well, duh' come to mind.
However, despite this 'evidence' behind both theories- the 'sonar' theory and the 'happiness=endorphins=healing' theory, both are in fact detested by many people--scientists, animal advocates, disability advocates, and dolphin experts alike. Firstly, a review which was conducted by an Anna Baverstock and a Fiona Findlay of the Child Health Department in Bath, UK. They wanted to see if DAT had any positive effect on people with cerebral palsy for a mother who wished to know what effect it would have on her child. They found no evidence to suggest it cured, healed or alleviated it whatsoever. Lori Marino, who I am sure I have mentioned many times before in my essays, also found no evidence to suggest any positive scientific effects of DAT. Dr. Marino and her colleague, Psychology professor Scott Lilienfeld conducted a campaign in 2007, countering the beneficial claims of DAT. They researched and reviewed five studies done on DAT over the past eight years, and found that not one showed any real scientific proof to reinforce the claims of health benefits. Marino, who conducted a previous study on DAT in 1998, voiced her concerns about the growing number of people resorting to DAT if their children are suffering from any mental disabilities or illnesses- as after all, there is no real evidence that it has any effects on such disorders, apart from briefly improving someones mood. It seems tragic that so many parents are being duped into believed that DAT will work- and even more tragic that they are putting all their hopes into it, whilst footing a bill of thousands of pounds. It is because of this, and also because of Marino's study, that the WDCS has asked for an outright ban on all DAT. They claim that the fact it has no real evidence and is immensely cruel to the dolphins and people it takes advantage of, means it is worthy to be banned throughout the world.
Now, onto the ethics- of which I will be paying attention to the ethics regarding the keeping of the dolphins, the exploitation of animals for human benefit, and also the ethics of getting vulnerable people involved in things that may not be of any benefit to them. This, I can relate to, as my sister is severely (and I mean severely) autistic, and despite being willing to do anything to help her, I would not ever want her to be a part of something that has no proven effects, that will cost my mother greatly (in both money and in hope), and that abuses another living being. So, as I have written about countless times- the reasons for keeping a dolphin captive can never be justified. The living conditions, the facilities, the training methods- all are never going to be good enough, advanced enough or natural enough to ever really fulfil a dolphin's needs and instincts. They are self-aware and have family bonds as strong as ours- and for those reasons alone, keeping them captive to help other beings will never be justified. They are on the same intellectual, emotional and spiritual level as us, and so they must never be our slaves.
However, due to the huge profits involved with the rising use of DAT, the establishments being created are unfortunately getting worse and worse. Countries that have very little animal rights, especially in the way of cetacean rights and awareness, are setting up DAT facilities in order to cash in on the booming trade. Now, where oh where do they get their dolphins from? Obviously, the husbandry and acquisition of the dolphins in these facilities are no Dolphin Research Centre that's for sure (not that I am implying that that is great though, I just mean in terms of regulations). The facilities set up in places such as Bali, Dubai and Turkey acquire their dolphins from the wild- meaning from Taiji or the Solomons...meaning in immense terror, pain, sadness and suffering. Is all that really worth it? I am sure anyone with a big enough heart to pay hundreds for their child to swim with dolphins despite the slim chances of any benefits, would not be willing to do it if they were aware of the traumatic origins of the dolphins. I mean, after all, if some people believe the dolphin has an emotional and spiritual connection with the child whilst in the water with them, then what kind of connection is it if the dolphin has been so traumatised and tortured beforehand?
As I just mentioned, the conditions in which these poor dolphins are kept in are appalling in most cases- obviously DAT facilities in the US are of a better standard (some may say), due to the awareness of the captivity issue over there, but in other countries they are not so 'great'. A facility I came across in Bali the other week was particularly depressing. The dolphins live in a swimming pool with very murky water, from what I can make out in the photos on their website. The owner of thi establishment, which may I add is a hotel (HOTEL!) offering DAT programs, claims to have 'rescued' the dolphins from another place. This, I am sorry, I do not believe. The claims of what DAT can do are also laughable-
- Dolphins have their own language with up to a trillion words
- Dolphin brains are larger than human brains and have 40% more thinking ability
- Dolphins have abilities to heal humans that we do not yet fully understand.
- Dolphins once walked on land
- Dolphins use sonar to locate items and communicate
- Dolphins are intelligent creatures who have capabilities equal to or exceeding humans
''Dolphins have capabilities equal to or exceeding humans''
Both of these statements are ridiculous- if the healing 'abilities' are not yet fully understood, how can they endorse it and ask people to pay hundreds of pounds for a treatment session with their 'expert' physiotherapist?
Irrelevant of the conditions though, we as humans should not be exploiting another living being for our own good. I know some may believe that if it is for a 'good reason' then it is justifiable, but I do not believe it is. Animals are not ours to eat, wear, abuse, exploit or use in any way- and that is the case for whatever reasons or outcomes, even beneficial ones. As a person aware of the affects disability has on people, I know how desperate some may be to help their child or family member or whatever. But I can assure you that it would take a lot more than anecdotal and unsure evidence to ever push me into thinking about DAT as an option for my sister. Even if I wasn't aware of the implications on the dolphins themselves, I would not be happy with my mother spending all that money on something that has no solid foundations or proof whatsoever. I would also feel terrible if the obvious did happen (that is, nothing beneficial), and me and my family would have put so much hope and faith into it, only to have had our hearts broken by the reality of the DAT industry.
It is a tragedy that facilities, like the one in Bali (see this link), are allowed to dupe people into the whole DAT spiel. The reality of it all is that, despite its best intentions and altruistic ideologies (I say these things with total bitterness), DAT is in fact just another part of the captivity business, meaning that its goals, aims and agendas are the same as that of any dolphin show, animal circus, 'swim with' programme or whatever. Their main focus is their profit, and that is the sad truth of it. These establishments are profiting heavily off of the hopes and emotions of desperate and vulnerable people- as well as vulnerable dolphins too. To add further insult to injury, the DAT establishments all over the world need no regulations or governance, and so people are effectively paying hundreds for a backstreet therapy session, with no guidance or regulatory bodies protecting them. The people conducting the therapy also need no real qualifications, as I pointed out with the Bali resort, and so yet again profit comes before dignity, ethics and what is right.
So, that comes to the end of my first essay in months! I apologise if it is a little rusty, I am very much out of practice at the moment, but I hope now to get into it again in my free time, and get back on board the cetacean-rights wagon. I hope all of you are well, and not too distraught by the recent events that have panned out in SeaWorld's favour- the 'transferral of care' of the stranded pilot whale and the possible transferal of Morgan to Loro Parque. Yet another instance where politics, profits and alliances speak louder than animal welfare. God help you Morgan.
PS. Check out the film A Fall From Freedom- I have wanted to watch it for ages but have found it nowhere, and now it is on Vimeo!
