I hope they find a way to cast a vote like this online instead of the primitive way they went about the olympics. All voting should be done online. 

It's just cruel, unethical and inhumane to continue to keep whales and dolphins in captivity. The cetaceans and I thank you!  

No, they should just not get anymore. There has been little, if any success with releasing these guys into the wild. If they are released they will likely get depressed and die. They should in no way seek any new ones though! 

People that think whales in captivity, for whatever purpose (even the "survival" of a species), is okay are morons and chumps that deserve only daily beatings and nothing else.

I'd like to see those people keep themselves in only their bedrooms (or even just their apartments) for one month; get your friends to bring you all your necessities. See how it feels. Could you get through it without going insane and having your own physiology break down? Not likely, but if you did make it through all right, now try for life. 

I would love it if they put it to a referendum. I think people would want the whales to be free. Aquariums are a bad idea. Watch Planet Earth and Life, by the BBC if you want to learn about animals. Power to the cetaceans!  

We do not need another plebiscite which is non-binding. What we need are those running for public office to make a campaign promise to close down the Aquarium. Plus we need recall at the municipal level so if those elected break their promise the citizens can undertake recall.. In the meantime we have a chance to recall the Vision Park Commissioners in 2011. They promised in 2008 to save Mt Pleasant Outdoor Pool which once elected they reneged on that promise.  

Something to think about- most of these animals are injured and rescued, not captured. After being brought back to health some become so used to human company they would not be able to survive back in the wild. It would be cruel to return a domesticated animal to the wild when they have a slim chance of survival due to their contact with humans. So placing them back into the oceans is in effect, a death sentence. 

When we have out of town visitors they often want to see the Acquarium, including the dolphins and belugas. What effect would this referendum have on the Acquarium's operation? Have Acquarium staff been asked to address the parks board when this motion is discussed? Were they interviewed for this article?


If it does go to a referendum I would predict the motion would fail. I think it's apparent from the crowds at the Acquarium and other similar facilities elsewhere that the demand that no whales be kept in captivity is a minority taste, driven in part by urban fashion plate politics. There are in addition traditional leftists who view the Acquarium and its staff as business lackeys because of the corporate sponsorship of some of the exhibits. What they would do if, say, the CAW sponsored a tank I don't know, but it would be interesting to find out.


Rod Smelser 

in response to Calvin D, although there may be some animals that are rescued others are not. See following link for dolpins in capitivity faqs (where do captive dolphins come from):

http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/2220_dolphins_in_captivity_faqs.cfm#from
 

Everyone for captivity seems to have the same argument - that releasing the currently captive ones would be a death sentence. I think it's pretty safe to assume no ones going to drop them off in the middle of the ocean and say good luck. If it were banned, they may just decide to not continue breeding them, and let the current animals remain until they die. Or they could send them off to other aquariums, which would just be another way to support the industry. The best option would be to build a sea pen in the ocean for them to retire in. Here they would still receive medical care and human interaction (if they preferred) but would be able to swim greater distances, dive to deeper depths, hear the ocean acoustics, get to use their echolocation again, and interact with the small critters swimming in and out of their pen. It would be a much more enriching and natural life than the boring, echoing, unnatural walls of a concrete tank. They could also learn to catch their own live fish, and could still be fed by humans if they aren't catching enough to properly sustain their nutrition. So, clearly this is the best option for the current cetaceans in captivity, and it can happen without any risk to the animal.  

S Carr

See following link for dolpins in capitivity faqs (where do captive dolphins come from):

http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/2220_dolphins_in_captivity_faqs.cfm#from
==============================

This does not seem to be a credible source.

Rod Smelser 

Cripes. Did MacKinnon not do his research? There was, in effect, a plebiscite in 2006, wherein the Park Board reviewed Section 9 of the Bylaws (concerning captive cetaceans) while holding public consultations on the Aquarium expansion proposal. They also requested that the Aquarium conduct a public process to gather information on what people thought of keeping cetaceans at the Aquarium. The summary of results is here: http://www.vanaqua.org/pressroom/ConsultationResults.html .

There was strong support for keeping cetaceans, but only under the existing bylaw, which forbids the Aquarium from obtaining cetaceans caught in the wild after 1996. The bylaw makes exceptions for injured animals, which may or may not be released afterward. So, in effect, the public has already agreed that the Park Board bylaw, as it exists, is generally okay. Happily, this result occurrs midway through the official review period. So why does MacKinnon suddenly need another lengthy and expensive plebiscite? We just did it, four years ago.

FYI, the Aquarium doesn't just decide on its own to keep or not keep animals. It must apply to the DFO for permission to keep, transport, borrow, or release any of their animals. So there is some oversight here, this isn't just happening in a vaccuum. They just can't willynilly grab things from the ocean - they even need permits for non-cetacean marine creatures and plants.

I'm not against plebiscites in general, even this one, but this should be held in time for the review in 2015, not now. 

===>>> Stacey

Thanks for bringing some actual information and knowledge to this discussion.
Rod Smelser 

In actuality the Park Board did not hold a plebiscite in 2006. The Aquarium paid for and managed the entire Public Consultation process that took place in 2006. The Park Board divorced itself from the process because of the lack of transparency and problems with being seen to closely linked to the Aquarium. The Aquarium got the results it paid for. It was a blatant case of conflict of interest, and then the political allies of the Aquarium used these biased results to agree to the expansion of the Aquarium and to not hold a city wide referendum on cetacean captivity. Finally, adding a question to the ballot during the civic election does not cost a lot of money. Its the least expensive way to find out what the citizens think.  

A little notion--I think voters - in Vancouver -- are trending away from keeping whales and dolphins in captivity.

A blanket explanation - the BP oil leak snapped alot of people, including particularly voters---with the recent death of the baby -- watch out.  

Also - people aren't 'feeling' free right now - old and young people are cheering Free Willy.  

Janos Mate said: "Finally, adding a question to the ballot during the civic election does not cost a lot of money. Its the least expensive way to find out what the citizens think."

It costs nothing to add the questions, but it costs hundreds of thousands for each side to then campaign in the community. Please see BC-STV fiasco of 2009. The Aquarium is a non-profit organisation - every dollar it spends in defending itself is a dollar taken away from animal husbandry and research. I thought it was pretty weak of the 2006 Park Board to shift the cost of the public consultation process to the Aquarium, for that reason. Also, the Aquarium hired an independent survey/researching company to conduct the process, although detractors will maintain that they were paid off for best results.

I don't understand how the BP oil disaster is going to sway people to end the practice of keeping cetaceans in captivity. There are hundreds of dead creatures in the Gulf so far, and no indication that the world will put a stop to drilling offshore oil. I have no faith that the oceans, and the animal and plant life within them, will become protected in any significant way. We may see a time when Arctic belugas and Pacific White-Sided Dolphins become critically endangered, and that cetaceans kept in captivity become valuable research animals and breeding stock.

Another topic entirely:

I can't help feel that these arguments (against keeping cetaceans in captivity) are all highly problematic. I had an argument in another online forum with some guy from Lifeforce Ecology who called me "speciesist" for supporting cetaceans in captivity, and that cetaceans are best enjoyed in the wild. I have issues with this. It is classist to assume that every person has the means and ability, financially, to visit the places where cetaceans exist. Therefore, places such as the Aquarium may be the only contact that some people have with marine life. If we are to instill any sense of love and responsibility for these creatures, we *must* make them available to the general public. (It goes without saying that we must also hold these facilities to the very highest standards of animal care.)

Also, wtf is all this concern about cetaceans? What about the fish, the birds, the mammals, the reptiles, and ALL the other animal life (at the Aquarium, and zoos worldwide) held in "captivity"? It is incredibly speciesist to insist that cetaceans be returned to the wild, but that a school of herring does not enjoy the same rights of release. That cetaceans are considered sentient beings, but all the rest are not. To make their argument strictly fair and rational, those who wish to see no cetaceans held in captivity must argue for the release of ALL living creatures held in captivity, and not just the pretty majestic ones. 

It's not about their deaths, it's about their lives. A lot of people think that the issue is that Belugas in captivity die too young. That just allows the "whales-in-captivity" scientific experts, who have a raft of statistics, to answer that Belugas live no longer in the wild. End of that argument.

The real point is that captivity is cruel. And though there are lots of "experts" who deny that, and plenty of people who believe all "experts", there is a growing number of people who believe that captivity is cruel no matter what anyone says.

Animal Advocates Society of BC
animaladvocates@telus.net
www.animaladvocates.com 

If aquariums and zoos are such great places for research, why do researchers insist on doing fieldwork? Maybe they just like camping? 

From a whale and dolphin sanctuary, we encourage Vancouver and Canada and Ambassador Binns to bring cetacean captivity to an end in Canada 

The behavior of Vision Commissioner Aaron Jasper was appalling at the meeting. He showed total disdain for the democratic process and for the voters. He made personal attacks and was proud of it. Last week it was Gregor Robertson making fun of voters and now Aaron Jasper. I think its time for Vision Vancouver to step down. We need democratic leaders, not bullies who push for corporate interests at the expense of the people.