Renowned conservationist Jane Goodall recently sent a letter to the board of the Vancouver Aquarium, asking for the termination of the Aquarium and SeaWorld’s cetacean breeding program. In her letter, which is included in the article, she expresses her concerns regarding the high mortality rates of the belugas in this program. She claims that scientific evidence shows that there are “implications of captivity on such species.” She claims that since cetaceans are such complex animals, which usually live in a “highly social environment,” their captivity in small areas such as the Vancouver Aquarium can greatly increase their mortality rate. John Nightingale, the Aquarium’s director and senior vice-president animals operations, showed “surprise at this letter.” He says that the research supporting Goodall’s scientific evidence comes from activists, hinting that it is therefore irrelevant. He also states that "The current science is clear that beluga whales live as long, if not longer, while in human care. Scientific and behavioural evidence shows that cetaceans at the Vancouver Aquarium are content and thriving."
 |
| A beluga whale in the Vancouver Aquarium |
I cannot help but be slightly confused by this controversial matter. How can scientific evidence claim that cetaceans’ mortality rates are lowered when in a limited environment, yet at the same time claim that “cetaceans at the Vancouver Aquarium are content and thriving?” It seems that either one of the two individuals is using false evidence to make their claim, or the studies conducted were performed in a biased environment. The latter is quite possible, as Goodall’s evidence apparently comes from “activists”, while Nightingale’s studies were likely supported by the aquarium. This would allow for the study to be conducted with a bias, affecting the results. Although people often think that a statement is concrete because it has been “experimentally proven”, they often fail to realize that experiments can easily be swayed by a biased hypothesis or by misinterpretation of data. Although it is possible that belugas’ life spans are not affected by their captivity in human care, they are still not able to reach their social potential in such environments. After all, these animals have not evolved to live in human care, but to survive in nature. Keeping them from socializing is equivalent to wasting their potential in the ability to thrive in their natural habitats.
No comments:
Post a Comment