Optimal marine mammal welfare under human care: Current efforts and future directions

Brando, Sabrina; Acasuso-Rivero, Cristina; Clark, Fay E.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2017.09.011

Cited by 49 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 182 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As free-ranging killer whales also have dental, infectious, and noninfectious disease, rigorous data are needed to establish that the conditions listed by Marino et al (2019) represent untenable consequences or causes of chronic stress in killer whales under human care. Marino et al also failed to note that killer whales in human care voluntarily cooperate with their medical care, which is a strategy that reduces distress in killer whales and other marine mammals and improves the number of viable options for providing quality veterinary care (Brando et al, 2018;Lacave, 2018).…”

Section: Are Killer Whales' Physical Needs Met Under Human Care?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Marino et al's (2019) use of the word "dead" when referring to fish and squid fed to killer whales under human care seems to suggest that conventional feeding practices are flawed. If this is Marino et al's intent, it fails to acknowledge the feeding of restaurant-quality fish, assessment, and quality control of fish nutritional quality, regulatory oversight, and other strategies used to address the nutritional needs of killer whales and other marine mammals under human care (Brando et al, 2018;Crissey & Spencer, 1998;Rosen & Worthy, 2018). Of relevance to animal welfare is that freezing fish also kills parasites that could infest killer whales, in contrast to parasite transmission that occurs with consuming live prey in wild marine mammal populations (Rosen & Worthy, 2018).…”

Section: Are Killer Whales' Physical Needs Met Under Human Care?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary

Kathleen¹,

Heather²,

Zaccaroni³

et al. 2020

IJCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We contest publication of Marino et al. regarding captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) welfare because of misrepresentations of available data and the use of citations that do not support assertions. Marino et al. misrepresent stress response concepts and erroneously cite studies, which appear to support Marino et al.’s philosophical beliefs regarding the cetacean hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. To be clear, these misrepresentations are not differences of scientific opinion, as the authors’ conclusions lack any scientific basis. More extensive review of Marino et al.’s citations reveal a dearth of empirical evidence to support their assertions. Further, Marino et al.’s approach to animal welfare is not consistent with conventional veterinary approaches to animal welfare, including their apparent opposition to use of preventative and therapeutic veterinary interventions. While Marino et al. argue that killer whales’ cognitive and spatial needs preclude management of this species under human care, misrepresentation of the citations used to support this opinion invalidates their arguments. Misleading interpretations of data relative to killer whales’ cognitive and emotional needs and specious and unsubstantiated comparisons with states experienced by humans with posttraumatic stress disorder and other conditions, represent a number of strategies used to misrepresent knowledge regarding killer whale welfare. These misrepresentations and fallacies are inconsistent with scientific ethical standards for credible, peer-reviewed journals (ICMJE, 2018), and are barriers to rigorous discourse and identification of strategies for optimizing killer whale welfare. Assertions in the paper amount to nothing more than a compilation of conclusory, philosophical statements. We would also like to mention that manuscripts such as Marino et al.’s do great damage to the fields of comparative psychology and to behavioral science as a whole.

show abstract

Section: Are Killer Whales' Physical Needs Met Under Human Care?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Are Killer Whales' Physical Needs Met Under Human Care?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary

Kathleen¹,

Heather²,

Zaccaroni³

et al. 2020

IJCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compared to other odontocetes species, we know much about bottlenose dolphins' social life and most welfare studies have been conducted on this species [50], leaving other less represented species poorly studied. Such species might have different social lives and might not exhibit the same responses or react the same as bottlenose dolphins do in captive settings [51].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Body Contacts and Social Interactions in Captive Odontocetes Are Influenced by the Context: An Implication for Welfare Assessment

Serres

Hao

Wang

2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the welfare of captive odontocetes has increased in recent years, but has been mostly focused on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Few studies investigated potential welfare indicators using quantitative data linked to a range of conditions or stimuli that are thought to impact the animals’ emotional state. Since odontocetes are social animals that engage in various social interactions, these interactions might inform us on their welfare state. We investigated pectoral contact laterality and the effect of the context on several social behaviors in three groups of captive odontocetes (Yangtze finless porpoises, YFPs: Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis; East-Asian finless porpoises, EAFPs: N. a. sunameri, and bottlenose dolphins, BDs). Animals exhibited patterns depending on the time of the day for most of the social behaviors we analyzed; social separation was associated with lower rates of social behaviors for the two analyzed groups (YFPs and BDs), the accessibility to several pools was associated with higher rates of social behaviors for BDs. The effect of enrichment, disturbances and public presence was less clear and strongly depended on the group, the type of enrichment and disturbance. Our results confirm that captive odontocetes’ social behaviors are influenced by the context, and that, depending on the group, some of them, such as pectoral contacts, other body contacts, agonistic interactions or social play exhibit consistent patterns across contexts. Monitoring these behaviors might be useful to adapt the captive management to each species and group. The different responses among the three studied groups confirm that species and groups react differently to a stimulus and therefore, management decisions should be species/group specific. We recommend that more studies should be conducted to validate our findings in other groups of odontocetes under human care.

show abstract

“…species (Clegg, Borger-Turner, & Eskelinen, 2015;Clegg, Van Elk, & Delfour, 2017;Miller, Mellen, Greer, & Kuczaj, 2011;Serres & Delfour, 2017), and the link between many other parameters and positive or negative welfare states should be tested (Clegg et al, 2015;Brando et al, 2017. Species-specific welfare assessments have to be conducted with validated species-specific welfare indicators (Clegg et al, 2015;Mononen et al, 2012;Rushen, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For zoo species, behavioral parameters that are frequently used include stereotypical and other abnormal behaviors (Watters, Margulis, & Atsalis, 2009). In captive odontocetes, described undesired behaviors include circular swimming and high levels of aggressive or sexual behaviors (Clegg et al, 2015;Brando et al, 2017. However, even for these relatively well-studied parameters, few studies statistically analyzed their link with particular living conditions or events that occur in captive facilities to understand their variations and validate them as poor welfare indicators (Clegg, Rödel, et al, 2017). In addition, stereotypical behaviors or abrupt and seemingly abnormal behaviors have never been studied deeper than anecdotal observations in odontocete species Greenwood, 1977;Mason, 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Frequency of Solitary Behaviors in Captive Odontocetesis Modulated by Environmental and Social Factors

Serres¹,

Hao²,

Wang³

2019

IJCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of welfare-oriented studies is increasing in animals under human care, including odontocetes. However, validated welfare indicators are lacking for captive odontocetes. We studied the effect of several conditions (moment of the day, social grouping, public presence) and stimuli (enrichment, perturbations) on the solitary behaviour of Yangtze finless porpoises (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis), East-Asian finless porpoises (N. a. sunameri) and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). The frequency of solitary play increased in the three groups in positive conditions and decreased in negative contexts, which confirms that play is a useful indicator of welfare for captive odontocetes. Jumping seem to be indicative of stress for finless porpoises but could be ambiguous for bottlenose dolphins: indicating both positive and negative excitation. Stereotypical behaviours for Yangtze finless porpoises and environment hitting behaviours for bottlenose dolphins could indicate mild stress or frustration. Vigilant behaviours are not clear indicators since a high frequency could reflect boredom, but a low frequency was observed in poor social conditions. Finally, we suggest that environmental rubbing should be investigated further since our results for this behaviour were not clear.

show abstract

Optimal marine mammal welfare under human care: Current efforts and future directions

Cited by 49 publications

References 182 publications

Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary

Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary

Body Contacts and Social Interactions in Captive Odontocetes Are Influenced by the Context: An Implication for Welfare Assessment

The Frequency of Solitary Behaviors in Captive Odontocetesis Modulated by Environmental and Social Factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About