Hacker News Reader

Comment by m-app | Hacker News Reader

From TFA: "The bill has exceptions: cetaceans can be kept in captivity if they're receiving care or rehabilitation after an injury, or for scientific research."

View on HN

The scientific research loophole seems like a pretty big one.

So if you get a couple of marine biologist on your books and pump out a few papers per year the party can continue?

You can't make them perform for entertainment regardless of the loophole used to keep them.

It's not hard to think of a couple of research questions that involve them performing tricks. You might as well invite people to watch the research as it happens.

(I'm not suggesting that they should do this, just that they will. "Research" can be an easily abused loophole. Just look at Japan and their whale "research".)

"Performances" by dolphins at the Vancouver Aquarium for several years have been feedings, and demonstrating research techniques (e.g. attaching and removing suction based sensors and tools, demonstrating how the animals have been trained to allow blood and other samples to be taken safely, etc). I still maintain my membership at the Vancouver Aquarium because I approve of pretty much all of their rescue programs, even though the breeding and in particular the Beluga program has been problematic in the past.

I am not a fan of keeping wild animals in captivity, but I am very much in favor of the types of rescue programs like those run by Vancouver Aquarium (and of captive breeding programs for at-risk, endangered, and extinct in the wild species).

You can make them perform if you get a license, according to the text for S-203 (see the link to the law in my other comment)

Japan exploits a similar loophole for slaughtering whales.

They are a signatory to the moratorium on whale hunting, but exploits a loophole which allows whales to be killed in the name of ‘scientific research’.

Perhaps, but the Vancouver Aquarium had the belugas currently at Marineworld, and were prevented by municipal bylaw from allowing the them to breed (which was aimed at avoiding a different loophole where aquariums could maintain a captivity-bred beluga line for research purposes).

The aquarium argued it was a pure research program, and it was a legit research program that had been going on for decades at least, I think. But public opinion swung against them and they made arrangements to end their program. Mostly their position was untenable because the aquarium supports itself with visitor ticket prices and donations, and the simple sight of belugas doing neurotic laps in a relatively tiny tank was enough to cause ticket sales to drop once it was publicized that their living conditions were inhumane.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com