UNBELIEVABLE! Just found another Vancouver Aquarium apologist website with lots of "HAPPY" dolphin photos and such outright lies that if it wasn't all so tragic, it would be hilarious. Friends of the Vancouver Aquarium https://vanaquafriends.org Read below a sample of the absurdities that they are putting out. Lori Marino and Naomi Rose get attacked first for suggesting a hypothetical sea pen sanctuary, and Park Board gets bashed, too! You can leave comments on the website if you like, don't know if it's even worth the trouble. Annelise Sorg No Whales In Captivity -------------------------------------------------- WELCOME PAGE “We will build a sea pen, and the Aquarium is going to pay for it!” Sea pens are being hailed as an alternative (as the only alternative by some) to keeping rescued and rehabilitated animals in pools. Animal rights activists have long been pushing that “solution”, and Park Board commissioners echoed them in their remarks and questions to speakers at the most recent public hearings at the Park Board. We found a reaction to these proposals worth sharing: Sea pen structures do not provide any notable benefits for the animals at all. What you call a ‘sanctuary’ is nothing but yet another type of captive facility, not different from other coastal sea pens, such as those used by ‘swimming for dolphin’ programs. No such ‘sanctuaries’ exist in North America, nor are any projects set to move forward in the immediate future, putting the rescued and rehabilitated animals that already live at the Aquarium today in jeopardy as the proposed by-law comes into effect. No detailed proposals exist, no final location has been identified, no funding has been secured, no permits have been issued – not even applications have been filed. The project initiated by Lori Marino and Naomi Rose is also not responding well to public scrutiny and is not very transparent at all about the inner workings of their Utah-based organization. And there’s probably a reason for that. Apart from both well-documented and reasonably expected dangers that arise from sea pens for the environment, captive and wild animals (as described in detail by animal rights activist Dr. Naomi Rose before she flipped and started advocating for sea pens), a sea pen would not change how the animals live their lives. They would still charge admission to view the animals, which would still be on display. The animals would still be trained for physical and mental stimulation (which would look exactly as the behaviours they are taught to show now), they would still eat frozen fish and their lives would still be centered around people. This is nothing but a huge scam. ---------------------------------------------------- KEIKO $20 million is a very conservative proposal for any such undertaking; and the Keiko release project has demonstrated how expensive the long-term care for just a single animal can be. And let’s not forget that their proposal is mainly for one species (killer whale), or species that can live together in social groups; it does not account for multiple, incompatible species or needs of an individual (e.g. water temperature for Chester, the false killer whale). The animals would be put at risk if funding dried up; and costs are to increase with every animal taken in. Naomi Rose was in charge of the failed Keiko release project in its final stages and knows just how it feels when funds disappear and mega-donors become frustrated and stop paying. The Aquarium’s expansion is financed largely by restricted government grants which could never be spent on a hypothetical sea pen ‘sanctuary’. Their operating budget does not leave room to build and maintain a separate facility in addition to the continued operation of the Vancouver Aquarium in Stanley Park. Your proposal is ridiculous and nothing short of phrasing it this way: “We are going to build a sea pen, and the Aquarium is going to pay for it!” And when it comes to future rescued animals, you are wrong as well: The goal is to rescue and rehabilitate for release. If a rescue attempt is ordered by a Fisheries and Oceans Canada officer for animal welfare reasons alone, long-term care facilities need to be present. If they aren’t, the animal will be euthanized immediately. The same will be true for cases where it is not certain that a successful release would be possible; that would subsequently not even be attempted. On Canada’s east coast, whales are simply shot on the beach by DFO officers, which is considered the most humane method of euthanasia. In the United Kingdom, where no facilities for long-term care and rehabilitation exist, euthanasia happens by default if a refloat attempt fails, which is the case for almost all strandings. To simply put forward vague proposals and present those as a certain alternative is dangerous. That kind of populism puts animals at risk, disregards animal welfare concerns and ultimately serves only an animal rights agenda that puts very little emphasis on the well-being of individuals. PARK BOARD If Park Board commissioner Stuart Mackinnon gets his will, the proposed by-law will have no exception for rescued and rehabilitated animals, neither those that already live there nor any future rescued animals. Rescue success stories such as those of harbour porpoise Levi will become a thing of the past. And if Commissioner Stewart Mackinnon’s proposal to dump the animals at the temporary structure of the rescue centre is taken seriously, the animals that already live in Vancouver will soon be no more. Make no mistake: sea pens or ‘sanctuaries’ are not going to exist for a long time off our coast, and should one ever be build, it would have to prove itself first. There is no evidence that such facilities would have any benefits at all, as all we have is animal rights propaganda, which – not surprisingly – presents the idea through rosy fairy-tale glasses. To entrust animal rights activists without experience caring for cetaceans with the safety and well-being of these animals would be reckless and dangerous. The local politicians that promote their ideas are only serving themselves. Let’s not let them get away with murder! The rescued and rehabilitated animals at the Aquarium today need to stay where they are, where they can live out their lives in the company of animals and people they have grown up with. Future rescued animals that Fisheries and Oceans Canada deems non-releasable must find a home in Vancouver, too. They deserve to live. Let’s not allow the Park Board to decide otherwise. --------------------------- Park Board Commissioner Stuart Mackinnon just dropped a bombshell: He wants all cetaceans removed from the Aquarium immediately, which means that the rescued & rehabilitated animals that were deemed non-releasable by federal authorities will have to go. When asked where they should be placed, he indicated that he basically didn’t care: “They have their marine science centre…rescue, er, at the foot of Main Street, and that might be an appropriate place for them.” Mackinnon is showing a complete disregard for the welfare of these animals. He clearly doesn’t have in mind what’s best for the animals as long as he gets his will, expressed already back in 2014, to remove cetaceans from the Vancouver Aquarium – apparently, at any cost, if necessary. We cannot let this happen! Let the Park Board know that Chester, Helen and Daisy must be allowed to stay in Vancouver. If the Park Board must condemn future rescues to a certain death when they cannot be released, at the very least they must allow these three animals that are already there to live out their natural lives. Everything else is beyond cruel, especially for Helen and Daisy who are both approaching the end of their natural lifespans. Send your emails to the Park Board to these addresses: john.coupar@vancouver.ca casey.crawford@vancouver.ca catherine.evans@vancouver.ca sarah.kirby-yung@vancouver.ca stuart.mackinnon@vancouver.ca erin.shum@vancouver.ca michael.wiebe@vancouver.ca The Park Board made a mistake yesterday: They ordered staff to draft a by-law amendment that would ban cetaceans at the Aquarium for good. They did not ask them to add exceptions. It is not too late to do so! You must make your voices heard and demand that rescued and rehabilitated animals that cannot be released can still find a home in Vancouver. If such exception is not added, animals like Daisy (rescued in 2008) will have to be killed if they cannot be released. That is already happening in the United Kingdom, where no rehabilitation or long-term care facilities exist. We must not let this happen. Animal rights activists believe that “dead is better than fed” — let’s show them that this is not how Vancouver thinks. We are compassionate, these animals deserve a chance. Let’s deliver this message to the Park Board before it is too late! Let your voices be heard! Share this message, be vocal, write to the commissioners & comment here! ---------------------------------- Not surprisingly, animal rights activists opposing animals in captivity have seized this opportunity to advance their cause. They have renewed their calls for the Aquarium to abandon its whale and dolphin exhibits. As the press often focuses on the voices of the animal rights activists, as a group supporting the Aquarium, we would like to share a Q & A on the questions most often raised by Aquarium opponents: How old were Aurora and Qila, and did they die younger than their wild counterparts? Qila was 21 years old and Aurora was about 30 years old. Between beluga populations, there are differences in diet, lifestyle etc. — and that also affects the average lifespan. Aurora originated from the Western Hudson Bay population of beluga whales. According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, based on the COSEWIC report for that species, this population has an average lifespan of 15 years. Some individuals live longer, others die younger. Activists like to quote different lifespans. They usually refer to the maximum lifespan for the global population and do not take into account individual populations. When they provide averages, activists often quote from statistics that do not account for newborn (neonatal) mortality, dramatically raising the average reported. For comparison, the maximum reported lifespan for humans is 122. Do the whales really swim in dirty water? Animal rights activists love to say that the whales are “swimming in their own faeces”, calling the water dirty and pointing to algae visible in the habitat. They also like to allege that it contains high levels of chlorine. There is very little truth to either of theses claims. The water is being pumped into the marine mammal habitats from Burrard Inlet, filtered and fully replaced multiple times per day. The amount of chlorine in that water is lower than what’s in your drinking water. Chlorine is mainly used to disinfect an empty, drained tank after cleaning it. Do beluga whales really travel ‘hundreds of miles’ per day? Beluga whales may be able to travel long distances, but they do not do so “for fun”. Like all marine mammals, beluga whales travel where that is necessary for their survival, to follow prey movements, or to find a mate or give birth. Marine mammals do not expend energy for travel unless there is a significant advantage to it. The same applies for diving to great depths. There are no specific studies of the average distance travelled by beluga whales in the Western Hudson Bay where Aurora originated from. However, a study of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, found that the animals observed only travelled 11 to 30 km per day. Another study examined beluga whales in the Canadian High Arctic, finding that they travelled between 26 and 38 km per day. There are likely groups that travel more, and some that travel even less, depending on prey availability and likely many other factors. Does the Vancouver Aquarium capture whales or dolphins from the wild? It is no secret that the Vancouver Aquarium did once capture whales and dolphins from the wild. Beluga whale Aurora was one of the last, captured in 1990. Shortly after, in 1996, the Vancouver Aquarium made a commitment and declared publicly that they would no longer capture whales or dolphins from the wild. They have stuck to that promise ever since. Other aquariums in North America have followed their lead, and whales and dolphins are not longer captured for aquariums in North America. Today, every whale, porpoise or dolphin at the Vancouver Aquarium is an animal that has been rescued and rehabilitated but deemed non-releasable by a government agency. How did the rescued animals come to the Vancouver Aquarium? For any marine mammal in need of rescue, the Aquarium first needs permission from a government authority remove it from its natural habitat for rehabilitation. That is especially true for whales and dolphins. Only when no alternative can be found that promises success is that permission granted by a government officer, usually following examination and consultation with other experts. In Canada, the agency in charge of rescue and rehabilitation of marine mammals is Fisheries and Oceans Canada (NOAA and NMFS are their counterparts in the US). Wild animals must be returned to the wild, and that always happens, whenever there is a realistic chance an animal can make it on its own. Fisheries and Oceans monitors the rehabilitation process and makes a final decision. Experts are consulted to give an opinion on the likelihood that a release could be successful, and the entire medical history is considered. Whenever an animal is deemed non-releasable, i.e. the assessment is that the animal would not survive in the wild, Fisheries and Oceans Canada also decides where the animal should be moved to. All rescued animals at the Vancouver Aquarium were deemed non-releasable by a government authority. What factors decide whether a rescued animal can be released or not? A rescued animal that has undergone successful rehabilitation must be able to survive on its own. That means that it must be healthy, show normal behaviours, be able to feed itself and avoid predators. It must also not be habituated to humans to make a successful release possible. In the case of Chester, Fisheries and Oceans decided to publish a press release due to the significant public interest, outlining the reason for his being deemed non-releasable. ---------------------------------------------- Does the Vancouver Aquarium operate for profit? The Vancouver Aquarium is a registered charity in Canada. As such, they must not operate for profit – and they don’t. They have up to 1,000 volunteers (more than paid staff) and spent 57% of their budget on charitable programs in 2015. There are ridiculous rumours that the Aquarium operates for-profit corporations. Those claims have been debunked as lies. None of these corporations exists. ********************WOW! BIG LIE!!!! *************************************************** Corporations run by the VA included Vancouver Aquarium Ltd., Vancouver Aquarium Consulting Ltd., Vancouver Aquarium Management Ltd, etc. The directors of these companies were the exact same folks sitting on the executive board of the non-profit. Since we exposed these legal but immoral businesses, the VA has changed the names of the corporations, but they are still going, no doubt!******************* ---------------------------------------------------- The idea of a non-binding plebiscite It is important to point out that the idea of a referendum as introduced by some parties and individuals4) would be a very costly undertaking for both the City of Vancouver as well as the Vancouver Aquarium, which as a non-profit would have to divert funds away from research, education, rescue and rehabilitation in order to cover an information campaign which would enable voters to make an informed decision. Finding a question to meet the requirement of being specific enough but not overly complex alone would be a very difficult task. The issues being discussed cannot be easily summed up and all parties involved would have to spend a significant amount of time on educating the public on those issues and the implications of a vote for one position or the other. The term ‘plebiscite’ or ‘referendum’ is also slightly misleading, as the Vancouver Charter only knows a non-binding question5) that would not have any direct effects, and the result could easily be ignored by the Council, or a decision overturned by a later Council. ------------------------------------------ IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY Vancouver Aquarium Uncovered Please take the time to do that so you will stay informed. Thanks!