By now, most of us have read stories or heard tales of dolphins coming to the rescue of swimmers and divers, and I thought this would be a good time to share some insights. We are now being asked to reconsider the impact that we have on the local orca population, and on October 27th our window for discussing the proposed guidelines for vessels and orcas will close. Hopefully we will come to understand the reasons and value of that increased protection - one of which is the mysterious nature of the whales themselves.
The bottom line is that for many species of dolphins, porpoises, and whales, their survival depends upon their maintaining group unity and culture, and for some dolphins this leads to demonstrations of compassion towards other species. Last year a dolphin led two beached Pygmy sperm whales to safety, an event which was somewhat astonishing and to my knowledge has not been recorded before.
But I got to thinking about it; this rescue occurred by a dolphin who enjoys being in the company of humans, and would therefore feel safe in coming to the aid of the whales when people were around. So possibly dolphins help species other than their own with some regularity but because they might fear us, or because it happens where we are not around, we just have not been fortunate enough to witness such occurrences.
Or maybe we just don't notice.
I saw the following video clip right before going to Hawaii a while back, and it gave me pause. Already phobic about sharks, seeing this did freak me out a bit, but ultimately having watched it help me to put my fear in perspective and I was able to swim with dolphins and turtles and celebrate the experience (however I did stay alert!). So a gentle warning, it might spook you if you have a vivid imagination. Not recommended for kids either. The titles are in French - essentially they describe the events as seen, which involved a Tiger shark.
For the most part, the people were unaware of the event as it unfolded, and it does make you wonder how often dolphins protect us and we never know.
Currently there is a movie out called "The Cove", which documents the slaughter of dolphins by a nation concerned with competition for fish with the animals, (coupled with a desire to eat the dolphins, it would seem). Yet I wonder how many times people in that nation may have received assistance from dolphins. Certainly, there are no records of unprovoked attacks on humans by dolphins.
I am proud to live in a part of the world where such barbarism is not allowed, and where we have evolved an attitude of seeking to achieve balance in how we relate to the Earth and the other beings that share the planet. We are learning to take a step back from conflict and seek solutions, and I am confident that we can come up with positive outcomes for everyone while protecting our local orcas and the waterways where they live.
The proposed federal guidelines for vessels and orcas can be found here, and we have provided links as well.
While researching how our southern resident orcas hunt and capture fish, I came upon an interesting article that shows that the northern resident orcas (which live in British Columbia waters, generally north of the Fraser River) alter their hunting strategy depending upon prey availability, and that this is tied into large scale climatic variability. But when I checked to see if the southern residents showed a similar pattern, I encountered a really different, and surprising pattern.
According to a thesis, the local orcas don't seem to change their strategy in relation to climatic changes, but do extend the range and effort required to find adequate prey when it is scarce. And not all the pods showed the same changes in the same circumstances.
What is surprising is that the orcas did not concentrate their hunting efforts where salmon were most abundant, as measured by the capture rate by fishing boats. In other words, where fishermen had the most success was not necessarily where the orcas chose to hunt...although it became a 'chicken or egg' issue - did the fishermen have more success because the orcas weren't there? Or were there other features of the environment that were less desirable for the orcas at those places? Is there an aspect of the killer whale's culture at play, since they are different even from their "cousins" north of the border?
I looked at some other populations of fish-eating orcas, and again I found interesting variations between areas. When hunting herring, a population of orcas in Norway has
In Iceland, another population of orcas feeds very similarly upon herring, but in addition to emitting the bubbles the whales produce a loud droning type sound, possibly to help confuse and further compress the fish school (for video and a soundtrack, go here).
In the Russian waters of Avacha Gulf, orcas force tight schools of mackerel in a similar fashion, but then take turns swimming into the middle of the fish 'ball'.
In and around the Mediterranean Sea, a population of orcas hunts bluefin tuna (which are huge, 620 lbs is spawning size) by chasing them until the fish becomes exhausted...and in more recent times the whales have learned how to strip a fish from fishermen's long lines as the tuna are brought up from depth. Annoying to the fishermen, perhaps, who receive thousands of dollars per fish, but a sensible adaptation from the whales' point of view.
The following is from comments sent to me by Howard Garrett (see previous post), of OrcaNetwork, which speaks to the varied ways the orcas live and find fish:
When Rendell and Whitehead wrote Culture in Whales and Dolphins (2001) they summed up the findings that each orca community eats its own severely restricted diet, uses their own discrete repertoire of vocalizations, and maintains their own prescribed mating practices. The paper, published in the Journal of Behavioural and Brain Sciences, established that: "The complex and stable vocal and behavioural cultures of sympatric groups of killer whales (Orcinus orca) appear to have no parallel outside humans and represent an independent evolution of cultural faculties."
But they didn't want to venture any guesses about how orcas communicate, or how they transmit their cultural rules and traditions. They realize that "...understanding process (cultural transmission) is crucial to our understanding of the product (culture)" but they just don't even want to talk about it: "...no attempt is made to deduce what particular form of social learning underlies the observed patterns." And…"we know virtually nothing about the actual learning mechanisms cetaceans employ."
Then they hint at what they suspect: "Human culture is intimately linked to both language and symbolism, but there is currently no empirical basis for discussing the role or non-role of language and symbolism in cetacean culture …"
And they say: "Cetacean cultures appear to possess other attributes that have otherwise been restricted to humans. In particular, we are aware of no phenomena outside humans comparable to the distinctive, stable and sympatric vocal and behavioural cultures which appear to exist at several levels of killer whale society."
Over the next month we will continue to explore the intelligence and culture of the orcas as we discuss the proposed guidelines for increased protection of our locally endangered population.
It was recently in the news that dogs, on average, are as smart as a two year old human child in performing some tasks, and in some ways are considered to rival four year olds in their ability to understand both language and simple arithmetic.
And once again, I started thinking about orcas and their large brains, and about how we humans have a difficult time in assessing the intelligence of other species. We want to be able to measure them using ourselves as yardsticks, we weigh and measure their abilities based upon our own...yet those measurements inevitably fall short because other species are adapted so differently.
Nonetheless, until science is able to unravel the mystery of animal intelligence, most of us are comfortable with comparing animals to ourselves and to other animals. I think the real problem comes when we put a 'spin' on what we see, it causes us to develop beliefs and attitudes about a species before we truly understand its nature or abilities.
To illustrate this, I've included three YouTube videos all based on footage of the same orca encounter in Antarctica. I was able to embed two of them here, the third would only allow a link - but it is worth the trouble to view it, because it sensationalizes the event and makes speculations. Plus it changed the outcome...which was actually a happy one.
CNN's version - concise.
A Spectator's footage - longer with more detail.
Animal Planet's version: Dramatic and misleading, but interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3xmqbNsRSk
The point here is that we can see the intelligence of the orcas in action, no one can reasonably challenge that. But we don't know, really, how the orcas communicated during the event, nor do we know their motivation -- and the things we see in the media can be misleading.
So are they smart? Definitely. Someday we will have an idea of how they compare to us, but in the meantime we have to be careful that we don't form concepts that are based on misinterpretation.
After all, the fact that the orcas chose not to kill the seal tells us as much about them as does their brilliant hunting strategy.
Most of our readers here know that L-pod member "Lolita" is from a locally endangered population of orcas, one of only 86 of those whales left. Her life is far from ideal, and she is not being kept in a pool that is legal, even by the low standards set by the theme parks. And what we want to know is how this can be rectified.
Now how did that come to pass? Would it not have made more sense to offer her protection and then let the theme park petition to keep her? Would they then not have had to provide a legal pool for her?
And shouldn't biologists decide what are adequate facilities for marine mammals, not the theme parks themselves?
Yet we are conflicted…we have learned a great deal about orcas and other dolphins by studying captives, and we want to increase our knowledge. Reasonably enough, both polls (here and Facebook) show that if dolphins and whales are in captivity, most poll takers expressed that it should be for research purposes – although I think that there is far more to be gained by researching them in the wild at this point.
In the meantime, a member of a locally endangered species languishes in a sad theme park without the company of her own species, in a substandard pool.
I have written to both Senator Patty Murray and Senator Maria Cantwell and requested that they share with us explanations as to the government's lack of action, and will post their replies when I receive them.
Hopefully the USDA will inspect and measure the concrete bowl where Lolita has lived the past 39 years and will find it unlawful under the Animal Welfare Act...Those words from Howard Garrett's post really got me wondering about how it is possible that the governmental agencies responsible for animal welfare are able to turn their backs when it comes to the Miami Seaquarium and the substandard tank where "Lolita" (the orca taken from L-pod) is forced to live.
The USDA arm of the government that is responsible is the Animal Plant and Health Service (APHIS). The Regulations read: 9 C.F.R. Sec. 3.104 - Space Requirements -
The primary enclosure for a Killer whale (Orcinus orca) must have a minimum horizontal dimension of no less than 48 ft. in either direction with a straight line of travel across the center.
In 1995 the Humane Society of the United States filed a formal complaint against the Seaquarium regarding the substandard size of Lolita's tank. The Animal Plant and Health Service (APHIS) has yet to act. Fourteen years later, she is still in the substandard tank.
Who is the Animal Plant and Health Service? Their mission statement says: "Protecting American agriculture" is the basic charge of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS provides leadership in ensuring the health and care of animals and plants. The agency improves agricultural productivity and competitiveness and contributes to the national economy and the public health.
The 1994 Marine Mammal Protection Act amendments eliminated NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction over captive care and maintenance of marine mammals held for public display, placing it under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare Act administered by the Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). However, the MMPA requires that NOAA Fisheries maintain the captive Marine Mammal Inventory Database.
The 1994 Marine Mammal Protection Act amendment concerning captive marine mammals:
NMFS and FWS will regulate the taking of marine mammals from the wild under the MMPA, while subsequent care and maintenance of captive marine mammals held for purposes of public display at registered or licensed facilities will be regulated by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act (Pub.L. 89-544, as amended). For the taking and importing of marine mammals for public display, permits will be issued only when [1] the effect of the take or importation on wild populations is considered, [2] the method of the taking is humane, [3] an institution is registered or licensed under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), [4] the institution offers an education or conservation program based upon professionally recognized standards of the public display community, and [5] the institution maintains facilities that are open to the public on a regularly scheduled basis. Although NMFS or FWS must be notified at least 15 days prior to the sale, export, or transport of a captive marine mammal, and NMFS and FWS must maintain an inventory of captive individuals, a permit or other authorization is no longer required to obtain, hold captive, transport, transfer, purchase, sell, or export marine mammals that are being held captive for public display purposes when animals move between facilities that meet the permit criteria. In addition, export of marine mammals is prohibited except as explicitly provided for in the Act.
So why doesn't the USDA do anything to enforce the law with respect to "Lolita's" living conditions?
