Improving Captive Marine Mammal Welfare in the United States: Science-Based Recommendations for Improved Regulatory Requirements for Captive Marine Mammal Care

Abstract

Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act 1 (AWA) in order "to ensure the humane care and treatment of various animals used in research or for exhibition or kept as pets. 2 To this end, the Act requires, inter alia, that the Secretary of Agriculture 'promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors. "' 3 The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the agency under the U.S. Department of Agriculture responsible for implementing the AWA, first promulgated regulations pertaining to the care of marine mammals in captivity 4 in 1979 and has updated various aspects of these regulations on a limited basis since then. The last time the marine mammal care regulations relating to the physical conditions under which these species are held were substantively revised was in 1984. 5 On 3 February 2016, APHIS published a proposed rule to amend the captive marine mammal regulations. 6 The agency took 14 years to issue this proposed rule 7 and had it under consideration for 20 years. 8 APHIS's marine mammal care regulations are intended to "insure that animals intended … for exhibition purposes … are provided humane care and treatment. " 9 The statute does not, however, define the term "humane. " In the absence of a statutory definition, it is appropriate to "look to the common usage of words for

Behavioral Biomarkers for Animal Health: A Case Study Using Animal-Attached Technology on Loggerhead Turtles

“…Given the ever-growing welfare concerns for animals maintained in zoos and aquaria (Johnson and Tyack, 2003;Shepard et al, 2008;Ismail et al, 2012) and the myriad research opportunities that these venues provide, it is surprising that little quantitative information (which is readily available via biologging) exists in relation to the activity and health of most species (Flint and Bonde, 2017;Shorter et al, 2017). This is especially pertinent to managed marine vertebrates (particularly cetaceans and other pinnipeds), whose presence in aquaria is regularly scrutinized (Rose et al, 2017). As such, current health and welfare assessments and monitoring practices, which generally rely on qualitative observations (including what individuals eat and social interactions) could be greatly aided by the collection of behavior in a quantifiable manner (Shorter et al, 2017).…”

“…In contrast to observational monitoring, which takes time and has a large degree of subjectivity (Broom and Johnson, 1993;Rushen, 2003;Lawrence, 2008;Rose et al, 2017), biologging enables the collection of quantitative data in a fast (often at several Hertz) and unbiased manner (Block, 2005;Sherub et al, 2017). Furthermore, information is recorded in sufficient detail to; (i) develop species-specific guidelines to standardize captive assessments, (ii) determine if adequate welfare requirements are being fulfilled, i.e., by defining what constitutes "typical" or "healthy" behavior and (iii) provide guidance on whether an animal is suitable for release after rehabilitation (Rose et al, 2017).…”

“…In contrast to observational monitoring, which takes time and has a large degree of subjectivity (Broom and Johnson, 1993;Rushen, 2003;Lawrence, 2008;Rose et al, 2017), biologging enables the collection of quantitative data in a fast (often at several Hertz) and unbiased manner (Block, 2005;Sherub et al, 2017). Furthermore, information is recorded in sufficient detail to; (i) develop species-specific guidelines to standardize captive assessments, (ii) determine if adequate welfare requirements are being fulfilled, i.e., by defining what constitutes "typical" or "healthy" behavior and (iii) provide guidance on whether an animal is suitable for release after rehabilitation (Rose et al, 2017). This has particularly important implications for a wide range of species (including fish, sea turtles, birds, pinnipeds and cetaceans) that are frequently injured in fishery related interactions or by marine debris (Raum-Suryan et al, 2009;Adimey et al, 2014;Gall and Thompson, 2015;Jambeck et al, 2015;Nelms et al, 2015;Stelfox et al, 2016).…”

“…Unlike the animals in human care, logging devices have been widely used with their wild counterparts (Eckert, 2002;Shorter et al, 2017). The information derived from these applications is highly valuable as understanding natural behavior and ecology is key to informing appropriate welfare standards for animals in captivity (Eckert, 2002;Shorter et al, 2017) and the wild (Rose et al, 2017). It also informs critical decisions such as whether to conserve natural habitats or recreate them artificiallythese decisions usually involve vulnerable animals (for example dugongs and manatees) and can have major consequences (Rose et al, 2017).…”

Peer Review #1 of "Reassessing public opinion of captive cetacean attractions with a photo elicitation survey (v0.2)"

“…The pro-and anti-arguments for keeping cetaceans in captivity have escalated in the last decade, with high-profile public debate over the ethical and conservation implications of the practice (Jiang et al, 2007;Shani & Pizam, 2008;Thomas, 2017;Rose et al, 2017). Traditional and online/social media have questioned the continued existence of captive cetacean attractions (Coldwell, 2014;Kuo & Savidge, 2014;Lerer, 2014;Zimmermann, 2014).…”