In an attack that can only be described as a bizarre pre-emptive strike, Sea World Gold Coast’s management has called for the global organisation, World Animal Protection (WAP) to be stripped of its charity status.
It is said that attack is the best form of defence, and it seems Sea World Gold Coast is taking that adage to a whole other level. This is a tactic that we have never seen used publicly by Sea World as an organisation-until now.
Earlier this month World Animal Protection launched billboards on the Gold Coast targeting dolphin captivity. Forming part of its global campaign calling for an end to captive breeding of dolphins, the WAP billboards described a reality of confined life for dolphins, but stopped short of naming Sea World or any other facility on the signs.
One of WAPS Billboards on the Gold Coast.
Sea World’s management clearly felt they were being directly targeted, so approached the billboard company, who they then ‘persuaded’ to remove the advertisements from display. Sea World also took to the media in defence of keeping and breeding its dolphins, spouting its businesses value to the community through its education and conservation work. It also once again led the the public to believe that its dolphins are somehow better off than those in other facilities around the world, because they live in large ‘sand bottom lagoon – pools.’
Fast forward nearly 2 weeks, and out of the blue (no pun intended) Sea World’s management have blasted WAP in the media (again), stating that it has now sent a letter to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), describing WAP’s campaign as “targeted, malicious and misleading.” It wants WAP “stripped of its charity status” and claims “it lies to collect donations from unsuspecting consumers,” and “is denigrating Sea World.”
Oddly enough, it also threw in that “The animal activists try to shame travel companies into boycotting Sea World through public pressure. Environmentalists have done the same thing with the Adani mine project, urging people to boycott companies aligned to the Indian giant.”
One might wonder why Sea World would mention Adani at all, let alone in a way that gives the impression the massive coal mine is somehow something environmentalists shouldn’t speak out about? Unfortunately, it seems that this comment is purely designed with shareholder interests in mind, to show support for the current government’s targeting of social and political protest – even if it is the environment at stake.
Sea World’s own management have stated that “climate change is the planet’s and the marine environment’s biggest issue” and “if we don’t harness climate change we’re going to be losing animals left right and centre.” Yet in this statement they appear to be defending the mining “giant,” and the government’s anti-democratic actions; they’re prioritising their own interests ahead of a mine that will allow 500 more coal ships to travel through the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area every year for 60 years and add 4.6 billion tonnes of carbon pollution to our atmosphere.
Sea World’s Bikash Randhawa who was quoted in the media release and who increasingly appears as the companies PR front-man, seems to enjoy a battle. In a recent twitter confrontation with an ex-dolphin trainer he declared “We are winning and will win, you are all a bunch of nothing,..” as if somehow animal welfare is a competition.
Not one to shy away from airing his opinions, Mr. Randhawa also declared WAP’s campaign as “…lies. outright lies and they need to be held to account.’’
The article also stated (once again), that: “Sea World’s dolphins swim on [sic] some of the largest sandy bottom lagoons in the world, all of which contain an array of natural rock formations and other natural stimuli.”
One of Sea World’s sand bottom pens with ‘natural stimuli.’ Image supplied.
Sea Worlds “lagoons” may have sand bottoms, but they are not ‘large’ when considering that each lagoon area is divided into pens by fences and gates. The dolphins have little choice as to which pen they can use as Sea World’s operations, in particular its paid public interactions, for the most part, determine when dolphins may move from one pen to another.
It is a mystery what the “natural stimuli” might be to which Sea World refers. From all observations, there appears to be nothing natural or stimulating for the dolphins in their pens other than sand! The enclosures do have some rocks, mostly in the shallow edges, however Sea World’s implication in the article that an “array” of rocks is in some way stimulating for such social and intelligent animals is truly a puzzling concern.
Sea Worlds array of stimulating rocks. Image supplied
The article also stated that “Sea World is home to 27 dolphins born over three generations. Mr Randhawa said “the money wasted on these billboards would be much better spent on proper animal conservation” and “these people would not stop at Sea World, but other organisations like Australia Zoo, Taronga Park Zoo, Sea Life, Melbourne Zoo – and other aquariums would be targeted.”
Sea World’s dolphin collection may have been born over 3 generations, however this statement could be misconstrued to mean that all 27 dolphins were born at the park and that is not the case. Sea World’s dolphins are a mixture of previously wild caught animals, captive bred and also rescued and deemed-unreleasable animals. In addition, the last time Mr. Randhawa was in the media, those reports stated that the park houses 28 dolphins, yet trainers at the park say ‘around 30’ and Sea World’s head of Marine Science recently stated they have about 23.
Sea World have been asked to confirm their dolphin numbers for years, but a definitive number is never provided. One has to consider — why? In addition, Sea World’s exhibitor permits, authorised by the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, only require Sea World’s dolphin numbers to be provided once every three years. The number of dolphins being born and dying in-between permit renewals is anyone’s guess.
Dolphin calf Dusty died before his first birthday but his death was never announced. Neither was the birth of ‘Dougie’
“Proper conservation” means to protect animals, their habitats and biological diversity for future generations, yet at Sea World its dolphins are not bred for conservation; the species they breed are not endangered and because they are captive-bred they will never be released to the wild, so can never contribute to biological diversity – in the wild.
What sets places such as Taronga Park Zoo and Melbourne Zoo apart from facilities like Sea World is that those institutions provide authentic education and have conservation programs focused on endangered species. They don’t have their animals perform and interact with the public everyday in return for a large portion of their food, nor do they present their animals in an amusement park setting, exposed to constant noise, thrill rides, stunt shows and circus-like theatrical and unnatural performances.
Dolphins tail-walking in Sea World’s ‘Affinity’ theatrical show. Image supplied
Sea World’s dolphins, unlike its other animal species, have no shelter, no where to retreat and no ability to go ‘off display.’ Mr. Randhawa admitted as much when he stated in the media, “Sea World Gold Coast is a facility that does not have a back of house area everything we do is in the front of the public domain..” Interestingly, his statement seems odd when considering what areas the general public can access at the park.
There is only one other facility in Australia that still keeps dolphins commercially and that facility has already agreed it will no longer breed them. The Managing Director of Dolphin Marine Conservation Park in New South Wales stated “there’s no reason for us to be breeding.” A government inquiry is also underway in that state considering a phase out of cetacean exhibition, and disallowing their breeding for exhibition.
Perhaps RSPCA Australia sums the situation up best in its 2019 research report “The Welfare of Dolphins In Captivity” where it states –
“There appears to be little evidence to support the main claims made by proponents of dolphin captivity. Bottlenose dolphins, the most commonly held species in captivity, are not threatened in the wild and there are no active conservation programs being undertaken in association with Australian dolphinariums. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the keeping or breeding of dolphins in Australia has educational or scientific benefits. The only reason dolphins are being bred and kept in captivity in Australia is to perpetuate their use for entertainment.”
The outcome of Sea World’s attack on World Animal Protection, formerly the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), a respected organisation that has been helping protect animals globally for more than 50 years, remains to be seen. Regardless, one thing is certain, the issue of dolphin captivity and the breeding of these species for commercial and entertainment purposes is finally on the agenda in Australia – and it’s about time.
Learn the facts about marine mammals in captivity here: https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/AWI-ML-CAMMIC-5th-edition.pdf
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors.
Disclaimer: Black Cove are a small group of independents who receive no funding and do not collect donations. Our blogs are opinion pieces unless otherwise stated and the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of mentioned organisations. All information we provide is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge, however there may be omissions, errors or mistakes. Our blogs are for informational and awareness raising purposes only and we are not professional marine mammal experts. Black Cove reserves the right to change the focus or content of our blogs at any time. All images contained in this blog where stated have been used or created with permission.This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. Credit is given to the author of quotes, photos and other related materials. We source these materials from various public internet sites, in an effort to advance understanding of animal rights issues. We believe the use of materials on this site constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material and is distributed on this site without profit. If you wish to use any copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain expressed permission from the copyright owner. If you are the owner of any copyrighted material and believe the use of any such material does not constitute “fair use”, please contact us, so we can make proper corrections, and ultimately, take it off the post if requested and or if proven necessary.The owner of this page, its administrators, or representatives will not be held personally responsible, nor liable for any damages, actual or consequential, for any posts by third parties which may violate any law. All quotes obtained directly or through our sources and provided for our use.
Commenti