HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In 1985 after concerns raised about the care of cetaceans in the UK by various animal and environmental groups the then Department of the Environment, now part of DEFRA, commissioned biologists Dr Margaret Klinowska and Dr Susan Brown to research and review the keeping of these animals in UK zoos and aquaria. Klinowska and Brown's report 'A Review Of Dolphinaria' was published in 1986 and a copy of this can be found on the link on the top left hand corner of this page.
In 1986, a Steering Group of experts and officials was setup to review the recommendations of the report "A Review of Dolphinaria" and after consultation with various interested parties in 1988 they published; "Dolphinaria: Report of the Steering Group" which setup recommendations for the future welfare and keeping standards for cetaceans in UK animal collections. A copy of this report can be found below
The Steering Group Report was published in 1988 and is and remains Crown copyright and reproduced here under the terms of fair use
DOLPHINARIA
Report
of the Steering Group
Formation
of the Steering Group
The Klinowska Report
Terms of
Reference
The Work of the Group
Examination of the
"Klinowska" Report by 4-5 the Steering Group.
Article
6 Exemptions.
The Action Programme.
CHAPTER ONE - BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF CETACEA
Comments
on Specific Suggestions.
Summary of Recommendations.
General
Comments.
Postmortem Reports.
Comments on Specific
Suggestions.
Summary of Recommendations.
CHAPTER THREE - WATER TREATMENT
General
Comments.
Basic Parameters.
Performance criteria (Salt, pH,
Bacteria and Chlorination).
Filtration.
Enclosure Water
analyses.
Summary of Recommendations.
General
Comments.
Comments on specific Conclusions and
Suggestions.
Summary of Recommendations.
General
comments.
Standards for primary enclosures.
Width and
Breadth.
Volume.
Depth.
Isolation and Medical Care
Facilities.
Natural Sea Water Systems.
Timescale for
meeting the new Standards
Doubling of proposed Standards and
Revision of the basic decision to allow cetacean
keeping to
continue
Temporary Accommodation, Transportation and
Catching
Summary of Recommendations.
General
Comments.
Comments on Specific Suggestions.
Summary of
Recommendations.
Comment
on Specific Conclusions.
Coordination of UK research
efforts.
Comments on Specific Suggestions.
Summary of
Recommendations.
General
Comments.
Comments on specific Suggestions.
Summary of
Recommendations.
General
comments.
Standards for primary enclosures.
Width and
Breadth.
Volume.
Depth.
Isolation and Medical Care
Facilities.
Natural Sea Water Systems.
Timescale for
meeting the new Standards
Doubling of proposed Standards and
Revision of the basic decision to allow cetaceankeeping to
continue
Temporary Accommodation, Transportation and
Catching
Summary of Recommendations.
Annex A List of persons and organisations that submitted written comments to the Steering Group.
Annex B Subject Index of "A Review of Dolphinaria."
Annex C Summary of Conclusions, Advice and Suggestions accepted without comment.
Annex D Summary of Recommendations.
Annex E Action Plan for Implementation of the Report.
Annex F(i) List of species of interest for research.
Annex F(ii) Research Projects.
Annex G Draft Supplement to Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo practice.
Formation
of the Steering Group
1.
On 4 August 1986, it was announced by the Minister of State for the
Department of the Environment (DOE) that he had set up a Steering
Group of experts and officials to review the recommendations of the
report by Dr Margaret Klinowska and Dr Susan Brown, "A Review of
Dolphinaria". The composition of this Steering Group was:-
Mr
R M Bone (Chairman) Head of the DOE Endangered Species Branch
Dr
M Vincent Nature Conservancy Council
Ms Christina Lockyer Sea
Mammal Research Unit, Natural Environment Research Council
Mrs V
A Rothwell (Secretary) DOE
Dr
Klinowska was retained on a consultancy basis to provide advice and
interpretation of her report to the Steering Group.
The Klinowska report
2. Dr Klinowska was appointed in June 1985 as an independent adviser and was asked to consider whether the educational, research and breeding benefits of dolphinaria and similar establishments of the United Kingdom were of sufficient value to justify the further import and display of live cetaceans. She was asked to consider the standards which should be applied to dolphinaria if they can be justified on educational research or breeding grounds. The review took account of the current legislation and she sought the views of operators and the conservation bodies.
Terms of Reference
3. The terms of reference of the Steering Group were:-
(a)
To consider the report "A Review of Dolphinaria" by Dr M
Klinowska and Dr S Brown, and its detailed recommendations,
(b) To consider comments from operators of dolphinaria and other interested bodies upon the detailed recommendations of the Klinowska report,
(c) To define an Action Programme for implementation of the report,
(d) To advise whether or not further exemptions for commercial display under Article 6 of the EC CITES Regulation (3626/82) could be granted after 1 January 1987,
(e) To co-ordinate action by the Department of the Environment and others in the implementation of the Action Programme.
Comments on the detailed recommendations of the Report, from dolphinaria operators and other interested bodies, were invited by the end of August, 1986.
The Work of the Group
4. The Steering Group met four times; received written comments on the detailed recommendations contained in the Klinowska Report from dolphinaria operators and other interested bodies (Annex A); and had two meetings with representatives of the dolphinaria operators and with Wildlife Link representing nine conservation organisatons. They visited the Brighton and Windsor Dolphinaria to observe the facilities and the exhibitions at first hand.
Examination of the "Klinowska" Report by the Steering Group
5. In examining the Report the Steering Group decided a detailed Subject Index of the original Klinowska Report would be useful. This is at Annex B . Conclusions/Suggestions have been given reference codes and these are used for cross-reference purposes within the body of this report. Tables and Figures have been itemised in the Subject Index.
6. The Steering Group found many of the Klinowska Report's conclusions and the paragraphs offering advice and suggestions for action were welcomed and accepted by dolphinaria operators and the conservation bodies. The Steering Group found no reason to dissent from these generally accepted views which form Annex C.
7. However, there were major areas of disagreement, primarily related to the specifications for pool dimensions and water treatment. Matters on which comment was considered necessary, are discussed in detail in the following chapters. Recommendations are made at the end of each chapter and summarised at Annex D.
8. The Group are grateful for all the help and assistance they received, and for the oral and written comments.
Article 6 Exemptions
9. The Steering Group were required to advise upon the granting of further exemptions for commercial display (Article 6 of EC Regulation 3626/82) before the main body of their work could be completed. They advised that futher exemptions for a period of one year from 1 January 1987 should be issued to Dolphinaria currently keeping Cetacea.
The Action Programme
10. The "Klinowska Report" embraced subjects across a wide spectrum of Cetacea knowledge in order to focus on the particular area of "captive cetacean keeping". In so doing it considered matters which are not the direct responsibility of DOE. The draft Action Programme, Annex E envisages that DOE will bring these matters to the attention of the appropriate authorities and will, monitor it's effectiveness.
11.
The Steering Group consider that general guidance on the direction in
which cetacean research should be moving would be helpful. A list of
species which may be of interest for captive or wild research has
been compiled, Annex
F(i)
and a schedule of research project areas in which the Review document
has shown there is an urgent need for further information is
at
Annex
F(ii).
12. Implementation of elements of the Action Plan within direct control of DOE should not require new legislation. In many cases it may need no more than amplification of existing guidance or agreement internally on methods and procedures. However it is clear that because of the totally waterborne
13. lifestyle of these air-breathing mammals there is a need for more detailed guidance than is available from the existing Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice. The Steering Group RECOMMENDED the Guidelines at Annex G be issued as a Supplement to the Secretary of State Standards for use by local licensing authorities and operators.
CHAPTER ONE - BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF CETACEA
Comments on Specific Suggestions
1.1 The Steering Group accepted the first suggestion (BCCsl) (page 22) of the Review document. It is sensible, for the identification of unusual behaviour or stress in later captivity, that animals be taken from social groupings whose composition is known and has been monitored for some time. It is also essential that any extraction of an animal from that social grouping should not unduly disturb the sexual and age structure of the group and thus jeopardise its survival.
1.2 The second suggestion (BCCs2) (page 22):-
"No animal should be acquired, even those already established in captivity, unless the original capture was from a properly assessed and managed population." [Our underlining.]
was considered to be too draconian, and did not allow any flexibility to deal with unexpected circumstances. It could condemn existing captive animals to remain in solitude for the rest of their natural lives if their present partners were to be removed. The Review condemned the keeping of solitary animals and the Steering Group concluded that the suggestion needed modification.
1.3 Summary of Recommendations
(i) Suggestion BCCsl should be accepted for immediate implementation.
(ii) Suggestion BCCs2 should be reworded to read:-
"Animals should not normally be acquired unless the original capture was known to have been from a properly assessed and managed population. The transfer of an existing captive solitary animal to join an established social grouping may be one of the circumstances in which this criterion could be waived."
General Comments
2.1.1
The Steering Group considered the death of "Nemo", the
killer whale at Windsor, illustrated the need for a clearer
understanding of the requirements of the Secretary of State's
Standards of Modern Zoo Practice in relation to post-mortem reports.
The Standards require:-
"The cause of death for each animal
dying in the collection to be established where reasonable and
practicable to do so, including, in the majority of cases, the
examination of carcases by a veterinary surgeon or a practitioner
with training and experience of animal pathology."
2.1.2 Following "Nemo's" death a postmortem was undertaken, and although the cause of death was publicly announced, the full details have not been revealed to DOE. However some pathological details were released as part of a paper presented to the 15th Annual Symposium of the European Association for Aquatic Mammals (EAAM) at Hamburg, Germany, in March 1987. The diagnosis, was given as a cancerous blood disorder similar to "Hodgkin's disease" in human.
2.1.3 ANY postmortem of a captive cetacean would yield much valuable information and biological material of interest to researchers in this field. The number of animals in captivity is comparatively small, and no opportunity should be lost to secure data about them.
2.2 "Sooty", the solitary dolphin at Knowsley, was moved during November 1986 with DOE consent to join another solitary dolphin, "Rocky", at Morecambe. On her death in February 1987, the owners voluntarily provided a full portmortem report to DOE. The diagnosis was given as 1) Pulmonary embolism, 2) Circulatory failure due to hypertension, and 3) Chronic glomerulonephritis.
2.3 The deaths of "Nemo" and "Sooty" have been taken into account by the Steering Group, but have not materially affected their conclusions.
Postmortem Reports
2.4.1 In addition to the reasons given in 2.1.3 above, the Steering Group considered that full details of a postmortem on a captive cetacean should be provided to the Department of the Environment, so that any suggestion of failure to meet the Secretary of State's Standards or conditions imposed in an Article 6 Exemption may be pursued. For new imports to the UK, the Import permit should contain an appropriate condition from the outset. For existing animals within the UK, a suitable condition should be incorporated in any renewal of the Article 6 Exemption.
2.4.2 The Steering Group also considered that, where practicable, material from animals dying in captivity should be made freely available for research.
Comments on Specific Suggestions
2.5 Keeping records of animals in captivity is covered by the current version of the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice. The suggestions contained in MRsl (page 92) would appear to be equally applicable to all animals in captivity. For this reason the Steering Group considered that the present Standards should be modified to take account of the greater detail now proposed.
2.6 The authors of the Review have recorded their difficulties in compiling an accurate account of cetacean keeping within the UK, due to the loss or absence of readily available accurate records. This problem was severely aggravated by the lack of any requirement for records to be transferred with an animal when it changed location or ownership.
2.7.1
MRs2 (page 92) suggests the transfer of a copy of the fully
documented history of an animal whenever it changes location and, in
addition, the deposit of a duplicate copy of that history with DOE
as
a safeguard against accidental destruction or deliberate tampering.
For cetaceans the Steering Group RECOMMEND that DOE incorporate a
suitable condition in the appropriate Import licence or Article 6
Exemption. Howeverthe value of such records is not limited to
cetaceans alone, and the Steering Group wish to draw to the Secretary
of State's attention that it may be appropriate that a similar
requirement be incorporated in the Secretary of State's Standards of
Modern Zoo Practice for other species.
2.7.2 The Steering Group considered that the deposit of a duplicate set of these records with the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), the Department's Scientific Advisers, would be preferable. Controlled access for research, analyses, and reports would then be facilitated. The conditions to be imposed should incorporate this requirement. DOE as UK CITES Management Authority, would only need to maintain a summary of those matters relevant to the conditions placed upon the import permit or Article 6 Exemption.
2.8 Suggestion MRs3 (page 92) has been noted, and the only comment of the Steering Group is that the decision on selection of the most appropriate medium for publishing annual reports on animals held must be left to the individual establishment concerned.
2.9 Summary of Recommendations
i) Conditions should be attached to import licences and/or Article 6 Exemptions for all captive cetaceans requiring the submission of full postmortem reports (including any necessary laboratory test results) to DOE within ten days of completion.
ii) Conditions should be attached to import licences and/or Article 6 Exemptions for all live cetaceans to require the transfer of a copy of the full documentary history of an animal with it whenever its location is changed. A duplicate copy should be deposited with the Nature Conservancy Council at the same time.
iii) DOE should consider amendment of the record keeping requirements of the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice to incorporate the expanded details described in Suggestion MRsl of the Review document.
CHAPTER THREE - WATER TREATMENT
General comments
3.1
That the water of a dolphinarium, in which captive bred Cetacea could
spend their whole lives, should be clean and free from pollutants is
not in dispute by dolphinaria operators or conservation
organisations. The means by which this can be assured is, however, a
subject of contention.
3.2 The authors of the Review document detailed the current systems in operation within the UK, and gave comparisons of the data provided by the operators. The chemical reactions involved with the Chlorination process were explained and the importance of the various Chlorine compounds in the disinfection process discussed. [Note: On page 93 of the Review document there is a mistake - a bottlenose dolphin only produces 4 litres of urine per day, not 12.]
3.3 It is not the intention of the Steering Group to try to recommend a universal method by which these processes should be carried out, but rather to recommend a set of performance criteria which would be valid for any method and will be flexible enough to accommodate new techniques and scientific knowledge of the requirements of the species being held.
Basic parameters
3.4 The Steering Group identified certain basic parameters which are considered to be essential prerequisites. Some of these have been included, in full or in part, in the Suggestions of the Review document, and where this is so the reference codes are given in the list which follows:
i) Dolphinaria operators must ensure that all staff directly concerned with the care of Cetacea have an adequate knowledge of the theory of water treatment, and training should be given to supplement practical instruction in the operation of the system installed at the particular establishment; (WTsl&2).
ii) Operators must designate specific staff to control the day to day operation of the water processing equipment. Those staff must receive specialised training in the detailed operation of the equipment, including action to take in any emergency situation. They must also be capable of undertaking simple analyses of water samplesfor the control of water quality and have the authority to rectify the deficiencies as necessary.
iii) Sufficient extra water processing equipment must be provided to allow for regular maintenance and partial breakdown; (WTs7).
iv) The design of enclosures must provide for full water circulation to ensure effective water treatment throughout the system; (WTsll&12); and in emergencies, chemicals such as chlorine normally should be added by hand to the water only at a point in the system after filtration but before water re-enters the enclosure.
v) It must be possible to empty each pool, or any combination of pools, rapidly and without polluting or overwhelming local drainage arrangements; (WTsl5).
vi) Establishments must have a clear written policy, which is readily available to all members of staff, on the following matters:-normal operating water treatment parameters; pool water renewal; water analyses; water sampling; renewal of filter media; (WTs8,9,17,20&22).
Performance criteria (Salt, pH, Bacteria, and Chlorination)
3.5 Regardless of whether the system in operation at an establishment is of the open, partly-open, or closed variety, there are certain performance criteria which the Steering Group consider should be common. These would require that there be a low level of bacteria and other pathogens; low levels of nitrogenous compounds; that salt and pH levels be maintained as near as possible to that encountered by wild populations; and that a reasonable degree of water clarity with a low level of suspended solids and detritus, should be consistently maintained.
3.6 The authors of the Review have commented on all of these aspects including the (then) current performance standards of each of the UK dolphinaria. Drawing on the various standards available world-wide, they have concluded that, to reach these performance criteria consistently, it is necessary for certain specific limits to be defined.3.7.1 For pH, salt and coliform bacterial levels the recommendations of the European Association for Aquatic Mammals (EAAM) appeared to be the most appropriate:- pH 7.6-8.2; salt 1.5-3.5%; coliform bacteria 500 organisms per 100 ml. However the Steering Group's attention has been drawn to a technical instruction "Technical Instruction TICE 22: Sampling of Drinking Water and Water for Swimming Pools" produced by the Property Services Agency.
3.7.2 This document deals with fresh water quality control (and thus does not affect the EAAM recommendation on salinity) and suggests that the pH level should be contained within 7.2-8.0, since below 7.2 corrosion is possible with green water, and above 8.0 scale formation is possible with cloudy water. Guidance levels of 7.4-7.6 and minimum/maximum acceptable levels of 7.2-7.8 are given. The Steering Group recognise that the pH levels which have proved acceptable for humans may not be entirely satisfactory for Cetacea, however in the absence of more detailed scientific evidence it would seem appropriate to adopt a cautious view of the range of minima/maxima to be applied. For this reason we therefore RECOMMEND that minimum/maximum pH levels of 7.6-8.0 be accepted as appropriate standard requirements with a guide level of 7.8, and that paragraph 27(a) of the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice be modified to incorporate them.
3.7.3 The EAAM recommendation for coliform bacteria levels is a maximum of 500 organisms per 100 ml. The details contained in the Review document indicate that none of the UK dolphinaria has found any difficulty in consistently maintaining levels well below this. In comparison the TICE 22 recommendation for swimming pools of a maximum of 10 organisms per 100 ml assumes that the water is entirely free from faecal coliform organisms eg Escherichia soli. The natural functions of Cetacea are likely to render this requirement impossible; even so the EAAM standard seems to be excessively lenient and could with advantage be reduced. The Steering Group RECOMMEND that the levels of coliform bacteria should not exceed 100 organisms per 100 ml and that this level should be reviewed, in the light of practical operation and of any new biological evidence on the water quality needs of Cetacea, within the next five years.
3.8.1 The Review document considered that for chlorination the two most consistent processes required either the addition of minimum chlorine, thus relying on monochloramine (NH2C1) for disinfection, or the use of 'breakpoint' chlorination in which the presence of hypochlorous acid (HOCl) (also known as 'free residual chlorine') has greater disinfecting properties and the ability to produce superclean water . The third option of 'marginal' chlorination which falls part way between the other two, was not favoured because of the exposure of the animals to irritant chlorine compounds even though hygiene could be maintained by careful operational control.
3.8.2 The Steering Group thought it unreasonable to suggest that an establishment which had been using the 'marginal' chlorination process for a number of years without apparent detriment to their animals should be required to change to another process, and made NO RECOMMENDATION as to the appropriate process to be adopted by existing dolphinaria. They did consider that the case for the employment of the 'breakpoint' chlorination process had been demonstrated as currently providing the most satisfactory solution to the problems of disinfection and water clarity and RECOMMENDED that this process be considered for use in all new, or rebuilt, enclosures.
Filtration
3.9.1 Filtration systems in use within the UK are variations on the theme of sand filters. Elsewhere, particularly in the United States, diatomaceous earth filters are more commonly used but the material is expensive and difficult to obtain in UK. A major concern expressed to the Steering Group was that proposals for design standards of filtration systems should be practical and not impose unreasonable demands in terms of physical capacity, water flow speeds, or cost.
3.9.2 The EAAM have recommended a turn-over rate for any closed system enclosure to be not more than four hours. The Review authors, and the Steering Group, accept this; however the corollary to a maximum turn-over rate is that the equipment to produce that rate must be designed to operate faster than this, or else the equipment will be attempting to run at 100% of design speed, and this is neither practical or efficient since it causes ecessive wear and more frequent breakdowns. For this reason the Review document suggests (WTs6) that the maximum designed filtration rate of each enclosure should be two hours or less.
3.9.3 An assumption made by a number of people about the effect of water flow rates on the animals in the enclosure was that an enclosure would be designed with only one Inlet and/or one Outlet, and that the total transfer of water would be accomplished by a single piece of equipment. Such a system would require large and expensive pieces of equipment and massive bore pipes. Dr Klinowska has assured the Steering Group that Suggestions WTs5&6 were not intended to imply such a solution, and that it seemed implicit in the requirement (Suggestions WTs 11&12) to ensure total water circulation to all areas of the enclosure that a number of filtration units, capable of operation in concert or independently, with Inlets/Outlets located around the floor and perimeter walls of the enclosure would be necessary. Given a multi-unit system such as this, the water flow rate through any one unit could be designed to provide minimum disturbance to the enclosure's occupants and maximum flexibility for maintenance and emergencies. It is on this basis that the Steering Group finds itself able to accept Suggestions WTs5&6 and RECOMMENDS that they be incorporated in the proposed Supplement to the Secretary of State's Standards.
3.9.4
The importance of full water circulation as an aid to water quality
control has been demonstrated to the Steering Group's satisfaction in
the Review document and both in the correspondence they have received
and the meetings that have been held. New enclosure design should be
able to take full account of the criteria expressed earlier in this
chapter. The Review document suggests that it is necessary for the
situation at existing establishments to be examined and any
deficiencies remedied and monitored where enclosures are to form part
of a rebuilt complex and this is accepted by the Steering
Group.
Enclosure water analyses
3.10 The maintenance of hygienic water conditions in an enclosure requires constant monitoring of the many factors which could affect water quality. Consistency in sample taking and record keeping is essential to monitoring the effects of these various factors on hygiene. The Steering Group is satisfied that basic water analyses (for pH, salinity, and free/combined chlorine etc) are necessary several times daily but that, in the case of more detailed tests for chlorine and nitrogenous compound levels, analyses should be taken at intervals of no more than one week WTs17). Tests for bacteria, fungi and other pathogens do not appear to be required so frequently, and monthly intervals (WTs 18 & 19) should suffice as a minimum standard and is RECOMMENDED. A standard protocol for obtaining, storing and submitting samples for analysis should be evolved and adhered to by each establishment, to ensure comparability of test results.
3.11 Summary of Recommendations
i) Suggestions WTsi-3;6-16;18-22 (pages 101-102) be accepted by the Department of the Environment for early implementation;
ii) Operators should designate specific staff to control the day to day operation of the water processing equipment. Those staff must receive specialised training in the detailed operation of the equipment, including action to take in any emergency situation. They must also be capable of undertaking simple analyses of water samples for the control of water quality and have the authority to rectify the deficiencies as nessary;
iii) In emergencies, chemicals such as chlorine normally should be added by hand to the water only at a point in the system after filtration but before water re-enters the enclosure;
iv)
The recommendation of the European Association for Aquatic Mammals
(EAAM) as to the most appropriate level for salt content of the water
in cetacean enclosures (1.5-3.5%) be accepted; and
v)
Minimum/maximum pH levels of 7.6-8.0 be accepted as appropriate
standard requirements with a normal guide level of 7.8, and that
paragraph 27(a) of the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo
Practice be modified to incorporate them;
vi) The levels of conform bacteria in cetacean enclosures should not exceed 100 organisms per 100 ml and that this level should be reviewed, in the light of practical operation and of any new biological evidence on the water quality needs of cetacea, within not more than five years;
vii) NO RECOMMENDATION on the appropriate chlorination process to be adopted by existing dolphinaria is made;
viii) The 'breakpoint' chlorination process should be considered for use in all new or rebuilt enclosures;
ix) The EAAM recommended turn-over rate for any closed system enclosure of not more than four hours be accepted;
x) With more detailed testing for chlorine and nitrogenous compound levels, analyses should be taken at intervals of no more than one week (Wsl7). Tests for bacteria, fungi and other pathogens do not appear to be required so frequently, and monthly intervals (Ws 18&19) should suffice as a minimum standard. A standard protocol for obtaining, storing and submitting samples for analysis should be evolved and adhered to by each establishment, to ensure comparability of test results.
General comments
4.1
The Review document provides a comprehensive assessment of the
legislation applicable to Cetacea in the waters of the United
Kingdom. It has highlighted some areas of apparent anomaly and
indicated where, in the opinion of the authors, improvements in the
legislation, and in the interpretation of that legislation, might be
made. The Steering Group considered many of the conclusions (page 9)
and suggestions (page 109) contained in the document acceptable, and
these are listed in Annex C.
Comments on specific Conclusions
and Suggestions
4.2.1 In Ls3 (page 109) there appeared to the Steering Group to have been some misunderstanding about the relationship between the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (ZLA) and the controls under the EEC Regulation 3626/82 and they considered that the following explanation would be helpful
The ZLA provides for the Secretary of State to lay down Standards of Modern Zoo Practice and for these Standards to be taken into account by local licensing authorities when considering applications for licences to operate ZOOS. The Standards are intended to provide a guide to both the basic physical and managerial necessities of caring for the animals in Zoos and to the physical well being, including safety, of the visitors to Zoos. They do not lay down the means of achieving those Standards, nor do they provide a performance specification for capturing the interest of the visitors. The requirements of the EC Regulation in respect of education, teaching, breeding and research are, on the other hand necessary areas of enquiry by DOE in deciding applications for import of Appendix I (or Annex C1) species. These same questions also have to be asked when authority for display of these species to the public is being separately sought. Thus the Secretary of State's Standards and the EC Regulation are not so inextricably linked as the authors of the Review document may have thought, and it is not for Zoo Inspectors, acting on behalf of the local licensing authority, to undertake enquiries that are properly the responsibility of the Department.
4.2.2 In Northern Ireland the Department of Agriculture (DANI) administers controls under the EC Regulation 3626/82 and Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland 1972).
4.3.1 The conclusion Lc10 (page 9) and suggestions Ls6 and Ls7 (page 109) have been overtaken. The Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) in discharging the responsibilities placed upon it by Section 24 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) have recommended that all 25 species of cetacean found in British waters should be added to Schedule 5 of the Act and be protected. The Steering Group welcome this recommendation since it would remove any anomalies occasioned by the Prerogative Regis (Royal Fish Law) and the Leges Forestarium, its counterpart in Scotland. It should also clarify the position of live stranded animals, who would become the subject of a license to "take" from NCC under WCA and not to the prohibitions of the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act 1934. The Steering Group consider it should be possible for DOE, NCC, HM Coastguard, British Museum (Natural History) and the Receiver of Wreck to reach a satisfactory "modus vivendi" so that strandings of live or dead Cetacea can be dealt with expeditiously.
4.3.2 The Home Office have confirmed that the results of normal veterinary practices, such as blood and tissue sampling for the welfare of the captive animal, may be used in research projects without jeopardising the exhibitable status of the animal. Equally, observation-type research of the habits and activities of the animals would not require Home Office licensing.
4.4 The Steering Group have noted Conclusions Lcll-12 (which are repeated in Suggestions LsI0-11) but have not accepted Suggestion LsIl. The welfare of captive animals in the UK is covered by existing National Legislation.
4.5 Summary of Recommendations
i) Suggestions Lsl-2;4-5;8-9 (page 109) of the Review document should be accepted for early implementation by DOE.
ii) Immediate negotiations should commence between DOE, NCC, HM Coastguard, British Museum (Natural History) and the Receiver of Wreck with a view to producing a simple and workable system of dealing with the need for scientific investigation and disposal of live or dead strandings.
iii) The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland should be invited to take note of the Recommendations of this Report when considering any applications for import, or display to the public, of cetaceans under the EC Regulation 3626/82 or for licenses under Part II of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.
General Comments
5.1 The mechanism available to DOE to control the import, display, and well being of captive cetaceans is that devolving from EC Regulation 3626/82 which implements the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) throughout the European Community. Whilst there are provisions to ensure that live specimens in trade are carefully treated, the primary purpose of the Convention is the conservation of endangered species by control of international trade. The subsequent welfare of specimens after arrival in the importing country falls to the National legislation of individual countries.
5.2 UK legislation for which DOE has responsibility and which bears on the conditions under which animals are kept is the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (ZLA). Local authorities license Zoos and the Secretary of State issues guidance on matters relating to the keeping in captivity of wild animals -in the form of the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice. The extent to which these Standards are applied is in the hands of the local Licensing Authority.
5.3 The Steering Group considered which of the General Conclusions (Gcl-13) (page 8) or Welfare Suggestions (Ws 1-28) (pages 141-143) were (a) acceptable (with or without modification) or (b) within their Terms of Reference. The General Conclusions were, overall, acceptable but a number of the Welfare Suggestions were of doubtful validity or legal basis. These are discussed below. Suggestions that were acceptable are listed in Annex C.
Comments on specific Suggestions
5.4 Ws 3 (page 141) in essence repeats Lsl (page 109) and, although no guarantees could be given because DOE is required to consider each application on its individual merits, is generally acceptable in principle.5.5.1 It is doubtful whether DOE could require the production of the financial details sought by Ws 4 and 5 (Page 141) from establishments seeking to import fresh stock. The Group considered that it has to be assumed if an establishment has appropriate facilities available to accommodate new animals, it would also have adequate financial resources to meet the purchase, transportation, feeding and maintenance costs.
5.5.2 However, the question of who pays to look after animals in a collection until such time as they can be found new homes if the establishment ceases trading, is a perennial one and is a significant pressure upon the parties seeking to place the animals.
5.5.3 Responsible establishments could be expected to reduce their liabilities to match their resources well before such a situation arises. The unexpected financial disaster can however occur and the Steering Group considered that, in the best interests of the animals, it would not be unreasonable for all establishments licensed under the ZLA, and not just those exhibiting cetaceans, to be asked by the Licensing Authority to provide details of any contingency plans for the animals welfare in these circumstances. It may be that some form of "group insurance" arrangement by members of organisations such as the National Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland (NFZG), or European Association of Aquatic Mammals (EAAM) would be appropriate. Extension of the compulsory insurance provisions of the ZLA to cover this eventuality for each establishment individually could provide an excessive and unwarranted financial burden.
5.5.4
The suggestion that the financial status of establishments should be
examined as part of an inspection by Zoo Licensing Inspectors
is
not appropriate. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 gives no such powers to
DOE, and to undertake such an examination would involve professional
financial expertise that Inspectors are not required to possess.
5.6 The question (Ws 5) (Page 141) of allowing speculatively caught animals into the UK should not arise if the suggestions at Ws 1 (Page 141) are met. Any attempt to bring in such animals on "welfare" grounds ie that they have nowhere else to go, or that the import is to be purely temporary, should be treated on its merits but with the presumption that import would normally be refused.
5.7 Whilst there is a need for a system of positive identification of captive Cetacea (Ws6) (page 141), it would be more appropriate for the arrangements to be undertaken by the Stud-book Keeper proposed in the Steering Group's response to Breeding suggestions (see Chapter Eight). The suggestion has been made by the Scientific Working Group of the European Community's CITES Committee that a system of Identification Documents for Cetacea should be introduced containing not only outline drawings of the animal but also a colour photograph to display particular marks and scars on the skin. These seem to be practicable suggestions, and the Steering Group RECOMMEND that such Identification Documents, in a standardised format to be agreed, should be adopted.
5.8 To require annual publication of an establishment's records including the health of individual animals (Ws 14) (page 142) was considered to be unnecessarily onerous and bureaucratic. If establishments wish to publish this information voluntarily at such frequent intervals they are free to do so, but the Group considered it would be more useful if details were published as and when something of significance occurred, with regular updates of the base information at, say 3-5 yearly intervals. It may be that the Stud Book Keeper will wish to issue an annual report which will include these details.
5.9 Providing an Article 6 Sale Exemption has been previously issued the terms of Transfer of Ownership of an animal (Ws 16) (page 142) would be purely commercial matters with which DOE can not become involved. Unless the terms also include for the physical transfer of the animal to a new location, it would only be necessary for DOE to be informed so that appropriate adjustments to the Article 6 Exemption for commercial display could be made.
5.10 Whilst it was considered that a plan for dealing with emergencies (Ws 19) (page 142) should form part of good management practice, and thus available for consideration by DOE as part of the background information offered in support of an application to import or continue keeping cetaceans, it was not considered essential for there to be a formal written agreement by a specific establishment to provide emergency accommodation.
5.11 Suggestions Ws 23, 24 and 25 (page 143) duplicate proposals contained in Chapter Seven on Research and in Annex F(ii).5.12 Summary of Recommendations
i) Suggestions Ws 1-2; 7-13; 15; 17-18; 20-22; 26-28 (Pages 141-143) of the Review document should be accepted by DOE for early implementation.
ii) When considering applications for new, or renewed, licences under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, Licensing Authorities should ask operators to provide details of any contingency plans for the welfare of animals in the event of the establishment ceasing to trade.
iii) Any attempt to import speculatively caught Cetacea on "welfare" or "temporary transit" grounds should be treated on its merits but with the presumption that import would normally be refused.
iv) A system of Identification Documents for Cetacea, incorporating outline drawings and colour photographs in a standardised format, should be adopted after consultation with the European Community's CITES Committee.
General Comments
6.1 The Review Document drew attention to the considerable variation in the quantity and quality of educational material available at dolphinaria. There was also seen to be considerable variation in the resources input by establishments in terms of qualified staff and materials. Establishments will have to greatly increase their contribution to Education if applications to display Cetacea are to be justified under the "teaching" criteria of EC Regulation 3626/82. It is to their credit that the establishments visited by the Steering Group, and the operators of the other dolphinaria that we met, all indicated that they either were already improving, or had plans to improve, this aspect of their operations.
6.2 A recurring topic in the Review summary of establishments' current educational provision (pages 147-151) was the frequent lack of input by the dolphinaria education officers (where they existed) to the guidebooks and show scripts. The criticisms levelled at the frequent biological and factual inaccuracies suggest that, as a minimum, the educational staff should invariably be asked to comment on text or scripts before new versions are introduced, and the Steering Group RECOMMENDS this course of action to the dolphinaria operators.
Comments on Specific Suggestions
6.3 The exact wording of the EC Regulation 3626/82 Article 6 paragraph 1(c) provides for exemptions from the prohibition on display to the public for commercial purposes if:
"the
specimens are intended for research, teaching, breeding or
propagation purposes;"
It has been the practice within the UK to interpret the word "teaching" in the wider sense of "educating". This makes it possible for the less formal absorption of knowledge and experience due to the exposure to live animals to quality for exemption. It is RECOMMENDED that this interpretation should continue to be used for the purpose of assessing applications for import or display of wild fauna and flora.
6.4 Dolphinaria and DOE will need soundly based advice on the "Educational" aspects of applications for import or continued display of Cetacea. It is RECOMMENDED that DOE should consider the provision of some simple written guidance on educational criteria and how best this might be obtained.
6.5 The suggestion (Es6) (page 168) that provision should be made by establishments to enable every visitor to obtain information on the animals at the level required is superficially attractive. However it is likely to place a considerable burden upon operators that on present evidence is not justified. The Education Officer of the establishment should be able to ensure that within the material available there is a reading list and a list of appropriate contacts where the visitor seeking greater knowledge can receive assistance. Dolphinaria could benefit from detailed local guidance on educational needs from the Education Authoritieswithin whose areas they are located. It is RECOMMENDED that liaison arrangements with the Education Department of the appropriate Education Authority be considered by each establishment, unless they are already in operation.
6.6 In their Suggestion Esll (page 169) the authors of the Review document have considered the need for provision of closer observation facilities at establishments with large primary enclosures by reversal of the normal holding arrangements for the animals. The Steering Group considered that such arrangements were for the individual establishment to undertake in the light of requests for appropriate facilities by researchers or the public. However the Steering group also considered that outside of "show" times the animals should normally be allowed the full use of the primary enclosure and not be confined to small holding areas and RECOMMEND that this practice should be implemented by all establishments.
6.7 Summary of Recommendations
i) Conclusions Ecl-11 (pages 9-10) and Suggestions Esl; 4-5; 7-10; 12 (pages 168-169) are accepted for early implementation; ii) "Education officers" of each establishment, where they exist-, be asked invariably to comment on the text of guidebooks etc, and show scripts before the new material is brought into use;
iii) The broad "education" interpretation of the EC Regulation 3626/82 Article 6 paragraph 1(c) in determining applications to import or display specimens of wild fauna or flora should continue to be used;
vi) DOE should consider the provision of some simple written guidance on educational criteria and how best this might be obtained;
v) Establishments should consider liaison arrangements with their Local Education Authority;
vi) Animals should normally be allowed the full use of the primary enclosure and not be confined to small holding areas outside of "show" times.
General Comments
7.1 The Dolphinaria Review document drew a number of conclusions about the state of United Kingdom research into Cetacea (Rc 1-12) (page 10-11) and made a series of suggestions (Rs 1-16) (page 180-182) aimed at improving the situation.
Comment on specific Conclusions
7.2 The Steering Group were able to accept a number of items without comment, and these are listed in Annex C. The balance of items were acceptable in principle, but the Steering Group considered some comments on the following items were necessary:-
Rc
1. The lack of research orientated establishments within the UK in
comparison with those in the USA may be due to the different
financial climate under which they operate. The example of San Diego,
where the research establishment is partly supported by the profits
from the
commercial shows, could be a reflection of the size of
the organisation involved and the income generated. Other
establishments may be supported by research for the Defence
Departments or by the grant activites of large public corporations
because of the favourable taxation regime that this attracts. It is
doubtful if the same level of support could be generated within the
UK. The recent alterations to the taxation system may improve the
ability of charitable organisations to fund appropriate research, but
the proper co-ordination and utilisation of the existing resources
within the UK, and in due course across Europe, would appear to offer
the best hope for the immediate future.
Rc 4. The new Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 appears to clarify some of the uncertainty that existed previously regarding the compatability of research on Cetacea and display to the public. It is clear that observational type research will not require Home Office licensing nor will the utilisation of the results of normal veterinary health care procedures. However, research projects that "interfere" with the animals or cause them pain, suffering etc, would require appropriate licensing. It appears that the extent of research on Cetacea at establishments which are closed to the public in winter may depend on the type of research involved.
Rc 5. The assertion that no thorough comparative studies of wild and captive animals has ever been undertaken, whilst apparently well-founded, must be considered as merely the personal view of the authors of this Review.
Rc 9-12. The Steering Group have found in discussion with operators of Dolphinaria a considerable willingness to assist with the research of the non-invasive kind on animals in their care. Since much of the basic observational research work connected with captive Cetacea relies upon accurate and consistent record keeping of the animals' conditions, dolphinaria and their staff are particularly well placed to utilise their normal day-to-day procedures as a basis for research. The Steering Group would expect therefore that dolphinaria should seek to promote research themselves, as well as providing use of their facilities for research by others, and have noted that encouragement is being given by them to the staff members to undertake worthwhile research. The signs appear promising for the future - providing the efforts of all parties can be targeted and channelled in a co-ordinated way. To this end the Steering Group, with the assistance of Dr Klinowska, has produced 2 papers on the subject of research, Annexes F (i) and F (ii). Annex F(i) identifies the cetacean species that may be of interest for research both in captivity and in the wild. Annex F(ii) whilst not exhaustive, lists a number of areas, with priority ratings and assessments of expense levels and feasibility, in which there seems to be a need for specific research. Projects have not been described in detail since this could limit the flexibility and imagination of researchers, but it is hoped that the list will provide a mechanism for focussing research effort for both long and short-term projects in a more co-ordinated manner, and also provide a starting point for funding and sponsoring authorities as to priorities.
Coordination of UK research efforts
7.3 The Steering Group identified a need to coordinate UK cetacean research and RECOMMEND that DOE, in conjunction with other interested departments and organisations, should consider how best this objective might be achieved.
Comments on specific Suggestions
7.4 The recommendation at paragraph 3 above should take account of thoseresearch suggestions contained in the review document at page 181 items Rs 5-8, 12-14 and 16. Item Rs 15 has been dealt with by the comments in paragraph 2 above relating to Rc 4, and the Steering Group considers that the suggestion at Rs 3 that establishments should agree a common record-keeping basis has much to commend it. It is understood that the computerised system operated by the National Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland (NFZG) is based upon the Animal Record Keeping System (ARKS) pioneered in the United States of America and now spreading throughout the world as a standard system, providing considerable advantages in terms of compatability and access. The Steering Group RECOMMENDS that the dolphinaria operators should consider the benefits of contributing to the scheme.
7.5 Summary of Recommendations
i). The list at Annex F(ii) of areas of relevant research should be used as a starting point by funding and sponsoring authorities as guidance on priorities in their assessment of research proposals;
ii). DOE, in conjunction with other interested departments and organisations, should consider how best coordination of UK cetacean research might be achieved.
iii). DOE should encourage establishments to co-ordinate their record-keeping systems in order to maximise their usefulness for research, and consider the benefits of contributing to NFZG's computerised system.
General Comments
8.1
In their REMARKS on the subject of BREEDING (page 186) the authors of
the Review document have commented:
"The critical problems
for captive breeding must be the almost total lack of information on
the reproductive biology of any of the species, in the wild and in
captivity, and the lack of information on the exact social and
physical requirements for breeding."
8.2 The Steering Group agrees with these sentiments. However the Review document goes further than merely identifying the problem and suggests (Bs 1-2) (page 187) that an international meeting of all those interested in this particular aspect of cetacean keeping should be convened at an early date.
8.3
The twelve years which have elapsed since the last such event was
held in the USA have seen considerable developments in UK cetacean
keeping, including the birth and survival of three bottlenose dolphin
calves in differing environments. Both the UK dolphinaria operators
and the scientists would therefore seem to have much to offer, and
equally much to gain, from such an event being held. Cetacean keeping
in the UK is increasingly being viewed in the wider context of
Europe, and the EEC in particular. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that
DOE should initiate discussions with the CITES Secretariat and other
appropriate bodies about the possibility of co-sponsoring an
International Symposium on Captive Breeding of Cetacea at a suitable
location within Europe.
Comments on Specific Suggestions
8.4 The Review documents identified a need for advice on breeding plans, (BS 3-4) and for coordinating machinery to deal with investigations of mortalities, (Bs 5(b)) (page 187). The Group RECOMMENDED that DOE should consider, with all other interested parties, how best these objectives might be achieved.
8.5 Suggestions Bs 5(a) and (g) (page 187) are noted and commended to the dolphinaria operators as matters which should be fully considered in their the Environment should take into account in deciding any future applications for import/export or display of cetaceans.
8.6 A common stock record (Bs 5(d) page 187) for breeding purposes would appear to indicate the need for a "Stud Book" arrangement as is used for some other species. If breeding of cetacea is to flourish the best use must be made of the available material, and the introduction of suitable mature animals to each other should not be prevented merely by lack of information as to their existence. The usual Stud Book systems provide for National, Regional and International Stud Book Keepers to maintain appropriately detailed records and to advise owners of the animals where breeding possibilities exist. Arrangements are then made between owners for loan, exchange or sale as appropriate. The Steering Group RECOMMENDS that dolphinaria operators should establish a formal Stud Book system for all cetacea in captivity in the UK, and that they cooperate with any similar arrangements both within Europe and Internationally.
8.7 The balance of suggestions in this chapter (Bs 5c, e, f, h) (pages 187-188) have been considered by the Steering Group in the light of Chapters Two (Mortality Rates) and Seven (Research) and it is RECOMMENDED that they be accepted.
8.8 Summary of Recommendations
i) DOE should initiate discussions with the CITES Secretariat and other appropriate bodies about the possibility of co-sponsoring an International Symposium on Captive Breeding of Cetacea at a suitable location in Europe.
ii) DOE should consider, with all other interested parties, how best the objectives of suggestions Bs 3-4 and 5(b) might be achieved.
iii) Suggestions Bs 5(a and g) should be COMMENDED to the dolphinaria operators for consideration in their future planning. DOE should treat the results as material factors in their consideration of future import/export or display applications.
iv) Dolphinaria operators should establish a Stud Book system for all Cetacea in captivity in the UK, and should co-operate with any similar arrangement both within Europe and Internationally.
v) Suggestions Bs 5(c, e, f, h) should be accepted.
General Comments
9.1 The assessment of International Standards conducted by the authors of the Review document was assisted by information collected byGreenpeace UK in 1985. Additional material was received by the Steering Group during the course of compiling the Report.
9.2 The Standards adopted by the USA (currently contained in Federal Register Doc 84-17061) have had a significant effect on the attitudes of, or formal standards adopted by, many countries including the UK, because of the protection afforded to wild and captive cetaceans by the Animal Welfare Act (1970) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 1972. These Acts have given the US authorities the ability to regulate the catching, transport and "end-user" by requiring compliance with conditions attached to permits to export cetaceans of USA origin. These conditions usually include a requirement that the animals should be kept in physical surroundings and subject to similar management regime to that which would be obligatory within the USA. Since most of the bottlenose dolphins now in captivity seem to have originated from USA waters this is a very powerful control on the importer. The extent to which these controls can "bite" on subsequent owners is a matter of conjecture. No doubt the USA authorities would take account of an applicant's previous record of compliance when considering further requests for export and this could be expected to have a significant effect on the level of voluntary compliance by all operators.
9.3 Within the UK control consists of a combination of the Secretary of State's Standards under the Zoo Licensing Act (ZLA) and conditions attached to import (or export) permits issued under the EC Regulation 3626/82. The Secretary of State Standards are "advisory" rather than "mandatory", and in their present form are not specific in terms of minimum dimensions etc and other matters relating to Cetacea. Additionally the absence of precise standards impairs the ability of the UK CITES Management Authority to assess the quality of compliance by possible overseas importers. The Steering Group RECOMMENDS that a Supplement to the Secretary of State's Standards should be issued for the guidance of Local Licensing Authorities and the UK CITES Management Authority containing specific minimum dimensions of primary enclosures for at least two "reference species" of cetacean, and criteria for all other relevant requirements in the way of physical and management needs.
Standards for Primary enclosures
9.4 Whilst the USA Standards have a great deal to commend them, and the EAAM standards advance these by considering the need to provide "minimum social group" requirements, the Steering Group feels that mere copying of existing "standards" will not approach the target of the Global Conference on the Non-Consumptive Utilization of Cetacean Resources (Boston 1983) to "draw up a set of cetacean keeping regulations based on principles reflecting the highest standards of containment and care."
9.5 It ib for this reason that the Steering Group considered the Conclusions (pages 15 and 16) and Suggestions (pages 209, 212 and 213) of the Klinowska Review document against basic first principles of need for any captive animal to have clean wholesome conditions in which to live and breed; space to move in any direction that is normal to the species without being unduly cramped or confined; and a quality of consistent management that will be conducive to its well being.
9.6.1 The requirements of the first and last of these basic principles have been addressed in preceding Chapters. "Space" is taken to consist of dimensions of enclosures in terms of width, breadth, and depth, and basic volumes within which all of these specific minimum dimensions can be found at the same time.
9.6.2 In considering the two "reference species" proposed in paragraph 9.3 the Steering Group recognised that, because they are the cetaceans most commonly kept in captivity in the UK, these species must inevitably consist of the bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncates and the killer whale Orcinus orca. However the Group also recognised that for maximum benefit to result from the determination of any standard, it must be simply defined and easily applied for use with other species. The Steering Group has therefore provided a statement of the criteria/calculations involved in each individual "standard" recommended for these "reference species".
Width and Breadth
9.7.1 The USA Standards introduced the concept of "Minimum Horizontal Dimension" (MHD) which was defined as:
"the diameter of a circular pool, or in the case of pools of other shapes, the diameter of the largest circle that can be inserted within such a pool" (page 195 of the Review document.)
Experience seems to have shown that this definition was too rigid and it has since been modified to allow enclosures to be reduced by up to 20% of MHD in one direction providing the same percentage increase was added to the MHD at the 90 degree angle. Volume, depth and surface area criteria however were still required to be matched. The basis of calculation of MHD was simple. It was twice the average adult body length of the species concerned, and because of the two distinct populations of bottlenose dolphins existing in USA waters two average body lengths were defined:-
Atlantic - 2.74 metres; Pacific - 3.05 metres.
The definition of species specific body lengths enabled calculation of individual enclosure minimum dimensions dependent on the species held at each establishment and also easy enforcement of these standards.
9.7.2 MHD, as amended, is a practical standard that is flexible enough to adapt to any species likely to be held in captivity in the UK, and it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a standard for minimum width and breadth of cetacean enclosures be based upon the modified concept of MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DIMENSION as described in paragraph 9.7.1 above.
9.7.3 To complement MHD it is necessary to define the "average adult body length" of the "reference species", the bottlenose dolphin and the killer whale. The USA standards' use of "average" length assumes that 50% of the animals will have an adult body length in excess of the "average". Given that one of the primary purposes for which import of captive Cetacea into the European Community may be allowed is captive breeding it will follow that, if captive breeding arrangements succeed, the majority of these animals will spend their entire lives in man-made enclosures. Enclosures which are restricted in their space arrangements will unnaturally inhibit development patterns and thus offend against the basic principles outlined in paragraph 9.5. Bottlenose dolphins and killer whales are to be found in many parts of the world and it cannot be guaranteed that specimens only of the USA Atlantic and Pacific populations will be brought into captivity. The adult lengths of the species also vary and measurements of bottlenose dolphins of up to 4.1 metres off the coasts of the UK are known to members of the Steering Group. The "average adult body length" thus to be defined needs to take these uncertainties into account, and the Steering Group accept that the figures proposed by Drs Klinowska and Brown of 3.5 metres for bottlenose dolphins and 7.5 metres for killer whales, which are the USA standards for these species rounded up to the nearest half metre in order to avoid any difficulties that might be caused by small revisions made from time-to-time by the USA authorities, allow for both the variations inherent in the different populations of the species and the need to ensure that the minimum standards applicable to enclosures in the UK will accommodate the full development pattern of a captive bred animal throughout its lifespan. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that for the purpose of determining dimensions of enclosures for captive cetaceans the average adult body lengths of the "reference species" Tursiops truncatus and Orcinus orca be 3.5 metres and 7.5 metres respectively.
9.7.4 The above recommendations result in MHD for the two "reference species" of:
Tursiops truncatus - 7.0 metres
Orcinus orca - 15.0 metres
Volume
9.8.1 The Review document suggests that the most relevant standard for minimum volume of bottlenose dolphin enclosures is that of the EAAM (1985). This requires a base minimum of 1,000m3 which should accommodate up to five animals. Each additional animal over five would require a further 200m3.
9.8.2. When the Review was written the EAAM had not adopted standards for killer whales. They have now accepted an interim standard (together with a "grouping" system which proposes standards for other species held, or likelyto be held, in captivity by their members) and the interim standard for an enclosure to accommodate two killer whales has been set at 2,500M3. Each additional animal over two would require a further 1,000m3.
9.8.3 In the absence of an EAAM standard for killer whales, the authors of the Review document attempted to calculate an equivalent provision extrapolated from that for bottlenose dolphins. This resulted in them defining the base social group for which minimum provision should be made in any enclosure as five animals. These calculations produced a base minimum figure for five animals of 20,000m3, with each additional animal over five requiring a further 4,000m3.
9.8.4 The International Zoo Veterinary Group (IZVG), submitted to the Steering Group a paper containing comments on the proposed dimensional standards and including an alternative method of calculating the appropriate volumes required for killer whale enclosures. These calculations were based on a system of comparison of "Metabolic Weights" (MW's) (W0.75) and suggested that a volume of 10,140m3 for up to five animals would be appropriate.
9.8.5 The Steering Group have considered the IZVG proposal and looked again at the calculations of Drs Klinowska and Brown. Both proposals seek to produce a universal formula from which an appropriate volume for a single animal can be calculated for any species likely to be held in captivity. Two criteria need to be included in such a formula - a) the volume of water needed to physically process the waste matter produced by the animal whilst leaving it in a clean environment; and b) the volume of water over and above that needed for (a) to allow adequate space for exercise. Other criteria, particularly behaviour and basic social grouping of the species, would afterwards need to be taken into account in determining enclosure sizes, but these two are the basic elements.
9.8.6 In the case of the bottlenose dolphin the Review document states (page 203) that the recognised minimum volume of water required to process the waste products of one animal in a closed-system enclosure is 100m3. Allowing an additional equal volume fominimum enclosure size for bottlenose dolphins becomes 1,000m3 - exactly in line with the EAAM standard. Having satisfied those basic criteria outlined in 9.8.5 above the Steering Group RECOMMENDS that the minimum volume for a primary enclosure (PEV) containing up to five bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) should be 1,000m3 with each additional animal over five requiring a further 200m3.
9.8.7 The only figure for water processing requirements for killer whale waste products quoted in the Review document relates to a sub-adult animal (page 203). Using the same formula this would have produced a serious underestimate of the requirement. Since no similar data appears to have been available for adult animals the authors of the Review document chose to calculate length and weight ratios of bottlenose dolphins to killer whales and used a composite of these figures as a multiplier of the bottlenose dolphin calculation. This gave a figure of 20,000m3 for an enclosure for up to five killer whales and a figure of 4,000m3 for each additional animal.
9.8.8 The critics of this method have pointed to the difficulties which ensue if that formula is applied to species smaller than bottlenose dolphins and the IZVG paper included some examples of the likely results. There is a general acceptance on the part of all parties that an absolute minimum volume of enclosure, regardless of the species or the number held, is essential. The "reference species" approach which the Steering Group have adopted suggests that this minimum should not be less than that applicable to the bottlenose dolphin. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the minimum volume for any primary enclosure in which Cetacea are held should not be less than 1,000m3.
9.8.9 It appeared to the Steering Group that the formula approach applied to assessing the bottlenose dolphin requirement offered the best practical alternative method of determining the volume needs of a species to that proposed by IZVG, and would provide a check on the validity of IZVG's proposal. The Review document (page 206) contained a statement of the average weight per metre of an adult killer whale (Watson, 1981 - 600 kgs/ metres) and IZVG had stated in their paper that the quoted sub-adult animal had a weight/length of 280 kgs/metre. Thus, allowing for a doubling of the result to take account of the weight/length ratio difference between the sub-adult animal and an average adult animal, the Group have calculated that a minimum space requirement for five killer whales would be 11,680m3 ie 584m3 x 2 (adult/sub-adult ratio) x 2 (exercise factor) x 5 (social group size). It is recognised that, in the absence of specific data about the water processing needs of an adult killer whale, this figure is at best an arbitrary one. However, the similarity to that produced by the IZVG "Metabolic Weights" comparison leads the Group to conclude that it is of reasonable validity and (rounded up to the nearest 1,000m3) provides the nearest approach to a universal formula for determining volume needs that can presently be devised. The Steering Group RECOMMEND that the minimum volume for a primary enclosure (PEV) for killer whales Orcinus orca containing up to five animals should be 12,000m3 with each additional animal over five requiring a further 2,500m3.
9.9 There will be occasions when it is necessary, or desirable, for a mixture of species to be held in the same enclosure. The Steering Group RECOMMEND that the volume requirements of such situations should be the sum of the individual animal volumes for each species, as derived from the formula described in 9.8.5 above, times the number of animals of each species held, but subject to the overriding minima recommended in 9.8.8 or 9.8.9 above, ie an enclosure containing two killer whales and three bottlenose dolphins should have a minimum volume of 2 x 2,500m3 + 3 x 200m3 = 5,600m3, but this is less than the killer whale enclosure minimum volume of 12,000m3, therefore the minimum volume for this combination of animals would be 12,000m3.
Depth
9.10.1 In paragraph 9.5 the Steering Group considered one of the first principles of captive animal containment to be:
"space
to move in any direction that is normal to the species without being
unduly cramped or confined";
Cetacea
live in a three dimensional environment of width, breadth, and depth.
Like birds and flying insects they, together with fish, are able to
move in any of these three planes and do so at will. The Steering
Group consider it essential that in confining them their perception
of what constitutes a "natural" environment is not
unnecessarily distorted byneglecting to provide adequate depths for
their enclosures.
9.10.2 Many correspondents to the Steering Group stressed the need for enclosures to be designed with the practical day-to-day management of the animals in mind. Depth figured frequently in those comments, and in particular the need to ensure that the setting of minimum standards did not inhibit the use of imaginative designs, both above and below the surface. The Steering Group are convinced that this is correct, and to avoid the problem of an absolute minimum depth preventing the use of shallow areas, overhangs etc and tending to merely reproduce the "swimming bath" type of enclosure, concluded that specifying a "minimum average depth" for enclosures for the two "reference species" would suffice.
9.10.3 The Steering Group have seen photographs and plans of both the new killer whale enclosures at Vancouver, Canada and Antibes, France. The former has been designed to replicate a representative stretch of the British Columbia coastline from which the animals were taken. According to the Curator the animals' behaviour and activity levels showed a dramatic improvement, with full use being made of all the new underwater facilities. The design has incorporated areas allowing an animal to get away from the others; rubbing beaches; "slide-outs", and a series of underwater passages. Having been designed specifically as an educational facility a deliberate attempt has been made to display the animals in an appropriate context, both above water and below. The Curator commented that if designing the enclosure again he would "seek more of the same" ie. even more variety in depth with an area deeper than at present available, and with areas of a metre or less in depth where animals and trainers could interact. The enclosure at Antibes follows the traditional mould of an exhibition pool surrounded by spectator seating with a single inverted, truncated-cone "sump" of 10 metres depth, which from observation would appear to be barely wide enough for an animal to comfortably enter and exit without contortion, and rearward holding pools for separation of the animals for breeding or control purposes.
9.10.4 The authors of the Review have observed (page 208) that in the natural environment depths vary from shallows to a multiple of an animal's body length. In captivity there may be practical limits to the depths that can be made available due to technical limitations imposed by site conditions and maintenance requirements or on economic or management grounds. In the former category are the need to keep enclosures clean and free from debris which can involve the use of diving apparatus by trained personnel, and which must be carried out in accordance with the "Diving Operations at Work Regulations 1981" (Statutory Instrument 399/81) - part of the Health and Safety at Work Act. The Regulations require 3 personnel to be present (Diver, Supervisor and back-up diver) when diving is carried out in depths over 1.5 metres and strict observance of the limits set for depth and time of dives.
9.10.5 Financial considerations are primarily the concern of the dolphinaria operators, but the Steering Group were conscious that for the benefit of the animals presently in captivity as well as those which may enter captivity in the future, either by captive breeding or by collection from the wild, it was necessary to consider whether the depths to be recommended could reasonably be provided at an economic cost.
9.10.6 So far as construction limitations are concerned, the Group were advised by PSA that for enclosures up to 10 metres in depth the most likely form of construction would involve in-situ reinforced concrete with typical wall thicknesses of 1200mm. From 10 to 15 metres this wall thickness would need to increase to 2400mm. With depths greater than 10 metres a pre-stressed concrete construction would be the preferred option. Various other factors, such as the depth to which the enclosure was buried; the superstructure for spectators; groundwater levels in the sub-soil foundation (and therefore considerations of flotation of the enclosure structure when empty - which would need to be prevented either by heavy sections of concrete or wing slabs to utilise the self-weight of the surrounding soil); and the soil type in which the structure was to be placed, would also need to be considered.
9.10.7 Taking the 10 metre depth as a reasonable cut-off point for in-situ reinforced concrete the Steering Group considered whether the proposal for depths greater than this would be justified. They concluded that if the proposed depth were to exceed the 10 metre cut-off point by only a very small margin, but still sufficient to require a significantly more expensive form of construction, it would not be unreasonable to reduce the required depth to 10 metres so that the cheaper form of conthan 10 metres they would not be justified in recommending a reduction solely on construction cost grounds.
9.10.8 For horizontal dimensions the Steering Group have recommended the adoption of the concept of MHD (Minimum Horizontal Dimension). Given the three-dimensional requirements of Cetacea there seems no good reason for not extending that concept to include vertical dimensions also. On the basis of the MHD recommendations this would normally indicate a Minimum Vertical Dimension (MVD) for the "reference species" of 7 metres and 15 metres respectively. However, such an MVD would tend to defeat the objective of encouraging the imaginative design described in 9.10.2 above, and the Group have concluded that by proposing a Minimum Average Enclosure Depth (MAED), which could vary by up to 20% of the MVD, parts of an enclosure could incorporate shallow areas and parts could approach, equal or exceed the MVD.
9.10.9 Since the Review document was published a number of new or modernised establishments for display of bottlenose dolphins have opened in other parts of the world. Of these the most notable have been those at Lipperswil in Switzerland (main enclosure - surface area 300m2; 6m deep; volume 1,600m3 and a water turnover of 3 hours) and Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, USA (a complex of four interconnecting pools; main enclosure - 6m deep; volume 3,000m3). That these establishments have voluntarily decided to construct enclosures considerably deeper than their national standards require is a measure of the growing international appreciation that deeper enclosures are in keeping with modern good practice. The Steering Group therefore RECOMMENDS that the proposed Supplement to the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice should include a Minimum Vertical Dimension (MVD) for the area necessary to achieve the minimum volume standard for the species equivalent to twice the average body length of the species concerned. Enclosure depths may be varied by up to 20% of the MVD to provide a Minimum Average Enclosure Depth (MAED) over that area of the pool. The MAED for the two "reference species" shall be:-
Tursiops truncates - 5.6 metres
Orcinus orca - 12 metres
Isolation and Medical Care Facilities
9.11.1
The authors of the Review document had suggested that in
any
establishment there was a distinct and separate need for
both Isolation facilities and Medical Care facilities where sick or
injured animals could be easily handled away from their companions.
In the light of discussions with both dolphinaria operators and
conservationists the Steering Group have accepted that a requirement
for separate Isolation and Medical Care facilities was unnecessary.
For this reason the Steering Group issued a notice of clarification
on 22 October 1986 which read:-
"Isolation
facilities are not required in addition to medical facilities. All
establishments shall provide isolation/medical care facilities in
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g) on page 220, but
these facilities must be capable of being operated in isolation."
The
notice also made it plain that the Suggestion for doubling provisions
(SRs3) (page 209) would not be construed as requiring the duplication
of isolation/medical care facilities, and that any enclosure which
contributed to the minimum volume standard would also have to conform
with the overall minimum dimension requirements.
9.11.2
The Standards Conclusions (Sc15 and 16) (page 16) and Suggestions
(SRsl and 2) (page 209) envisaged that separation of animals for
isolation or medical care would require construction of a complex of
individual enclosures connected by channels with watertight gates,
each with its own pipework circuit to the central water circulation
and filtration equipment. However it is conceivable that, if
incorporated at the initial design stage, a single multi-use complex
divisible by internal watertight gates could be possible. The only
essential requirement in either case would be that the filtration and
water quality control mechanisms in the isolation/medical care part
of the complex should then be capable of independent operation for
extended periods. The Steering Group therefore RECOMMEND
that, where the Primary Enclosure Volume (PEV) is obtained by the
linking of a complex of more than one identifiable enclosure, each
must conform to the MHD requirement and the aggregate of the
dimensions of these enclosures shall not be less than that of a
single enclosure of the required minimum standard, and that the
filtration and water quality control mechanisms for the
isolation/medical care area should be capable of independent
operation for extended periods.
Natural
Sea Water Systems
9.12.1
Three types of natural sea water system appear to exist. The most
common, as at Brighton or Morecambe, consists of a man-made enclosure
filled by natural sea water. This is allowed to settle, filtered to
remove debris, and chlorinated before addition to the enclosure. The
second and third types, not currently seen in UK, can consist of
sea-pens filled naturally by untreated tidal water or inland
enclosures with an 'open circuit' of filtered sea water that is
constantly replenished. A bay or inlet that has been sealed-off from
the ocean by a breakwater, with tidal replenishment of the contents,
has also been suggested as a possibility but none is known to have
been built.
9.12.2 Standards for the man-made sea-filled enclosure should not differ materially from closed-system enclosures in terms of dimensions. Nor should the use of natural sea water materially alter the requirements for water quality control. Only the salinity levels may differ, and this is still likely to be within acceptable margins. The second and third types however are likely to encounter considerably more difficulty in matching the recommended standards, and it would be in the interests of the animals if the authorities responsible for approval of such a project were to insist on both close compliance with the dimensional standards proposed, and on specific monitoring and control of the replenishment water quality together with extensive arrangements for animal safety in the event of exceptionally bad weather or emergencies.
Timescale
for meeting the new Standards, Doubling of proposed Standards and
Revision of the basic decision to allow cetacean keeping to continue
9.13.1
The authors of the Review document suggested that five years be
allowed for existing dolphinaria to match the proposed new standards.
If that period commences with the publication of this Report, the
Steering Group see no insurmountable obstacle to meeting this
objective. It is RECOMMENDED
that establishments which have indicated their intention to continue
cetacean keeping within the new standards should be granted
Exemptions for display under Article 6 of EC Regulation 3626/82 for
an initial period of three
years
and, subject to satisfactory progress towards attainment of the full
standards, to five-yearly
Exemption thereafter. Failure to reach the required standards within
the initial five years could contitute grounds for revoking the
Exemption.
9.13.2 The Suggestion SRs3 (page 209) that establishments should make provision to double the water space required by the new Standards within a total period of ten years, unless substantial information is provided that this is detrimental to the animals, is not so exceptionable as may first appear. Exactly what was required by this suggestion has been widely misunderstood. It did not imply doubling of all dimensions standards, but only that the total water space - the volume of water available to the animals in an enclosure - should be increased by a factor of two. How this would be achieved, by increase of width, breadth or depth or a combination of all three, was to be left to the discretion of the dolphinaria operator. Considerable changes in USA standards volume requirements have taken place for bottlenose dolphins - rising from 35.98m3 per animal in 1979 to 77.01m3 in 1984. Information about Cetacea needs is steadily growing; it is conceivable that the present Standards proposals will seem modest by 1998!
9.13.3 The Steering Group was not able to endorse Suggestion SRs3 in its present form. However the volume standards recommended in paragraphs 9.8.1-9.8.9 are MINIMUM standards and the Steering Group would expect that new or rebuilt enclosures would invariably exceed those standards. Given the extensive range of these animals in their natural habitat (page 199 of the Review document), which provides space for social separation if required, future research may well indicate that the minimum volume standards that have been recommended are insufficient. A prudent operator could therefore be expected to take account of the likely need to provide for this "social separation space". Equally the need to separate pregnant and nursing females from the rest of the group should not require their confinement in restricted circumstances which, from information provided about the experience of births to date, may be detrimental to their wellbeing and that of their calves. The UK dolphinaria operators have assured the Steering Group that, in the event of an emergency which necessitated evacuation of an enclosure, co-operation between establishments would permit animals to be quickly moved to temporary quarters. If, however, enclosures were all built to the minimum standards and the captive breeding programme, or further imports, had provided sufficient animals to fill those enclosures on a minimum social group basis appropriate to the species, there would be insufficient alternative facilities available for such co-operative measures to function! The Steering Group would at least wish to see demonstrated, in the plans that dolphinaria operators draw up for implementing the recommended standards, that space is available on site, and has been reserved, to enable expansion of the enclosure(s) to approximately twice the minimum volume for the number of animals that they eventually intend to hold. An indication of the form such expansion provisions might take, whether by duplication of the enclosure(s) or enlargement of existing enclosure(s), would be helpful. Nothing in this report, of course, prevents an operator from providing enclosure(s) to this volume initially if preferred.
9.13.4 The Review document and the dolphinaria operators have both stressed that a climate of stability is important to ensure a reliable source of finance for the required improvement in the standard of accommodation. The need for stability is recognised by the Steering Group, but the proposed period of ten years in the Review document is considered to be too short to enable existing enclosures to be adapted and new enclosures to be designed and constructed and tested for suitability. If future research should show that even larger enclosures are required, a reasonable period of stability in which the costs of the current proposed improvements could be recouped should encourage a more willing attitude to further expenditure. For this reason the Steering Group RECOMMEND that no revision of the basic decision to allow cetacean keeping should be made for at least fifteen years.
Temporary Accommodation, Transportation and Catching
9.14.1 Suggestion SRs5 (page 209) was concerned with the approval of temporary variations to dimensional standards of enclosures, or to additional temporary accommodation, solely for the purpose of a research project and was accepted in principle by the Steering Group.
9.14.2 Whilst it is reasonable to use the USA Regulations as a guideline in matters of detailed Transport provisions for the interim (Tsl-page 212) it is RECOMIMENDED that the Department of the Environment consider if enforcement within the UK would be facilitated by the production of additional national guidelines to supplement those of CITES and IATA.
9.14.3
The need for details in advance of a proposed movement of a cetacean
to be supplied to "those authorising the transport" (Ts6)
and a detailed report on the actual movement to be made within 30
days to the same
"authority" (Ts7) was thought by the
Steering Group to be of questionable value. Unlike movement of major
civil or mechanical engineering structures, there is little liklihood
of major disturbance of normal traffic flows requiring the constant
attention of the Police. Monitoring of the actual movement process by
a single "authority" is therefore not essential. There may
be some value in recording the experience for the sake of others in
the future (Ts8), but since the information gained is likely to be of
limited use the deposit of these reports with anybody other than,
say, EAAM or NFZG is considered to be unnecessary.
9.14.4 For the purpose of monitoring the effectiveness of the various Standards and Regulations it is not necessary for the Department of the Environment to be the depository of duplicate reports of catching or acclimatization operations (Cs4-7). This information would be more appropriately placed with the Department's Scientific Advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council, who would also then be better placed to undertake analyses of the reports for the purpose of recommending improvements or modification of the technical procedures. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that, as a condition of the importation into the UK, reports of the capture and acclimatization process of each cetacean authorised to be collected from the wild should be provided to the Nature Conservancy Council.
9.15 Summary of Recommendations
i) Suggestions Ts2-5 and Csl-3 be accepted for early implementation by DOE.
ii) A Supplement to the Secretary of State's Standards should be issued for the guidance of Local Licensing Authorities and the UK CITES Management Authority containing specific minimum dimensions of primary enclosures for at least two "reference species" of cetacean and criteria for all other relevant requirements in the way of physical and management needs.
iii) A standard for minimum width and breadth of cetacean enclosures be based upon the modified concept of MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DIMENSION (MHD) which is defined as:-
"the
diameter of a circular enclosure, or in the case of enclosures of
other shapes, the diameter of the largest circle that can be inserted
47within such an enclosure. Enclosures may be reduced by up to 20% of
MHD in one direction providing the same percentage increase is added
to the MHD at the 90 degree angle. Volume, depth and surface area
criteria (if specified) must still be matched."
iv) For the purpose of determining dimensions of enclosures for captive cetaceans the average adult body lengths of the "reference species" Tursiops truncatus and Orcinus orca be 3.5 metres and 7.5 metres respectively, resulting in MHD for the two "reference species" of:-
Tursiops truncatus - 7.0 metres
Orcinus orca - 15.0 metres
v) The minimum volume for a primary enclosure (PEV) containing up to five bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) should be 1,000m3 with each additional animal over five requiring a further 200m3.
vi) The minimum volume for any primary enclosure (PEV) in which Cetacea are held should not be less than 1,000m3.
vii) The minimum volume for a primary enclosure (PEV) for killer whales Orcinus orca containing up to five animals should be 12,000m3 with each additional animal over five requiring a further 2,500m3.
viii) The volume requirements of an enclosure containing a mixture of species should be the sum of the individual animal volumes for each species times the number of animals of each species held, but subject to the overriding minima recommended in (v), (vi) or (vii) above.
ix) The proposed Supplement to the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice should include a Minimum Vertical Dimension (MVD) for the area necessary to achieve the minimum volume standard for the species equivalent to twice the average body length of the species concerned. Enclosure depths may be varied by up to 20% of the MVD to provide an Minimum Average Enclosure Depth (MAED) over that area of the pool. The MAED for the two "reference species" shall be:-
Tursiops truncatus - 5.6 metres
Orcinus orca - 12 metres
x) Where the Primary Enclosure Volume (PEV) is obtained by the linking of a complex of more than one identifiable enclosure, each must conform to the MHD requirement and the aggregate of the dimensions of these enclosures shall not be less than that of a single enclosure of the required minimum standard, and the filtration and water quality control mechanisms for the isolation/medical care area should be capable of independent operation for extended periods.
xi) Dolphinaria operators should demonstrate, in their plans for implementing the recommended standards, that space is available on site, and has been reserved, to enable expansion of the enclosure(s) to approximately twice the minimum volume for the number of animals that they eventually intend to hold.
xii) Establishments which have indicated their intention to continue cetacean keeping within the recommended standards should be granted Exemptions for display under Article 6 of EC Regulation 3626/82 for an initial period of three years and, subject to satisfactory progress towards attainment of the full standards, to five-yearly Exemptions thereafter. Failure to reach the required standards within the initial five years could constitute grounds for revoking the Exemption.
xiii) No revision of the basic decision to allow cetacean keeping should be made for at least fifteen years.
xiv) Suggestion SRs5 (page 209) concerning approval of temporary variations to dimensional standards of enclosures, or to additional temporary accommodation, solely for the purpose of a research project should be accepted in principle.
xv) DOE should consider if enforcement within the UK would be facilitated by the production of additional national transportation guidelines to supplement those of CITES and IATA.
xvi) As a condition of importation into the UK, reports of the capture and acclimatization process of each cetacean authorised to be collected from the wild should be provided to the Nature Conservancy Council.
List of persons and organisations that submitted written comments to the Steering Group
1.
Windsor Safari Park.
2. K C Tomlins, General Manager, Ocean
Park, Hong Kong.
3. M Riddell, Secretary, European Association
for Aquatic Mammals.
4. E E Sander FCA, Chairman, Aquarium
Entertainments Ltd. (Brighton Aquarium).
5. L D Tennant,
Knowsley Safari Park.
6. D M Jones, Director of Zoos, The
Zoological Society of London.
7. P Vodden, Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
8. D Cartlidge, Worthing,
Sussex.
9. R Ewbank, MVSc, MRCVS, FIBiol, Director, Universities
Federation for Animal Welfare.
10. Wildlife Link, Cetacean Group. Representing:-
Fauna
and Flora Preservation Society Greenpeace
International Fund for
Animal Welfare
International League for the Protection of
Cetaceans
Marine Conservation Society
People's Trust for
Endangered Species
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals
World Society for the Protection of Animals World
Wildlife Fund-UK
11.
V J A Manton, MRCVS, FIBiol, Curator, The Zoological Society of
London.
12. R Bloom, Dolphin Services (Bloom UK).
13. Ocean
World Ltd. (Morecambe Marineland).
14. International Zoo
Veterinary Group:- A G Greenwood, MA, VetMB, MIBiol, MRCVS. D C
Taylor, BVMS, FRCVS.
P W Scott, BVSc, MRCVS, MIBiol.
15.
Kolmardens Djurpark, Sweden.
16. K G Hewlett, Curator, Vancouver
Public Aquarium, Canada.
17. Ouwehand Zoo, the Netherlands, representing:-
Royal
Society for Zoology, Antwerp, Belgium
Dolphinarium Brugge,
Belgium
Marine Animal park, Harderwijk, the
Netherlands
Dolphinarium Munster, FRG
Ouwehand Zoo, Rhenen,
the Netherlands
18.
Flamingo Land Zoo & Family Funpark.
19. International Marine
Animal Trainers Association, Boston, USA.
20. M Biggs,
Government of Canada, Fisheries & Oceans, Pacific Biological
Station, Nanaim,p, BC.
21. Nan Rice, Hon.Sec., The Dolphin
Action & Protection Group, Fish Hoek, RSA.
22. R Brill,
Chairman, Marine Mammal Interest Group, c/o Chicago Zoological
Society, Illinois, USA.
23. Robert 0 Wagner, Executive Director,
American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, Wheeling,
West Virginia, USA.
Subject
Index of "A
Review of Dolphinaria"
Contents
Introduction
Sources and Acknowledgements
Summary of Conclusions
General
conclusions
Legislation
Education
Research
Breeding
Advice
Standards conclusions
Biology and Conservation of Cetacea
Suggestions
Existing UK Dolphinaria
Brighton
Flamingoland
Knowsley
Morecambe
Whipsnade
Windsor
Former UK Dolphinaria
Associated
Pleasure Parks (Touring)
Battersea
Battersea (Touring)
Belle Vue, Manchester
Blackpool
Blair Drummond
Bradford 44Brean Down
Bristol
Chipperfields
(Coventry)
Clacton
Cleethorpes
Coventry
Dudley
Gwrych Castle (North Wales)
Leeds
Liverpool
Margate
Newcastle
Oxford Street (London)
Plymouth
Porthcawl
Ramsgate
Rhyl
Royalty Theatre
(London)
St Asaph (North Wales)
Sandown
Scarborough
Seaburn
Skegness
South Elmsall
Southend
Southsea
West Midland, Bewdley, Worcs.
Woburn
Worthing
Schedule of Animals kept in the UK
Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncates)
Kiler Whale (Orcinus orca)
Other species recently kept in the UK
Mortality rates
Methods
Bottlenose
Dolphin Annual rates
Table 1
Annual
rates from 1973
Table 2
Annual
rates of the 1972 cohort
Table 3
Survival
from 1968
Fig.I:Bottlenose Dolphin Survival
Killer
Whale Annual rates
Table 4
Natural and Captive rates
Suggestions
Water
Treatment
Chlorination
process
Fig.2:Relationship of Ammonia,
Nitrogen and
Chlorine
Treatment of water in dolphin pool
Comparison of
water quality, pool capacity and occupancy
Table 5
Table 6
Suggestions
Legislation
National
Wild
animals
Captive animals
International,EEC and related national
Wild
animals
Captive animals
Summary
Suggestions
Strandings
Strandings
rescue
Schedule of rescues
Welfare
Specific concerns-animals in UK
Mortalities
Behaviour
Pool use
Shows
Water quality
Commerce
Insurance
General concerns
Psychological
and Physical
Health
Capture and Transport
Physical
differences and Sound production
Intelligence and Social
Behaviour
Release
Sea-pens and Semi-captivity
Analysis
Suggestions
Ethics
Education
Summary
of provisions at UK Dolphinaria
Example of Show transcript
Assessment of current provision
Points made against
159-165
Fig.3:Opening and closing dates
of UK Dolphinaria
163
Average prices of newly caught
bottlenose dolphins in
Florida 1967-1979 Table 7
Remarks
Suggestions
Research
Strandings
Sightings
Commercially and locally harvested species
Accidental takes
Free-ranging animals
Captive
cetaceans
In UK Dolphinaria
Opposition to
Support
for
Aims
Future prospects in UK
Assessment - UK
Dolphinaria
Suggestions
Breeding
In
UK Dolphinaria
Criticisms of captive breeding
Comments
received
Remarks - UK
- General
Suggestions
Schedule of UK births
Standards
Review
Summary - National provisions
Australia
Bahrain
Canada
Denmark
France
Federal
Republic of Germany
India
Kenya
Malawi
New
Zealand
Norway
Poland
Singapore
South Africa
Sweden
Switzerland
USA
USA
Minimum pool sizes
Group I species Table 8
-International
provisions
European Association for Aquatic Mammals (EAAM)
Remarks
Theoretical
UK bottlenose
dolphin pool capacity Table 10
UK pools in
relation to other standards for killer whales
Table 11
Comments
received
Principles for evolving enclosure
standards
Bottlenose
dolphins
Killer whales
Water processing requirements
Exercise space
Ratios of killer whale to bottlenose
dolphin standards
Table 12
Fig.4:Comparison of the
EAAM
bottlenose dolphin pool parameters
Estimations for
killer whale pool sizes
Fig.5:Predicted killer whale volume
requirements
Pool complexes and design
Remarks
Other
featuresFood and feeding
Health care
Transport
Remarks
Suggestions
Catching
Suggestions
DRAFT STANDARDS FOR UK CETACEAN KEEPING
Strandings
Financial
Construction
Water,Power and Fuel
supply,
Emergencies
Drainage
Storage
Waste
disposal
Staff facilities
Space requirements
Food
and feeding
Aquatic Environment
General hygiene
Staff
Separation
Veterinary care
Handling
Transport
Capture and other acquisitions of animals
Record keeping
and Publication
Release
Disposal
Education
Research
Breeding
REFERENCES
RESEARCH AND OTHER WORK THROUGH UK DOLPHINARIA
Advice/Conclusions/Suggestions contained in the Klinowska Report accepted by the Steering Group without comment.
INDEX
Summary of Conclusions
General:-
Gcl-13. Legislation:- Lcl-9.
Education:- Ecl-11.
Research:-
Rc2-3;6-8.
Breeding:- Bcl-6.
Advice:- Acl; 2 (part);3.
Standards conclusions:- Scl-7;10-14; 21.
Suggestions for improvement
Biology
and Conservation of Cetacea-BCCs 1.
Water
Treatment-WTsl-3;6-11;13-16;18-22.
Legislation-Lsl-2;4-5;8-9.
Welfare-Wsl-2;7-13;15;17-18;20-22;26-28.
Education-Esl;4-5;7-10;12.
Research-Rsl-2;4;9-11.
Breeding-Bs5(c,e-f,h).
Transport-Ts2-5.
Catching-Csl-3.
SUMMARY
OF CONCLUSIONS
General
(Gc)
Gc (1) Most of the concern about the keeping of cetaceans in captivity is based in one way or another on concern about the animals' health and welfare.
Gc (2) This concern with welfare is almost inextricably bound up in the points mad about the use or potential use of captive animals for education, research o breeding.
Gc (3) It was therefore important to establish facts about the keeping of cetaceans, particularly in the UK, before any assessment of the other questions could be made.
Gc (4) It appears from this exercise, that few, even within the UK cetacean keepin community, have been in a position to have any overall view of events and that the conservation and welfare organisations have not had access to the best information sources.
Gc (5) Given the information generally available, the wide concern about the welfare of captive animals is not surprising.
Gc (6) In general, many of the concerns about the physical and mental welfare of the animals were either not well founded, related to particular incidents, mainly in the past, or would require extensive research to establish.
Gc (7) In general, many of the points put forward in favour of the display of cetaceans were either not well founded, related to particular cases or woul require extensive research to establish.
Gc (8) Almost none of the conservation and welfare groups were, in principle, against the keeping of other animals for display to the public.
Gc (9) There are very many animal species, the vast majority of which are in dange of biological extinction in the wild, of the same legal status under the EE Regulations as cetaceans.
Gc (10) The majority of cetacean species, including those usually kept in captivity are not in danger of biological extinction in the wild, although cetaceans do have a special place in public affections.
Gc (11) It would be anomalous if cetacean holding requirements differed significantly from those for the holding of other species of similar legal status, but significantly worse conservation status, particularly where matters of health and welfare, as well as of education, research and breeding, are concerned.
Gc (12) No substantial contra-indications to the keeping of cetaceans have been found which would not apply equally to the keeping of any other wild-caught animal.
Gc (13) This is not to say that there are no problems with cetacean keeping, only that the problems are not dissimilar to those encountered in wild-caught animal husbandry in general, and could be solved.
Legislation (lc)
Lc (1) In the UK, the CITES and EEC provisions cover the catching (through assessments of status and origin), transport and housing of animals. They also monitor the purposes of imports.
Lc (2) The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 gives very wide powers for the control of accommodation and management.
Lc (3) Trainers and performances should be registered under the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925.
Lc (4) There therefore appears to be ample means in the UK to ensure the welfare of these animals and to control their importation and use at all stages.
Lc (5) Since bottlenose dolphins and killer whales are native to UK waters, they, and the other suitable UK cetacean species, could in theory provide specimens for UK dolphinaria.
Lc (6) The EEC Regulations only require catching operations in the waters of Member States to be legal or approved by the appropriate authorities.
Lc (7) Except for bottlenose dolphins and two other small species, the legal basis for live capture operations in UK waters is obscure.
Lc (8) The general legal protection of wild cetaceans is in some confusion, but is almost completely lacking, except for a very few species, and even these may not have protection from over-eager, ignorant or malicious visitors.
Lc (9) The legal status of live stranded cetaceans which may be candidates for rehabilitation in captivity is particularly obscure.
Education (Ec)
Ec (1) The dolphin shows and guidebooks have unanimously been assessed by three education experts as containing little to any educational purpose. They find that the form and content of the shows may well give visitors a false and anthropomorphic impression of the animals.
Ec
(2) The consultants were also worried about the effects of the
so-called hidden curriculum. In other words, the general surroundings
and atmosphere also play an important role in determining the things
visitors may learn about the animals.
For example: the
construction and layout of the dolphinaria have nothing in common
with the natural habitat and everything in common with the
requirements of performances. This makes it more difficult for
visitors to imagine the animals in their natural surroundings and
reinforces the impression created by the shows that the animals are
only charming entertainers.
Ec
(3) The material and programmes for schools were thought by the
experts to be ill thought out and amateur, with the exception of
Windsor and Whipsnade which one consultant thought were more
professional.Ec (4) The dolphinaria, however, were not set up as
primarily educational establishments nor were they required to be so
in the past as a condition of
holding animals.
Ec (5) It is, therefore, to the credit of the dolphinaria that they do have, in some cases long-established, educational provision for school parties.
Ec (6) It is not to the credit of the dolphinaria that the form and content of the shows - the only educational provision for the vast majority of visitors has been found entirely educationally wanting.
Ec (7) There can be no excuse for factual inaccuracies in biological and conservation information included in show scripts and other material, or for staff knowledge of the biology, habits and conservation of their charges to be lacking.
Ec (8) It appears to be widely agreed, even among some opponents of dolphinaria, that there is a 'something' about seeing a live animal which stimulates interest in a way which cannot be done by films, television or other types of exhibition.
Ec
(9) There is also wide recognition of the educational value of live
animal
exhibits which are related to the biology, habits and
role of the species
(and relatives) in the natural ecosystem.
Ec
(10) There is no reason why education about the cetacea, their
habitats and
conservation cannot be provided at all levels for
all visitors.
Ec
(11) There is no reason why such education should be dull, boring or
amateur; an
educational exhibit or programme which failed to
attract people would have
little purpose.
Research (Re)
Re (2) Some staff have carried out research projects for personal interest or as part of their professional training.
Re (3) From the earliest days, dolphinaria have co-operated, on request, with a variety of outside research workers, allowing access to animals and to post-mortem material. The veterinary profession have been particularly active in publishing their findings, the academic workers less active in recent years.
Rc (6) The study of wild or captive small cetaceans (which included the species kept for display) has never been a major undertaking within the UK; most interest has centred on the commercially hunted species, particularly in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic.
Rc (7) There was one academic group, of international reputation, in the UK in the past with an interest in some work with captive animals, but the group is now dispersed.
Rc (8) Today only a few experienced researchers are interested in any work with small cetaceans and, despite student interest, there are almost no opportunities for research training. The major centre for research on captive animals is within the veterinary profession.
Breeding (Bc)
Bc (1) There has been a marked lack of reliable breeding success in the UK, in common with other countries holding captive cetaceans. However, rather more captive bottlenose dolphins have attempted to breed in the UK than was generally known.
Bc (2) There has also been a marked lack of systematic research worldwide, and in the UK, into the reasons for this failure.
Bc (3) However, the information now available does tend to support the idea that the age of the animals and the composition of groups played at least some part in the lack of breeding in the UK.
Bc (4) The last three bottlenose dolphins to be born in the UK have all survived, one for almost two years now.* UK killer whales have had no chance to breed, having been immature and/or kept alone or in single sex groups. In the USA, a killer whale calf, fathered by the male formerly at Windsor, has survived for over six months now.
Bc (5) The breeding problem, despite some recent successes, is one of the most important facts in the concerns about the keeping of cetaceans and needs urgent attention; not only because reliable captive breeding reduces demand for wild-caught animals but also because (although contended by some) breeding success is widely regarded as a demonstration that husbandry is not unsatisfactory.
Bc (6) There is no reason why UK establishments could not contribute to knowledge of cetacean captive breeding through their own careful observations and research on all stages of the breeding process.
NOTE
*Since
the Review Document was written a further dolphin calf was born at
Windsor but survived only a short while due to the inability of the
mother to properly feed it.
ADVICE (Ac)
........although in the past and to some extent at present, it would be difficult to justify UK dolphinaria on educational, breeding or research grounds, such establishments could meet high professional standards in all three areas and make significant contributions.
Ac (1) It is therefore advised that, provided the suggested standards and other matters are observed, cetacean keeping be permitted to continue in the UK and, if necessary, carefully planned acquisition of further animals through imports or other means, be allowed.
Ac
(2) (part) It
is further advised
that there must be no importation or other addition
(part) from
the wild, to the captive cetacean population in the UK until the
accommodation and other requirements are met, in all respects, by the
establishment concerned.
Ac
(3) It
is advised
that arrangements be made for the periodical review of the suggested
standards, in the light of new research, information and practical
considerations.
STANDARDS
CONCLUSIONS (Sc)
Sc (1) Under the current Zoo Licensing Act 1981 Standards, guidelines for the care of all animals are set out. In this general form they cover almost all aspects of the care of cetaceans in a reasonable manner. They do not, of course, deal with the specific requirements of species.
Sc (2) The various national and international standards for the housing and care of cetaceans are more or less agreed on all points except minimum pool dimensions and subsidiary pool provisions.
Sc (3) There is no research evidence whatsoever on the question of pool size or other pool requirements. Nor is there any reason available on the social distances of the species, on their requirements for surface area and depth, or on the effects of training on exercise space needs.
Sc (4) Until such information is available, no true picture of the accommodation required can be obtained.
Sc (5) In the absence of specific information, the only guide can be general indications and practical considerations.
Sc (6) There is a general feeling (although disputed by some on practical husbandry grounds) that the bigger pool the better. Whether this has any direct bearing on the health and welfare of the animals is unknown, but it certainly has a significant influence on the perceptions of concerned visitors.
Sc (7) The EAAM minimum standard for bottlenose dolphins is perhaps the most relevant since it represents general feelings about current best practice among the cetacean keeping community.
Sc (10) Species characteristics are likely to be an important consideration in pool design. For example, the bottlenose dolphins with fluid social groups may require quite different provision to killer whales with permanent social groups, but this is a matter for future research.
Sc (11) Although single animals (killer whales and bottlenose dolphins) are not unknown in the wild, they are known to be in social contact with others of their species. There would therefore seem to be no case for the keeping of single specimens of a species.
Sc (12) It is in line with modern zoological practice to keep social groups of animals, with a view to breeding. It is therefore necessary to provide suitable quarters at the outset.
Sc (13) The EAAM minimum provision allows up to five bottlenose dolphins to be held, although it was envisaged that this would allow a starting group of three animals to breed. These group sizes are typical of those observed for this species in the wild.
Sc (14) A similar minimum provision for killer whales seems sensible, with the minimum pool containing sufficient volume for up to five animals, the smallest typical pod size observed for this species in the wild.
Sc (21) The overall aim should be for UK establishments keeping cetaceans to take a positive lead in modern standards, not to follow developments elsewhere.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Biology and Conservation of Cetacea (BCC)
Suggestions
BCCs (1) Animals should only be taken by live capture from populations of known size and composition which are also subject to careful management procedures and to continuing assessment.
Water Treatment (WT)
Suggestions
WTs (1) All relevant staff at all dolphinaria should have a competent knowledge of the theory as well as of the practice of water treatment.
WTs (2) The training courses should provide more detailed instruction in water treatment.
WTs (3) If inspectors do not already do so, they should examine water treatment records over a period, not over a few days or a single analysis, to obtain a general impression of the level of control. They should also test staff knowledge of water treatment.
WTs (6) Maximum designed total filtration rate for each pool should be two hours and preferably less.
WTs (7) Sufficient extra water processing equipment needs to be provided to allow for maintenance and partial breakdown.
WTs (8) Establishments must determine the normal operating water treatment parameters and investigate promptly if these are not being achieved.
WTs (9) Establishments must have a clear policy on pool water renewal if specific bacterial and pathogen content, nitrogenous compound content, combined chlorine content and other treatment limits are exceeded and cannot be brought back to normal within a specified period.
WTs (10) Establishments should determine these limits and periods in the light of their experience with their system, but the limits should not be far outside the normal operating range and the periods hours or, at most, a day or so.
WTs (11) New pools should be specifically designed to ensure full water circulation to all areas. They should also be thoroughly investigated during initial use to check that full water circulation to all areas has been achieved.
WTs (13) The contents of grids, meshes and skimmers should be carefully monitored as well as filter debris after backwashing, and any unusual material promptly investigated.
WTs (14) Any new pools, and upgradings of existing pools, must include provision for each pool to be operated and emptied in isolation. In particular, hospital and quarantine areas must operate separately when required.
WTs
(15) It must be possible to empty all pools rapidly and without
polluting or overwhelming local drainage arrangements.
WTs
(16) Operating parameters, copies of water treatment records for
recent months and full analysis reports should be submitted as part
of the supporting material for applications to import, acquire or
continue keeping cetaceans.
WTs (18) Bacteriological analyses of pool water should be carried out at least monthly, as suggested in the EAAM standard, but preferably weekly.
WTs (19) Analyses of pool water for fungi and other potential pathogens should be made at least at monthly intervals, but preferably weekly.
WTs
(20) Establishments should have a protocol on timing and place of
water sampling, so that samples taken at different dates are
comparable. Each pool should be sampled for each test, even when not
operating separately, to check for
any water circulation
problems.
WTs (21) Filters should be tested for the presence of bacteria, fungi and other potential pathogens at least at monthly intervals.
WTs (22) Establishments should have a clear policy that if filters are found to contain other than minimal levels of potential pathogens which cannot be removed rapidly by other means, the filter material will be renewed.
Legislation (L)
Suggestions
Ls (1) If an import permit is granted, particularly where animals are to be caught rather than brought from another establishment, there should be some understanding that the permit will be renewed if the welfare of the animals so requires (provided that there has been no change in any other circumstances in the meantime).
Ls (2) If the term 'designated premises' included previously agreed alternative emergency accommodation, and on condition that any move was notified at the earliest possible opportunity, with details of the circumstances, the 'emergency move' problem would be solved without compromise to the spirit of the Regulations.
Ls (4) All relevant staff, and details of performances, should be registered under the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925.
Ls (5) Anyone seeking permission to release captive cetaceans must provide evidence that this will not cause unnecessary suffering, whether release in the UK or elsewhere is planned.
Ls (8) The legal status of live stranded animals which may be candidates for rehabilitation in captivity needs clarification.
Ls (9) The procedure for obtaining permission to hold such animals needs clarification.
Welfare (W)
Suggestions
Ws (1) No documentation relating to proposed imports of animals should be processed on behalf of other countries unless the establishments concerned already meet UK standards and the decision to issue an import permit at the appropriate time, provided that there have been no major changes in any other circumstances relating to the proposed import, has been made.
Ws (2) No import permits should be issued unless accommodation is completely ready to receive animals.
Ws (7) When animals may need to be moved for welfare reasons, establishments and those processing the documentation should take all steps to complete the move as quickly as possible.
Ws (8) Cetacean pools should, in general, be reserved for the animals and, in particular, not used for purposes which have nothing to do with the display of the animals themselves.
Ws (9) Proposals to move animals should take account of all the circumstances at the original and new pools.
Ws (10) Work required to ensure the health and safety of animals must be carried out promptly.
Ws (11) Animal keepers need to be aware of the social relationships of the animals in their charge and to be alert to any changes. Particular attention must be paid to the development of any aggressive relationships and steps taken to prevent damage or distress to the animals concerned.
Ws (12) Except on veterinary advice, all animals must be fed at least once a day.
Ws (13) All animals should be trained to cooperate in measures designed to protect their health and welfare, such as medical examinations.
Ws (15) Any proposals to keep species other than bottlenose dolphins and killer whales need to be accompanied by full information on that species as well as by full plans for their accommodation and care, drawn up along the lines of the standards suggested in this Review.
Ws (17) Research designed to establish and safeguard the welfare of captive animals should be part of the normal routine of establishments, particularly through careful record keeping and the regular analysis of these records.
Ws (18) The qualifications, record and experience of the catcher and the specific arrangements for acclimatization should form part of applications for acquisition of animals.
Ws (20) In any proposed research, the welfare of the animals must be a prime consideration. However, if variations in accommodation are required as an integral part of a research proposal, permission for such variation for a specific period of time could be considered.
Ws (21) In the design of new pools, and as far as practicable in existing pools, equipment should be sited to minimise conduction of noise to pools.
Ws (22) Noise from repair and construction work should be kept to a minimum. When major work is planned, serious consideration should be given to moving animals elsewhere. The behaviour of animals must be carefully monitored during repair and construction work so that any adverse reactions can be noted at an early stage and appropriate steps taken to remedy the situation.
Ws (26) Any plans to release animals must be accompanied by a full report on the population of origin, together with details of the specific group from which the animals were taken. A list of potential behaviour deficits and the steps to be taken to remedy these before release are also required. The qualifications, record and experience of the personnel, which should include an experienced person with veterinary qualifications, need to be submitted as well as full details of the financial arrangements. The opinions of at least three international experts in field work with the species concerned must be sought on the written plans and the original reports submitted. The written consent of any person, named in the plans as a collaborator, must be obtained and submitted.
Ws (27) Any plans to keep cetaceans in sea pens need to include provisions to ensure the health and safety of the animals at all times.
Ws (28) Any plans to set up or develop semi-captive situations need to consider very carefully the responsibilities which may be involved and provide the means to fulfil at least the moral obligation to ensure the welfare of the animals at all times.
Education (E)
Suggestions
Es (1) Since, in general, the dolphinaria clearly seem to be working along the wrong, lines in their educational provisions, they should carefully reassess their arrangements. It is likely to be helpful if education staff are fully involved and if experienced educational institutions and the Department of the Environment are consulted.
Es (4) Staff education in the biology, ecology and conservation of cetaceans needs urgent attention and all material relating to the animals needs to be checked for factual accuracy.
Es (5) Staff should be encouraged to improve their knowledge, professional contacts and qualifications, and be rewarded for doing so.
Es (7) In the creation of educational exhibits, the central item must be the living animals - otherwise the whole point of this exhibit is lost. It would be very easy to overwhelm the animals with a plethora of audio-visual aids, models, posters etc.
Es (8) The welfare of the animals must always be considered in new exhibits, for example: a 'natural' pool and surrounds also needs to be practical; audio-visual supporting material needs to be placed so that noise does not disturb the animals.
Es (9) Since captive animals provide the major opportunity to observe animals underwater, all establishments should make appropriate provisions. If large windows are not practical in some circumstances, closed circuit television or other techniques could be employed.
Es (10) There should be provision at all establishments for visitors to listen to sounds made by animals underwater. Consideration could be given to using live underwater sounds in performances instead of the customary music, since animals are usually very vocal at these times.
Es
(12) In improving the educational provisions for cetacean exhibits,
those for other species should not be forgotten, particularly where
such species are of the same status under the EEC Regulation, where
the same standard of educational provision is needed.
Research
(R)
Suggestions
Rs (1) Research should be an integral part of the keeping of cetaceans. Establishments should set up a research programme involving all their animals, to include such things as day to day behaviour changes, social relationships, breeding, pool use, feeding, weight and length changes, health, breeding details, effects of husbandry changes, effects of training, effects of schedule changes and details of water treatment. Establishments
Rs (2) need to set up sufficient recording systems to provide this data, arrange regular analyses, and designate staff responsibilities.
Rs (4) Regular reports based on these records should be published.
Rs (9) Establishments should support and encourage staff work with wild animals, particularly where this would contribute directly to information required for improved welfare and husbandry, to conservation and management of wild populations and to the educational activities of the establishment.
Rs (10) Establishments should ensure, as far as possible, that the fullest use is made of any biological specimens and post mortem material. This requires liaison with the veterinary profession, research workers and other interested parties to establish procedures in advance of such specimens being available. Copies of reports, and of publications arising, should be required in return for specimens.
Rs (11) Establishments should continue to cooperate with outside research workers.
Breeding (B)
Suggestions
Bs (5) Attention should be given to the following:
(c) Establishments should make regular, routine records of the behaviour of all animals before, during and after breeding. Analyses of these records, together with details of husbandry, should be regularly published.
(e) Genetic studies of captive animals and their offspring as well as of the original wild populations should be made. There are considerable practical difficulties in such work with wild populations but, perhaps through cooperation with catchers and the other establishments world wide using the same population, they are not insurmountable.
(f) Full advantage of opportunities to gather information on reproductive physiology and anatomy should be taken, with material obtained from normal veterinary examinations and from post mortem examinations fully processed.
(h) Establishments should take all opportunities offered through their work with wild populations to obtain the information on mating patterns, social sexual behaviour and rearing behaviour required for the understanding of breeding in captivity.
Transport (T)
Suggestions
Ts (2) At least two suitably trained attendants must accompany every consignment and each attendant must have no more than two animals in their care.
Ts (3) Attendants must have the means and the authority to deal with unexpected problems arising en route.
Ts (4) Animals should not be kept in transport containers for longer than 24 hours as a general rule, although for longer journeys, the risks involved in staging need to be weighed against the risks involved in keeping animals in containers for longer periods.
Ts (5) For all journeys, advance arrangements should be made along the route for animals to be removed to suitable water enclosures if holdups or health problems develop.
Catching (C)
Suggestions
Cs (1) Full details of the experience and record of the catching team, and of the acclimatization personnel and arrangements, should be supplied in support of applications to acquire animals.
Cs (2) An independent experienced observer should be present at all catching operations and forward a full report within 30 days to those authorising the acquisition of the animals.
Cs (3) A qualified and experienced veterinarian needs to be present at all catching operations, to provide any medical care which may be needed by the animals.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF CETACEA (Chapter 1)
i) Suggestion BCCsl should be accepted for immediate implementation.
ii) Suggestion BCCs2 should be reworded to read:-
"Animals should not normally be acquired unless the original capture was known to have been from a properly assessed and managed population. The transfer of an existing captive solitary animal to join an established social grouping may be one of the circumstances in which this criterion could be waived."
MORTALITY RATES (Chapter 2)
i. Conditions should be attached to import licences and/or Article 6 Exemptions for all captive cetaceans requiring the submission of full postmortem reports to DOE within ten days of completion.
ii. Conditions should be attached to import licences and/or Article 6 Exemptions for all live cetaceans to require the transfer of a copy of the full documentary history of an animal with it whenever its location is changed. A duplicate copy should be deposited with the Nature Conservancy Council at the same time.
iii. DOE should consider amendment of the record keeping requirements of the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice to incorporate the expanded details described in Suggestion MRsl of the Review document.
WATER TREATMENT (Chapter 3)
i. Suggestions WTsl-3;6-16;18-22 (pages 101-102) be accepted by the Department of the Environment for early implementation;
ii. Operators should designate specific staff to control the day to day operation of the water processing equipment. Those staff must receive specialised training in the detailed operation of the equipment, including action to take in any emergency situation. They must also be capable of undertaking simple analysis of water samples for the control of water quality and have the authority to rectify the deficiences as necessary;
iii. In emergencies, chemicals such as chlorine normally should be added by hand to the water only at a point in the system after filtration but before water re-enters the enclosure;
iv. The recommendation of the European Association for Aquatic Mammals (EAAM) as to the most appropriate level for salt content of the water in cetacean pools (1.5-3.5%) be accepted; andV. Minimum/maximum pH levels of 7.6-8.0 be accepted as appropriate standard requirements with a normal guide level of 7.8, and that paragraph 27(a) of the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice be modified to incorporate them;
vi. The levels of coliform bacteria in cetacean pools should not exceed 100 organisms per 100 ml and that this level should be reviewed, in the light of practical operation and of any new biological evidence on the water quality needs of cetaces, within not more than 5 years;
vii.
NO RECOMMENDATION on the appropriate chlorination system to be
adopted by existing dolphinaria is made;
viii. The 'breakpoint'
chlorination system should be considered for use in all new or
rebuilt enclosures;
ix. The EAMM recommended turn-over rate for any closed system enclosure of not more than 4 hours be accepted;
x. With more detailed testing for chlorine and nitrogenous compound levels, analyses should be taken at intervals of no more than one week (Ws17). Tests for bacteria, fungi and other pathogens do not appear to be required so frequently, and monthly intervals (Ws 18&19) should suffice as a minimum standard. A standard protocol for obtaining, storing and submitting samples for analysis should be evolved and adhered to by each establishment, to ensure comparability of test results.
LEGISLATION (Chapter 4)
i. Suggestions Lsl-2;4-5;7-9 (page 109) of the Review document should be accepted for early implementation by DOE;
ii. Immediate negotiations should commence between DOE, NCC, H M Coastguard, British Museum (National History) and the Receiver of Wreck with a view to producing a simple and workable system of dealing with the need for scientific investigation and disposal of live or dead strandings;
iii. The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland should be invited to take note of the Recommendations of this Report when considering any applications for import, or display to the public, of cetaceans under the EC Regulation 3626/82 or for licenses under Part II of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972;
WELFARE (Chapter 5)
i. Suggestions Wsl-2;7-13;15;17-18;20-22;26-28 (Pages 141-143) of the Review document should be accepted by DOE for early implementation;
ii. When considering applications for new, or renewed, licenses under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, Licensing Authorities should ask operators to provide details of any contingency plans for the welfare of animals in the event of the establishment ceasing to trade;
iii. Any attempt to import speculatively caught Cetacea on "welfare" or "temporary transit" grounds should be treated on its merits but with the presumption that import would normally be refused;iv. A system of Identification Documents for Cetacea, incorporating outline drawings and colour photographs in a standardised format, should be adopted after consultation with the European Community's CITES Committee.
EDUCATION (Chapter 6)
i. Conclusions ECl-11 (pages 9-10) and Suggestions ES1;4-5;7-10;12 (pages 168-169) are accepted for early implementation;
ii. "Education officers" of each establishment where they exist, be asked invariably to comment on the text of guidebooks etc, and show scripts before the new material is brought into use;
iii. The broad "education" interpretation of the EC Regulation 3626/82 Article 6 paragraph 1(c) in determining applications to import or display specimens of wild fauna or flora should continue to be used;
iv. DOE should consider the provision of some simple written guidance on educational criteria and how best this might be obtained;
v. Establishments should consider liaison arrangements with their Local Education Authority;
vi. Animals should normally be allowed the full use of the primary enclosure and not be confined to small holding areas outside of "show" times.
RESEARCH (Chapter 7)
i. The list at Annex F(ii) of areas of relevant research should be used as a starting point by funding and sponsoring authorities as guidance on priorities in their assessment of research proposals;
ii. DOE , in conjunction with other interested departments and organisations, should consider how best the coordination of UK cetacean research might be achieved;
iii. DOE should encourage establishments to co-ordinate their record-keeping systems in order to maximise their usefulness for research, and consider the benefits of contributing to NFZG's computerised system.
BREEDING (Chapter 8)
i. DOE should initiate discussions with the CITES Secretariat and other appropriate bodies about the possibility of co-sponsoring an International Symposium on Captive Breeding of Cetaceans at a suitable location in Europe.
ii. DOE should consider, with all other interested parties, how best the objectives of Suggestions Bs3-4 and 5(b) might be achieved.
iii.
Suggestions BS5 (a and g) should be COMMENDED to the dolphinaria
operators for consideration in their future planning. DOE should
treat the results as material factors in their consideration of
future import/export or display applications;iv. Dolphinaria
operators should establish a Stud Book system for all Cetacea in
captivity in the UK, and should cooperate with any similar
arrangement both within Europe and Internationally.
V.
Suggestions Bs5 (c-f,h) should be accepted.
STANDARDS (Chapter 9)
i. Suggestions TS2-5 and Csl-3 be accepted for early implementation by DOE;
ii. A Supplement to the Secretary of State's Standards should be issued for the guidance of Local Licensing Authorities and the UK CITES Management Authority containing specific minimum dimensions of primary enclosures for at least two "reference species" of cetacean and criteria for all other relevant requirements in the way of physical and management needs.
iii. A standard for minimum width and breadth of cetacean enclosures should be based upon the modified concept of MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DIMENSION (MHD) which is defined as:-
"the diameter of a circular enclosure, or in the case of enclosures of other shapes, the diameter of the largest circle that can be inserted within such an enclosure. Enclosures may be reduced by up to 20% of MHD in one direction providing the same percentage increase is added to the MHD at the 90 degree angle. Volume, depth and surface area criteria (if specified) must still be matched."
iv. For the purpose of determining dimensions of enclosures for captive cetacea the average adult body lengths of the "reference species "Tursiops truncatus and Orcinus orca be 3.5 metres and 7.5 metres respectively, resulting in MHD for the two "reference species" of:
Tursiops truncatus - 7.0 metres;
Orcinus orca - 15.0 metres
v. The minimum volume for a primary enclosure (PEV) containing up to 5 bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) should be 1,000m3 with each additional animal over 5 requiring a further 200m3;
vi. The minimum volume for any primary enclosure (PEV) in which Cetacea are held should not be less than 1,000m3;
vii. The minimum volume for a primary enclosure (PEV) for killer whales Orcinus orca containing up to 5 animals should be 12,000m3 with each additional animal over 5 requiring a further 2,500m3;
viii. The volume requirements of an enclosure containing a mixture of species should be the sum of the individual animal volumes for each species times the number of animals of each species held, but subject to the overriding minima recommended in (v), (vi) or (vii) above;
ix. The proposed Supplement to the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice should include a Minimum Vertical Dimension (MVD) for the area necessary to achieve the minimum volume standard for the species equivalent to twice the average body length of the species concerned. Enclosure depths may be varied by up to 20% of the MVD to provide a Minimum Average Enclosure Depth (MAED) over that area of the pool. The MAED for the 2 "reference species" shall be:- Tursiops truncates - 5.6 metres; Orcinus orca - 12 metres;
x. Where the Primary Enclosure Volume (PEV) is obtained by the linking of a complex of more than one identifiable enclosure, each must conform to the MHD requirement and the aggregate of the dimensions of these enclosures shall not be less than that of a single enclosure of the required minimum standard and the filtration and water quality control mechanisms for the isolation/medical care area should be capable of independent operation for extended periods;
xi. Dolphinaria operators should demonstrate, in their plans for implementing the recommended standards, that space is available on site, and has been reserved, to enable expansion of the enclosure(s) to approximately twice the minimum volume for the number of animals that they eventually intend to hold.
xii. Establishments which have indicated their intention to continue cetacean keeping within the recommended standards should be granted Exemptions for display under Article 6 of EC Regulation 3626/82 for a period of 3 years and, subject to satisfactory progress towards attainment of the full standards, to 5-yearly Exemptions thereafter. Failure to reach the required standards within the initial 5 years could constitue grounds for revoking the Exemption;
xiii. No revision should the basic decision to allow cetacean keeping should be made for at least 15 years;
xiv. Suggestion SRs5 (page 209) concerning approval of temporary variations to dimensional standards of enclosures, or to additional temporary accommodation, solely for the purpose of a research project is accepted in principle;
xv. DOE should consider if enforcement within the UK would be facilitated by the production of additional national guidelines to supplement those of CITES and IATA;
xvi. As a condition of importation into the UK, reports of the capture and acclimatisation process of each cetacean authorised to be collected from the wild should be provided to the Nature Conservancy Council.
Action
Plan for Implementation of the Dolphinaria Review Report
Action
to be taken by the Department of the Environment after Approval of
Report
1
For Action by on approval of Report:
Issue Article 6 Display Exemptions - SR(xii)
2 For Action within two months:
(a) Produce Internal Guidance Note - BCC(i), (ii); MR(i), (ii); L(i) (Ls 1, 2, 5); W(i)(Ws 1, 2, 7, 15, 18, 26-28); E(iii); SR(i)(Ts 2-5, Cs 1-3), (xii), (xvi).
(b) Write to Dolphinaria Operators/NFZG - MR(iv); WT(i)(WTs 1-3, 13), (ii), (iii), (x); L(i)(Ls 4); W(i) (Ws 8-13, 17, 21-22); E(i) (Es 1, 4, 5), (ii), (v)-(vi); R(iii); B(iii)-(v)(Bs 5(c, e, f, h)).
(c) Write to Receiver of Wreck, British Museum (Natural History), HM Coastguard, NCC to arrange meeting on Strandings - L(i)(Ls 9),(ii).
(d) Send copies of Dolphinaria Review document/Report to Northern Ireland colleagues and invite them to consider taking similar action - L(iii).
(e) Write to Local Authorities on allowing temporary variations in Standards to accommodate research projects - W(i)(Ws 20); SR(xiv).
(f) Write to CITES Secretariat and other appropriate bodies regarding the proposal to hold a Symposium on Captive Breeding of Cetacea in Europe - B(i).
(g) Amendment of Wildlife and Countryside Act Schedules to protect all UK Cetacea - L(i)Ls 8).
3
For Action within five months:-
(a)
Meeting with dolphinaria operators on staff training proposals
-WT(i), (ii), (iii), (x); E(i).
(b) Revise Guidance Notes for Zoo Inspectors and circulate draft for agreement WT(i), (iii).
(c) Confirm that all Trainers and Performances have been submitted for Registration with the appropriate Authority - L(i).
(d) Meeting with Receiver of Wreck etc on Strandings - L(i), (ii).
(e) Decide how educational aspects of Dolphinaria proposals for improvements are to be handled E(iv).
4 For Action within seven months:-
(a) Consider dolphinaria operators' plans for Implementation of new Standards - WT(i)(WTs 6-12, 14-16, 18-22); E(i) (Es 9-12); B(iii), (iv); SR(iii)-(xi).
(b) Agree with Receiver of Wreck etc a "modus vivendi" for dealing with Strandings and Disposal - L(ii).
(c) Decide how coordination of cetacean research should be achieved - R(ii).
(d) Consider how the objectives of BS 3-4 and BS 5(b) should be achieved.
(e) Issue revised Guidance Notes for Zoo Inspectors - WT(i),(iii).
5 For Action with One year:
(a) Issue amended Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice - MR(iii), (iv); WT(iv)-(vi); SR(ii).
(b) Reach decision on whether additional national transportation guidelines are required - SR(xv).
6 For Action within Five years:
Review Implementation of minimum standards - SR(iii)-(x).
7 For Action not earlier than Fifteen years:
Review policy of continuing to allow the keeping of Cetacea in captivity - SR(xiii).
Species of potential interest for captive/wild research
(UK, European and World context.) The notes on the status of species are based on the 1988 IUCN Red List (IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 ODL, UK)
Tursiops truncates Bottlenose dolphin
The most frequently kept species, which seems to adapt easily to captivit'y in practical group sizes. It can serve as a model for investigations relevant to other captive species and to wild marine Odontocetes. At least the North Sea and Adriatic Sea stocks may have conservation problems; monitoring and active management is at a high level for USA stocks subject to live capture; no other stocks are sufficiently well surveyed for the proper management of live capture operations. Because of increasing reports of net-entanglements, by-catching and direct catching throughout the range this species requires further monitoring in the wild.
Orcinus orca Killer whale
Not very frequently kept world-wide, but seems to adapt to captivity in group sizes and accommodation which are practical for larger establishments. The small captive population increases the importance of the information gained from each specimen. The wild stocks seem to have an unusual and interesting social grouping, which may imply special management problems. Basic biology, reproduction, behaviour etc is little known for captive or wild populations. There are no special conservation problems for any stock; western North American populations (Vancouver, Alaska) are reasonably well surveyed for potential live capture operations and work is in progress in Iceland; knowledge of other populations is presently inadequate for proper management of live capture operations.
Phocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise
The few specimens kept in captivity have almost all been rescued from fishing nets or live stranded; are usually in poor health and, for survivors, almost all used in research establishments. Recently the North Sea Centre at Hirtshals in Denmark exhibited specimens obtained from net entanglements. The survivors were subsequently released. Basic biology, reproduction, behaviour etc is little known. The Baltic Sea and North Sea stocks are of conservation concern (accidental catches, probably pollution of the food chain, possible over-exploitation of food species, disturbance and habitat destruction by industrial development, land reclaimation and tourism). The species in general is particularly prone to net entanglement. It is listed as "Insufficiently Known" (ie suspected to be Vulnerable) in the Red List. No stocks have yet been sufficiently well surveyed for the proper management of live capture operations (except for the Bay of Fundy area in Canada, but this population is under severe pressure from by-catching and thus unsuitable for further removals). More information is urgently needed to assist the conservation of this species and studies of captive animals could make an important contribution.
Inia geoffrensis Boutu or Amazon river dolphin
A few specimens have been kept in captivity world-wide (at present 2 in FRG, 1 in USA and possibly up to 5 in South America). These relatively small fresh water animals seem to require particular care in arranging captive social groups, to avoid losses through aggressive encounters. This species is related to the Endangered Indus and Yangtze river dolphins, to the Vulnerable Ganges river dolphin and to the Insufficiently Known La Plata dolphin (which is marine). Although presently relatively abundant in the Amazon and adjacent river systems, this species is Vulnerable through habitat destruction (dams planned for hydroelectric schemes throughout the range, pollution through industrial development and forestry clearance, net entanglement, use of dynamite for geological surveys etc). Little is known of basic biology, reproduction, behaviour etc and Inia may also serve as a model for studies relevant to the conservation of Endangered relatives. Some areas have been sufficiently surveyed for the management of live capture (work of V da Silva and the late R C Best), although there is no programme in operation at present.
Lipotes vexillifer Yangtze river dolphin, Platanista minor Indus river dolphin, Platanista gangetica Ganges river dolphin, Pontoporia blainvillei La Plata dolphin.
Although specimens of the Endangered Yangtze river dolphin are kept in captivity in China (with a view to captive breeding), none are likely to be available internationally because of a total prohibition even on the export of parts. The world population of the Endangered Indus river dolphin is so low that, except possibly for a local captive breeding programme if current conservation efforts are not effective, no specimens should be removed. Although the Vulnerable Ganges river dolphin is still relltively abundant in some areas, the species is under considerable threat from habitat destruction (dams for irrigation and hydroelectricity, pollution from pesticides, industrial activity and nitrates from fertilizers, deforestation affecting water quality) overexploitation of food fish, net entanglement and direct taking in some areas. It is unlikely, for political reasons, that any specimens would be available for export, even for research purposes, from India. There is a proposal for keeping some animals in Nepal, mainly for research. Specimens from Bangladesh, Bhutan or possible Nepal might appear on the international scene for research or display. If genuinely part of an international conservation effort, a few specimens from a properly managed stock might usefully be studied abroad. However, fostering a local effort would be more productive in the long run. The La Plata dolphin does not appear to have been kept in captivity. The species is Insufficiently Known, but there are problems with accidental catches, and possibly direct catches. Little is known of the basic biology, reproduction or behaviour, although some work is in progress locally.
Sotalia spp. tucuxi, Sousa spp. humpbacked dolphins, Neophocoena phocoenoides finless porpoise, Orcaella brevirostris Irrawaddy dolphin.
A few specimens of these tropical species, (which have riverine and coastal populations sometimes regarded as separate species) have been kept worldwide (currently in Europe there are Sotalia from northern South American coastal waters at Antwerp (3) and Rhenen (2?). Orcaella is 'Insufficiently Known' (ie thought to be endangered or vulnerable) and the other species are classified 'NT*' (ie may become vulnerable if causal factors continue operating), through habitat destruction (see Inia for threats to riverine populations, marine coastal populations suffer from loss of their largely mangrove dominated habitat, pollution, net entanglement). The basic biology, reproduction, behaviour etc are very little known, but information is urgently required to improve management: and conservation. The only stocks sufficiently known for effective management of live-capture at present are of riverine Sotalia, (work of V da Silva and R C Best).
Delphinapterus leucas white whale, Monodon monoceros narwhal
A few white whales have been kept world wide (currently 2 at Duisberg, 3? at Vancouver and several elsewhere in the world including the ffSA and Japan). Although relatively large, they are not considered to be particularly active and reasonable survival times have been obtained even in very small accommodation. Although large aggregations are common in the wild, the basic social group may be smaller (5-10 animals). Typical social groups may thus be practical for larger establishments to exhibit. Narwhal have only rarely been kept (at Vancouver and possibly in the USSR) and survival was poor (at Vancouver, although this was in the early days). The basic social group may be of 20 or fewer individuals, although larger aggregations are observed in the wild. With an adult male body length of 8 m (including about 3 m of tusk) and possibly large social units, this species may only be practical for the largest establishments to exhibit. Both species come from Arctic waters and may require refrigerated accommodation in other climates. Both species are of considerable conservation interest because of possibly excessive direct catching by local people almost throughout the range. Much work is in progress on basic biology, reproduction, behaviour etc; information which is urgently required for conservation and management. Both species are Insufficiently Known (ie suspected to be Vulnerable). Some Canadian stocks are adequately surveyed to permit live capture operations; USA, Greenlandic and USSR stocks are probably not.
Cephalorhynchus spp. Commerson's, Hector's, Heaviside's and black dolphins
Some specimens of the small, attractive black and white Commerson's dolphin have been kept in captivity world wide. Currently there are 3 Commerson's from Chile at Duisberg and a breeding group of about 8 at Sea World San Diego. This species is also found off Argentina, the Falklands and Kerguelen. Heaviside's dolphins (off western South Africa) and Hector's dolphins (New Zealand) have only rarely been kept, mainly originating from net entanglements. The black dolphin (Chilean coasts) is very little known and has almost certainly not been kept. Initial losses of Commerson's dolphins have been high. Although Commerson's dolphin is comparatively the best known species, little is known of its basic biology, reproduction or behaviour, although some work is in progress. Studies of Hector's dolphin are underway in New Zealand, but little is being done on Heaviside's or black dolphins. All the species are Insufficiently Known-(but possibly Vulnerable) through direct catching (for bait in South America), by-catching and entanglement. No stocks are sufficiently known at present for adequate management of live capture operations although some Commerson's and Hector's dolphin populations have been surveyed.
Lagenorhynchus, Delphinus, Stenella spp.
These are mainly pelagic species and although many specimens have been kept world wide, they are not often kept today (although Napier Marineland, New Zealand specialise in keeping Delphinus.) They are not large animals, but are very active and many have large social units (fifty or more) so that adequate accommodation for such species may be impractical. They are of conservation concern because of very heavy by-catching of some stocks (particularly in the North Pacific). Stocks involved in monitored by-catching have provided information on basic biology, reproduction and behaviour which has been used for management and conservation. The majority of fisheries, however, are not monitored and there is no information on these stocks.
Globicephala spp. Pilot whales
A few specimens have been kept, mainly singly but in pools with other cetaceans. The basic social group (perhaps 15 - 20 animals), relatively large size and pelagic way of life indicate that adequate captive accommodation is impractical, except perhaps for the very largest institutions. Social bonds seem to be particularly strong as the species tends to live strand in groups. There is little information on basic biology, reproduction, behaviour, etc, although this is required for the management of the stocks subject to direct catching (North Atlantic, western Pacific). The species as a whole, however, do not appear to be of particular conservation concern at present.
Pseudorca crassidens False killer whale
A
few specimens have been kept in captivity world wide and are possibly
currently of interest as a substitute for killer whales. They are
said to be very active in captivity and to make attractive exhibits.
Very little is known of this apparently pelagic species in the wild,
although social bonds are likely to be strong as it tends to live
strand in large groups (but single animals have been sighted at sea).
If the size of live stranted groups (20 to 100 or more) indicates the
basic social group size, adequate captive accommodation for this
relatively large and active species is likely to be impractical,
although study of the wild populations may provide evidence for
smaller basic groups. No stocks are sufficiently well known for
adequate management of live capture operations at present. The
species as a whole is not of particular conservation concern.
Other
species
There are a number of other species small enough to be candidates for captivity, but no stocks are sufficiently well known at present for proper management of live capture operations. Except for the vaquita (Phocoena sinus), which is Vulnerable, most of these species are not of particular conservation concern.
RESEARCH PROJECTS
The following projects have been arranged according to their relevance to wild or captive animals (or both). The projects have also been roughly rated for Priority (current need for information rather than basic scientific interest), Expense (not counting the costs of managing the wild source populations, acquiring and keeping the animals or of collecting and analysing data as part of normal husbandry) and Feasibility (mainly relating to the UK context) on a High, Medium, Low scale. Some parts of projects have been separately rated where these differ greatly from the overall project.
Many topics are inter-related, and this is noted in the most obvious cases. This means that information obtained for one project could be used for others (and may alter the ratings); care is therefore needed to avoid duplication of effort and to make data collection compatible. The studies are almost all species specific. An international review of current knowledge (published, unpublished and work in progress) is an integral part* of each project.
Work requiring permits (for wild animals) or possibly Home Office licence (for UK captives) is noted within the projects. It is also recognised that the agreement of managements and their veterinary advisors will be required where projects not depending on information gained during normal husbandry are concerned. It is appreciated that such permission can reasonably be withheld, and this has been taken into account in the Feasibility rating of projects.
The list is therefore to be regarded as what could be done, rather than as what has to be done. It is not exhaustive, although it is intended to cover the most important areas of investigation (and some of the more interesting current side-lines). It also illustrates where all the record keeping suggested in the Draft Supplement to the Secretary of State's Standards could be used, and why it is so important that these records are kept, preserved and analysed.
One major omission from this list (because the list is related to workarising from the Dolphinarium Review) is the work urgently required to investigate, and continue monitoring, the status of cetaceans in UK waters. The UK also has varying responsibilities for conservation and management of cetaceans in the waters of dependent territories, which should not be forgotten.
A. Mainly relevant to wild populations
(1) Age (Priority - High: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High)
The age structure of a population is one of the most important pieces of information required for conservation and management. The ages of toothed whales can be read from growth layer groups in teeth, but calibration under controlled conditions is essential. This involves either giving suitable doses of marker substances (usually antibiotics) at known intervals to captive animals throughout life, or simply keeping accurate records of suitable medication. Teeth removed during life, and at post mortem are read. Growth layers in wild and captive animals are not always clear, but careful records of the life of individual captives may serve to identify causal factors, giving further insight into the lives of the wild animals.
The physiological control of growth layer groups in hard tissue (seen in the teeth, antlers, shells etc of very many animal groups) is unknown and would be of wide conservation value to elucidate (and of basic scientific interest). However, cetaceans are probably not the most convenient model species for such work.
(2) Genetics (Priority - High: Expense - Medium: Feasibility - High)
Stock identity is another of the basic requirements for conservation and management. This has been mainly done in the past from morphometrics, usually requiring large collections of skeletal material. Genetic fingerprinting, using mini-satellite DNA techniques according to the techniques of Jeffreys (Hoelzel and Dover, 1987, International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee document number SG/39/07), is far more powerful, enabling exact family relationships to be defined. This will also reveal, for the first time, the mating patterns of a species, as well as provide the information essential for managing the captive breeding of endangered species. It is foolproof evidence of individual identity, and of parentage. There is also a range of other useful techniques which may be applied.
Small samples of tissue (eg blood or skin) are required. These can be obtained from captive animals during routine veterinary investigations, from wild populations during capture operations and through the use of biopsy darts (hollow needles fitted to an arrow, fired from a bow, retrieved via an attached line, so designed as to cause minimum damage and disturbance). In many countries, including the UK, the work on wild animals would require permits.
Exact genetic information simplifies the management of captive. breeding, helping to ensure that the gene pool is kept as large as possible and indicating the best source of new animals. It is particularly important to obtain samples from any abortions, still births or babies which die, as this may reveal incompatibilities in the breeding stock.
(3) Energetics (Priority - High: Expense - mainly Low: Feasibility - mainly High)
The physical development and growth of individuals, and the individual variations, are extremely difficult to establish in the wild; mean values can be obtained from sufficient numbers of strandings, catches etc, but study of individuals requires regular access to individuals. The energy budget (efficiency of food conversion, metabolic rate, costs of growth, costs of pregnancy and lactation, energy expenditure in the various behaviours etc) is essential information for conservation and management.
It is particularly important where there are conflicts with fisheries (could the local population possibly be eating all that fish and lowering catches ?) or fears about lack of food through over-exploitation of fish stocks (if this much is removed, will there be enough left to feed this size of population and perpetuate the species ?).
Animals need to be weighed and measured regularly throughout life and post mortem examinations are also required. The caloric content of the food, the species, size and age class of the fish; individual daily intake, water and air temperature; some measure of daily exercise all need to be recorded. Metabolic rate needs to be monitored at intervals throughout life (by training animals to exhale into an underwater funnel so that the air can be collected); energy expended in various behaviours estimated (eg training to push or pull, swimming against known water speed in a flume, calculations based on known weight); passage times for food found (by adding harmless markers to the food).
(4) Pollution (Priority - High: Expense - High: Feasibility - Low)
The
exact effects of pollutants in the food chain (eg DDT, PCBs, heavy
metals) are unknown in cetaceans. It is possible (but probably not
practical, except perhaps on rescued stranded animals or animals kept
entirely for research) to investigate this by feeding fish from
different sources (with different levels of pollutants) to animals
and monitoring the effects, particularly on reproduction and
reproductive physiology (as was recently done for seals).
There
is also scope for further investigation of how animals detect and
avoid oil films (although again probably not practical, particularly
in closed-system dolphinaria). Home Office permission may be
required.
(5) Accidental catches (including stranded animals in good condition) (Priority - Low in this context: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High)
Although these are occasional events, and it takes time to build up data, a great deal can be learned from these animals. Samples can be tested for genetic details , pollutants (with care for stranded animals), food habits (stomach contents), age (teeth), development, reproductive status etc. Also the type of fishery (or cause of death in strandings) may reveal ways in which such problems can be minimised, or point to work - perhaps involving captive animals - to devise ways to warn animals eg of nets.
Cooperation is required between the British Museum (Natural History), vets, RSPCA, research workers and dolphinaria. Obtaining and analysis of material could fit in well with that recommended for dealing with material from captive animals. The work could also fit in with efforts to rescue live stranded animals.
B. Relevant to wild and captive populations
(1) Breeding (Priority - High: Expense - Medium to Low: Feasibility -High: Artificial Insemination: Priority - High: Expense - High: Feasibility - Medium to Low)
The behaviour and physiology of breeding tends to be very species specific in detail. Good information on reproductive parameters (eg age of sexual maturity, of first reproduction, length of pregnancy, length of lactation, reproductive intervals, social maturity, end of reproduction) is essential for modelling population dynamics, but not easy to establish in detail with wild populations. Captive breeding of any cetacean species is still very hit and miss, because of a lack of combined studies (there are plenty of case histories). Better knowledge of captive breeding is needed to assist the preservation of endangered species. There are also connections with the projects on genetics, energetics, stress, taste, social groups etc.
General good record keeping of captive animals before, during and after breeding is required, as well as of post mortem examinations, in a form which can easily be compared between establishments. Specific studies are needed on the composition and ages of good breeding groups, the role of dominance in the breeding group, birth conditions (pool size, companions, type of companion, divers to assist etc) and rearing conditions (establishment of suckling, weaning, social group size and composition etc). Monitoring reproductive hormone levels (males, females - both parents and companions); the genetics of parents and offspring (whether or not offspring survive); the role of experience in relation to reproductive success (very important for establishing whether the first pregnancy in the wild is likely to result in a viable calf); the role of stress and population density in reproductive success etc, need attention.
Artificial insemination techniques are under development in other countries, but not yet established anywhere for any cetacean. These methods could prevent the need to move animals for mating, or to disturb established groups to prevent one animal contributing too much to the gene pool (particularly important for captive breeding of endangered species). This is a fairly major undertaking, involving firstly research into methods of collecting and storing viable sperm, secondly detailed investigations of female reproductive physiology and anatomy; ' and thirdly methods of delivering sperm. Other factors, such as social grouping, taste (communication of reproductive status), pool type, as well as the breeding details mentioned above, are also important. There may be problems in the UK if any of this requires Home Office permission, or if managements or vets prefer not to allow animals to be subject to so much manipulation.
Ideally, complete information about breeding in the wild is needed for comparison, but this is difficult to acquire, except on an opportunistic basis. However, information eg on the significance of hormone levels obtained in captive animals, could be used to interpret the reproductive status of animals sampled in the wild, which is of importance to management and conservation.
(2) Capture (Priority - High: Expense - Low, because most work is part of the normal good management of stocks subject to live-capture: Feasibility - High)
The survey and monitoring of the wild populations from which animals are taken is an important contribution to knowledge of the species, and to its conservation and management. Although there is no substitute for this work, it may be necessary, for logistical reasons (eg water clarity, weather, cost effectiveness) to study the species in other areas as well. Comparative work is also needed to check whether other stocks behave in the same way, otherwise extrapolation from one stock to another may result in inappropriate management.
(3) Food and feeding (Priority - High: Expense - Low to Medium: Feasibility - High).
Captive
animals receive a more restricted diet than wild animals. They may
also be given locally available food species, rather than those
normally available in the catching area. Important nutrients may be
lost in the freezing, storage and thawing stages, as well as if
gutted or cut fish are fed rather than whole fish. Little is known of
the requirements for supplements, although a range is usually given
as a prophylactic.
The diet of the wild population needs
to be established, and any differences from the captive diet explored
in terms of nutrition and calorific content. The diet of wild animals
can be studied through the stomach contents of accidently caught
animals (usually full), those of stranded animals (more usually
empty) or through lavage of the stomachs of temporarily caught
animals (permits required and only to be attempted by very
experienced teams). The species, size and age class of food species
for captive animals must be recorded. Changes in food during
freezing, storage, thawing and preparation need investigation, as
well as methods to ensure temperature control during transport and
storage. Blood and other tissue samples may be required to establish
nutritional status. This project is closely related to the energetics
project. Cooperation between establishments, vets, catchers and
research workers is required, and possibly the frozen food and
fishing industries could be involved.
(4) Physical appearance (Priority - High: Expanse - mainly Low: Feasibility - mainly High).
One obvious difference between captive and wild killer whales (and to a lesser extent bottlenose dolphins) is the drooping of the dorsal fin in the former. Why? Is it important for welfare? Captive bottlenose dolphins seem, in some cases, to have more tooth rakes on the skin than wild animals. Why? Is it important? The comparative development of body proportions (eg head to dorsal to tail proportion), pigmentation, dorsal fin shape etc. change during life, but have not been well documented. Such information is very important for estimating the ages and sex of wild animals, where only part of the body may be available for observation.
Comparative studies between establishments and with wild animals are required, noting such things as pool size, stock density, social groupings and interactions. Detailed measurements and photographs at intervals during life are also needed. Tissue samples from dorsal fins may provide useful information on the physiological basis of fin drooping (taken immediately post mortem, or biopsies at intervals during life). The taking of such tissue samples during life may be difficult to justify as other than experimental in the UK, and etablishments may well, be reluctant to authorise such sampling in case of disfigurement to animals. This project is particularly related to the energetics project.
(5) Telemetry devices (Priority - High: Expense - Medium to High: Feasibility - Medium to High)
The development of easily attached and retrieved remote sensing devices is very important in order to increase our knowledge of the ecology, habits and behaviour of wild cetaceans. The technology (including use of satelites for monitoring) is available: the problem is how to attach and release devices without major interference with the animals. Such development is greatly assisted if devices can be tested on captive animals. There are some investigations (eg on the neurophysiology of sense organs and sound production) where such devices could be used to obtain information directly from captive animals. There is also scope for using these devices to demonstrate various features of cetacean physiology to dolphinarium visitors (eg a sucker tag transmitting information on heart rate during a dive).
(6) Exercise (Priority - Medium: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High).
What are the differences in daily exercise between wild and captive animals? To what is this related? What is the role of training in providing for the exercise needs of captive animals? What is the role of available pool space?
The time spent by wild and captive animals in the various behaviours (under various circumstances) needs estimating, with some measure of distance travelled and energy expended for each. The motivation for exercise needs to be established (food gathering, exploration, communication, social interaction etc), as well as the 'value' animals themselves place on exercise (ie do they prefer to do as little as possible so long as food is available, or is exercise attractive in itself?). Some measure of 'physical fitness' for cetaceans would be useful in the assessment of exercise needs. This project is closely related to the energetics project, and to the accommodation projects.
(7)
Social groups (Priority - High: Expense - Low, except telemetry:
Feasibility - High)
The details of social grouping, and the means of maintaining social status, are not well known for most cetacean species. Such information is important for investigations of population dynamics, required for conservation and management. It is also required for the establishment and management of suitable social groups in captivity, including those for the captive breeding of endangered species. The factors involved in the establishment of compatible captive groups are particularly important.
To obtain information on social groupings and status maintenance in the wild for species without easily recognisable individual characteristics, marking or telemetry tags maybe required. Permits would be needed for marking or tagging in the UK, and in many other countries. Comparative observations between establishments with few animals (which might be expected to form a single social group) and those with many (which might be expected to form two or more groups); observations before and after the introduction or removal of animals; over the period when sexual maturity is attained, etc. are required. There may also be scope for preference testing, to establish the value animals themselves place on access to particular companions, or to companions in general. Captive animals can also be used to test and develop telemetry tags suitable for investigating the social life of wild animals.
(8) Photoperiod (Priority - High: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High, except perhaps for specific investigations).
Seasonal
changes in the relative proportions of light and dark in a day are
known to have important effects, particularly on the timing of
reproduction, in most living creatures. It is not known exactly what
role seasonal changes in lighting may play for cetaceans, although
except for tropical species, it is likely to be important, with
effects on reproduction and possibly also on growth layers in hard
tissue and general health.
It is not difficult to
establish the average seasonal lighting changes for most wild
cetacean stocks, although individuals or groups may not conform to
the average seasonal travel pattern. For captive animals, records of
the daily lighting pattern (for indoor establishments, or where
natural light is supplemented at outdoor establishments) are
required. These, together with the life history records, should
reveal any general effects of lighting. Specific investigations,
where the lighting schedule is altered to test for effects (eg on
reproductive hormone levels, tooth growth layer groups) are also
required. This project is particularly related to the biological
clock, breeding and age projects.
(9) Sound production (Priority - Medium: Expense - Medium for equipment, Low to Medium for investigation: Feasibility - High: Mechanism of Sound Production: Priority - Medium to Low, mainly scientific interest: Expense - High: Feasibility - Low).
The detailed ethology of sound production has not been established for any cetacean species. Without this information it is impossible to establish what, if anything, happens to sound production in captive animals or whether any captive environmental features encourage or discourage sound production. Such studies may also be relevant to the problem of net entanglement, to possible disturbance by boat traffic or other environmental noise and to the question of inter-species communication.
The
repetoire and context of sounds produced by wild animals is required.
While there is little problem in recording sounds from undisturbed
wild animals, for example by using transmitting sonobuoys, it is not
so easy to know which animals are making the sounds or the context.
The repetoire and context of sounds produced by individual captive
animals is also required. Re-testing of individuals at intervals is
needed, to establish whether there are any changes over time. Such
studies could usefully proceed simultanesouly and should be
supplemented by a world review of existing acoustic tapes.
The
mechanism of sound production is still not established, and is very
controversial. The standard investigation techniques are invasive
(implanted electrodes to detect muscle movements, X-ray monitoring of
air sacs, etc.) and would require Home Office permission. It is
unlikely that display animals would be made available. However, post
mortem specimens can provide useful material for anatomical
investigations. Some work is already being done in other countries
using transmitting or recording sensors attached to suckers. These
can be attached and removed (or designed to detach themselves)
without undue disturbance, particularly if animals are trained
to'cooperate. Development of these techniques would not only be
relevant to investigations of sound production in captive animals,
but, if the problem of delivery can be solved, could also be used
with wild animals. This project is therefore related to the telemetry
development project.
(10) Vision, hearing (Priority - Medium, mainly scientific interest: Expense - Medium: Feasibility - High)
These senses are still not completely investigated for any cetacean species. Are they affected by captivity? If so, what are the critical conditions? Results may be relevant to solving the net entanglement problem and to estimating the possible effects of noise from boat traffic and industrial development on wild animals.
Probably the best way to monitor these senses is by trained responses, seeking the levels at which discrimination between two stimuli fails. Re-testing at intervals is needed, to check for any changes. Such tests need to be done 'double blind' to prevent the trainers inadvertantly giving clues to the animals. Tests may be suitable for incorporation into show routines. Post mortem specimens can provide useful material for anatomical investigations. There are major problems in collecting comparative data on wild animals, but some information is required to check whether any changes observed in captivity are normal (eg age related) or not. The development of telemetry devices sensitive to neural discharges in brain areas would permit the investigation of the central processing of sensory information.
(11) Taste (Chemoreception) (Priority - Medium, mainly scientific interest: Expense - Low to Medium, depending on costs of biochemistry: Feasibility - High for simple tests, Low for pollution).
It is only fairly recently that this sense has been investigated; previously it was thought not to exist or to be of very minor importance. We now know that at least bottlenose dolphins have a fairly well developed sense of taste, which may be used to find suitable habitat (eg testing salinity), food (eg detecting the excretions of food species) or for communication (eg reproductive cycle changes). Further investigation of this sense is required particularly in other species. Does this sense change in captivity? What is the role of chemical social signals? Do the chemical signals change in captivity (eg because of different diet)? This project is particularly related to the breeding, stress, social groups, pollution and water treatment projects.
Controlled monitoring probably requires trained responses to establish detection levels, done on a 'double blind' schedule, with re-testing at intervals, but it is possible to use spontaneous reactions to substances presented on a 'double blind' schedule. The advantage of the latter technique is that it can be used with wild animals. There is also scope for preference testing, to establish for example the most appropriate salinity levels in pools. It is important to know whether the animals can detect pollutants in water or food, and at what levels. However, this would require Home Office permission and is in any case unlikely to be allowed by managements.
Little is known of the social role of taste signals. It seems most likely that secretions from the genital area, anal glands, urine and faeces are important, but the critical components are unknown. The anatomy and physiology of taste receptors, and of structures potentially producing chemical signals, is not well known, and could usefully be studied in post mortem specimens. Genital area swabs, urine and faeces samples (obtained through the trained cooperation of the animals or during routine veterinary examinations) can be extracted and presented. Any active substances can be identified using standard biochemical techniques. Extracts and active substances can also be presented to wild animals. Except in special circumstances (eg wild friendly animals), it would be very difficult to obtain samples from unstressed wild animals. Wild animals sampled during capture operations and captive animals sampled during possibly stressful events (eg transport) would provide information on whether stress reactions are communicated by taste.
(12) Magnetic sense (Priority - Medium, mainly scientific interest: Expense - mainly Low, High for manipulation of magnetic environment, telemetry: Feasibility - mainly High).
It has recently been discovered that cetaceans use the earth's magnetic field as an aid to travel. The mechanism for reception of magnetic information has not yet been established. It is not known whether the magnetic environment of pools is of any importance to the welfare of captive animals.
The magnetic characteristics of pools can be surveyed, and observations of pool use made to see whether there is any relationship. Comparisons between pools with different magnetic characteristics can be made. Pools can also be designed so that the magnetic environment can be manipulated. There may also be scope for testing the sensitivity of this sense, through training animals to discriminate between areas with different magnetic characteristics. Specimens (especially heads) obtained post mortem can be examined for possible receptors (eg magnetic material). Cetaceans are not very convenient subjects for exploring the neuro-physiology of magnetic reception, but it might be possible to develop telemetry devices sensitive to neural discharges in brain areas. This would show which areas are concerned with processing magnetic information.
Study of the movement of wild animals (monitored by telemetry tag) in relation to local geomagnetic features is also required, to provide further information about use of this sense. It may be possible to map migration routes or even stock boundaries with reference to local geomagnetic features, providing information required for conservation and management. There is a relationship with the biological clock project, since magnetic time information is used as part of the travel strategy.
(13) Tactile sense (Priority - Medium: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High).
Wild and captive cetaceans are observed to touch each other, and to rub themselves against each other and against objects. While some rubbing may be a grooming activity, other touching and rubbing may serve a social function. It is sometimes said that 'human-dolphin' contact is primarily a means for the animals to obtain tactile stimulation, rather than a deliberate attempt to establish a relationship, as others believe. The distribution of possible touch receptors over the body has not been systematically investigated, although some areas (eg head, genital areas) have been studied.
Observations of wild and captive animals are required to establish the grooming and social roles of touching and rubbing. The value captive animals place on access to safe rubbing materials can be tested, and if this turns out to be an important factor, pools can be furnished with suitable material. It is known that tactile stimulation can be used as a reward in training. It is therefore possible to test the value animals place on tactile stimulation from various sources (eg human hand, jet of water, rub with brush). Post mortem specimens should be examined to provide more information on the anatomy and distribution of touch receptors in skin.
(14) Body language (Priority - Medium: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High).
Cetaceans do comunicate through body language (postures, movements, display of pigmented areas), but the detailed ethology is not completely known for any species. It is not known whether captivity affects these signals or whether any aspect of the captive environment may need to be altered to accommodate some signals.
The body language repetoire in captive and wild animals needs to be established, and individual captives monitored over time. The cause of any differences between captive and wild animals needs to be established. This project is particularly related to the physical appearance, pool use, pool furnishing, social distance, social groups and inter-species communication projects.
(15) Water temperature (Priority - Medium: Expense - Low: Feasibility -High).
Although range of water temperature in which wild cetaceans may be found is fairly well known for many species, it is not known what role water temperature, and any seasonal changes, plays in the ecology and habitat preferences. Nor are the effects of water temperature on the welfare of captive animals defined.
Observational
work with wild animals, throughout the year, can establish the
details of the role water temperature plays in the ecology. The use
of telemetry tags with temperature sensors would greatly simplify
such work, but would require permits. Measurements of wild animals
during capture operations would establish any relationship between
food requirements and water temperature changes (girth being related
to fat deposition).
There is currently a difference of opinion
between establishments as to whether it is better to keep bottlenose
dolphins in fairly warm water throughout the year, or whether (within
limits) to allow water temperature to fluctuate with the seasons.
Comparison of the health, breeding and possibly behaviour records
between such establishments is required to establish the long term
benefits of both regimes. In some establishments it might be possible
to maintain different pool areas at different temperatures, to
investigate water temperature preferences. The Energetics and the
Food and Feeding projects are closely related to this project.
(16) Biological clocks (Priority Medium, mainly scientific interest: Expense - Low: Feasibility Medium).
What environmental signals do cetaceans use to regulate their activities? Changes in light and dark are the most widely used time cues, for living organisms in general, although a wide variety of other cues, including temperature, nutritional status, social information and magnetic information, are known. The logistics of such investigations for captive cetaceans are complicated, because of the need to feed animals at intervals. However, one technique which has been successful in investigating human biological clocks may be possible. This involves gradually reducing the 'day' from 24 hours to about 20 hours, without altering the relative time at which events sttch as feeding take place. This causes the different internal 'clocks' to desynchronise, with for example the activity cycle running with one period and the appetite cycle at another. Pools which can be isolated from the natural light cycle are required, as well as managements prepared to allow major disruption of their working days. There is no forseeable risk to the health of the animals, but Home Office permission might be required. This project is related to the photoperiod and magnetic sense projects.
(17) Memory and learning (Priority - Medium, mainly scientific interest: Expense - Low to Medium: Feasibility - Medium, because dedicated research animals may be needed).
Interesting work, exploring the cetacean capacity for memory and learning, has recently been carried out in Hawaii. There is scope for further work in this area, which mainly employs training techniques. These are basic scientific studies, which may reveal information relevant to the conservation and management of wild animals or to the husbandry of captive animals.
C. Mainly relevant to captive populations
(1) Pool use (Priority - High: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High).
To establish how animals use available pool space, to provide information relevant to the design of new pools, the modification of old pools and the formulation of better standards for accommodation.
In the long term this could be done from establishment records. In the short term, and to provide the information required to set up an efficient monitoring system, 24 hour samples of pool use are needed; once for all animals to establish a baseline, then after any moves (between or within establishments) or major changes in routine (eg winter closure, high season work). Animals should be re-tested at intervals, to check whether pool use changes with experience of captivity, age etc. Preference testing, to establish the value the animals themselves place on pool space, also needs to be carried out.Comparative studies of space use by wild animals, which would involve remote sensing techniques, would be valuable, to explore the reasons for use of space by wild animals and obtain more information relevant to the design of pools and standards.
(2) Pool furnishing (Priority - High: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High) .
What features should be added to, or removed from the pool environment in order to improve the well being of the animals?
There are two approaches; one is to establish the behaviour repetoire in present conditions, with frequencies of change and duration, and then make some change (eg add toys, companions) and look for differences. Increased activity, repetoire and/or behaviour change frequencies are usually taken to indicate an improvement in the environment.
The
second approach is to explore the value animals place on
environmental features (eg companionship as opposed to space). This
can be done by putting animals into an environment where they can
choose and observing behaviour, or by finding out how much 'work' (eg
pressing a panel) they are prepared to undertake to obtain access to
something.
Comparative studies of the use of'the environment by
wild animals can provide ideas for enriching the captive environment.
(3) Social distance (Priority - High: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High).
In conflict situations, how much space does an animal of specific social status require to withdraw in order to indicate that the conflict has ended? Is vertical or horizontal space more important or both? Can withdrawal out of line of sight substitute for linear withdrawal?
Unless conflict situations are set up (which is unlikely to be acceptable to managements or vets), such studies are of necessity opportunistic. There are, however, some obvious opportunities: the introduction of new animals, changing existing groups and the spring and autumn sexual activity peaks (bottlenose dolphins). During observation periods the animals need to have some choice in reaction (eg move into side pools out of sight or across the main pool). Such studies are probably most efficiently done in conjunction with other work requiring long periods of monitoring. At other times appropriate record keeping by staff will provide the required information. This project is related to the Social Groups and Body Language projects.
(4) Stress (Priority - High: Expense - probably Low, depending on costs of analyses: Feasibility - High for captives, Low for wild).
Do
captive animals suffer stress in general, in particular situations or
not signfiicantly? Is it possible to modify necessary stressful
events (eg probably transport) to make them less stressful?
The
most efficient and practical way to monitor stress (as revealed in
physical or physiological parameters) in the UK context, appears to
be by including appropriate tests in the routine examination of blood
samples taken to monitor general health. This is therefore a project
which the vets entrusted with routine health care might undertake. In
order to interpret the test results, establishments need to keep
careful records of each individual so that the sources of any stress
can be identified. It would be particularly important to identify any
behaviours indicating that an animal was suffering from stress.
Obtaining baseline levels from the wild population is very difficult, but might be done by biopsy darts or through cooperation with catchers. There is also scope for finding out whether stress is communicated chemically to other animals (see Taste project).
Examination at post mortem alone is insuffient to establish stress problems - a terminally sick animal will be under stress anyway. However it is useful as a final detailed check.
(5) Effects of external noise (Priority - High: Expense - Medium for equipment, Low for investigation: Feasibility - High).
It is important to determine whether external noise (eg from pumping equipment or building work) has any adverse effects on captive animals. This involves measurement and analysis of ambient pool noise. Comparison of the health and behaviour of animals in establishments with different levels of noise can be made, as well as that of animals in different areas of the same establishment. There is scope for some preference testing, to find out whether particular kinds of noise are less tolerated than others. This project is related to the Stress project, and to the Sound Production and Hearing projects.
The reactions of wild animals to external noise should also be determined, particularly where there may be disturbance from boat traffic or industrial activity.
(6) Water treatment, characteristics and circulation (Priority - High: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High).
Investigations aimed at improving the understanding of the establishment and maintenance of good water conditions are required. This will contribute to the welfare of the animals. An important aspect of such work is the maintenance of good water records and regular water testing.
There may be some scope for preference testing (eg to find out the preferred salinity). This might provide information on the characteristics of the preferred habitat in the wild.
(7) Health (Priority - High: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High).
What is the general state of health of the captive cetacean population (UK, Europe, World). How does health and length of life compare with that of the wild population?
This
investigation is necessarily long term, and depends on a combination
of veterinary and establishment records. These need to include daily
health reports, results of all tests, treatments, life histories and
post mortem results. It is important to compare the numbers of sick
and healthy animals in order to obtain a balanced
picture.
Comparative information on the wild population should be available
(or at least being collected), if that population is being properly
managed.
This project would probably be carried out most efficiently through a research committee drawn from vets and establishments (and the central record depository ie DoE), but including outside research workers with interests and expertise in the field (particularly on statistical analysis and epidemiology).
(8) Acclimatization (Priority - High: Expense - Low: Feasibility - High).
While it seems clear that some individuals survive well in captivity, others do not. Records from the catching and acclimatization period need to be analysed in relation to later career, so that only the most suitable animals are brought into captivity. This project depends on long term record keeping, record preservation and analysis. It is an obvious task for a central record depository (ie DoE).
(9) Inter-species communication (Priority - Low, mainly scientific interest: Expense - Low to Medium: Feasibility - probable
Low for achievement of high level communication, Medium to High for 'grammar' training).
The idea that cetaceans and humans might be able to communicate at a high level has not gained very much experimental support, although there have not been many systematic attempts to explore the question. The most fruitful approach so far has been through training animals to use 'grammar' (eg take the red ball to the gate, with the actions and objects denoted by symbols which the animal has to interpret correctly). There is scope for further work in this direction and other approaches (provided that they are properly thought out scientific studies) may be fruitful. This project may be related to the Memory and Learning project.
SUPPLEMENT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S STANDARDS OF MODERN ZOO PRACTICE
ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR UK CETACEAN KEEPING
These standards include requirements for the keeping of cetaceans, of whatever origin and for whatever purpose. They are intended to supplement the Secretary of State's Standards for Modern Zoo Practice under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, and the Code of Practice issued by the Health and Safety Executive relating to safety, health and welfare standards for employers and persons at work in zoos under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and the requirements of any other relevant legislation.
Index to STANDARDS-for UK Cetacean Keeping
(1) Strandings-S(a-e).
(2) Construction-CO(a-g).
(3) Water, power and fuel supply emergencies-W(a-c).
(4) Drainage-D(a-c).
(5) Storage-ST(a).
(6) Waste Disposal-WD(a-b).
(7) Staff Facilities-SF(a-c).
(8) Space Requirements-SR(a-h).
(9) Food and Feeding-FO(a-e).
(10) Aquatic Environment-AE(a-h).
(11) General Hygiene-GH(a).
(12) Staff-SA(a-f).
(13) Separation-SE(a-c).
(14) Veterinary care-V(a-c).
(15) Handling-H(a-b).
(16) Transport-T(a-f).
(17) Record keeping and publication-RK(a-b).
(18) Disposal-DI(a-b).
(1) STRANDINGS (S)
S (a) Without prejudice to any legal requirements, the Secretary of State's Standards need not apply to emergency arrangements for the nursing of live stranded animals, provided that this is carried out under experienced veterinary supervision, in a manner which presents no risk to the health of any other animal or person, and does not cause unnecessary suffering by prolonging the lives of animals which are obviously diseased, damaged or stressed.
S (b) Such arrangements may continue for no more than 30 days. Animals which are not well enough for release.must then receive care in establishments which fully comply with these Standards.
S (c) If such facilities are not readily available, without any risk to existing animals, stranded animals with a clear chance of sufficient recovery for release within the next 30 days may continue to be held in the emergency accommodation for up to a further 30 days.
S (d) If it is obvious at the time of the stranding that no facilities which fully comply with these Standards will be available for the longer term care of the animals, only animals likely to recover within 30 days may be taken to emergency accommodation. All other animals, and those in emergency accommodation which have not recovered after 60 days, must be humanely destroyed, to prevent further suffering.
S (e) Rescued animals in emergency accommodation may not be displayed to the public.
S (f) All such animals, and their fate, must be promptly reported to the British Museum (Natural History).
(2) CONSTRUCTION (CO)
CO (a) Accommodation for cetaceans shall be of sound construction, and maintained in good repair.
CO (b) Open-air accommodation:
Cetaceans may only be kept in open-air accommodation if the air and water temperature fluctuations are unlikely to result in health or hygiene problems for the animals.
Open-air pools must always be ice-free
CO (c) Indoor accommodation:
Adequate fresh-air ventilation is required, with a minimum of 10 air changes an hour for air conditioned areas and 20 air changes an hour otherwise.
Measures must be taken to ensure that there are no fumes from water treatment chemicals or other sources, or strong odours.
Lighting must be adequate for routine health and hygiene checks and for cleaning. Artificial light should be in a spectrum as close as possible to that of sunlight and the intensity must not be such as to cause discomfort or distress.
Light and dark must be supplied for periods in accordance with the seasonal variations of the natural photoperiod.
CO (d) Cetaceans shall be protected from harassment, including excessive noise.
Recreational swimming with the animals may only be permitted on specific veterinary advice related to the persons concerned, and with adequate insurance cover for this activity.
Cetacean pools will be reserved for the cetaceans and not normally used for any other purpose.
CO (e) Pools shall be constructed of materials having a durable, non-toxic, non-porous, waterproof finish, which shall facilitate proper cleaning and disinfection.
Pools shall be designed so that there are no areas with inadequate water circulation.
New pools must be tested during initial use, and all pools must be thoroughly tested every year to check that full water circulation to all areas is being achieved. Immediate steps must be taken to remedy any problems.
Pools must not contain any furniture, apparatus, decoration or other things, which would interfere with the welfare of the animals or with efficient husbandry.
CO
(f) Immediate pool surrounds shall be constructed so as to facilitate
proper cleaning and disinfection.
No objects, furniture,
apparatus, decoration, plants, or other things which could interfere
with the welfare of the animals or with efficient husbandry shall be
kept, or allowed to remain, in the immediate surroundings of pools.
CO (g) Particular care must be taken during construction and maintenance work, so that animals are not exposed to excessive noise and no foreign bodies, or other material, enter pools or are left unattended in the immediate surroundings of pools.
(3) WATER, POWER AND FUEL SUPPLY, AND EMERGENCIES (W)
W (a) Supply of water, power and fuel must be reliable and sufficient to maintain the conditions, including safe storage of food, necessary for the animals' welfare in all circumstances; including readily available alternative provisions for emergencies.
W (b) Alternative emergency accommodation must be arranged in advance, and with the approval of the relevant authorities, to which animals can be taken in the event of total failure of equipment, pools or other emergencies. Any emergency moves must be notified to the relevant authorities, in advance if possible, but in any case at the earliest practicable opportunity.
W (c) Establishments must have advance plans to cope with any forseeable problems, including industrial disputes and financial difficulties, which might put the animals at risk.
(4) DRAINAGE (D)
D (a) Adequate drainage shall exist for all pools, arranged so that all water can 109be rapidly eliminated, in a manner which complies with all applicable regulations.
D (b) Drainage must be provided for areas surrounding pools, such that water from these areas will not enter or re-enter pools.
D (c) Waste water and soil/roof run off water must be kept separate from pools.
(5) STORAGE (ST)
ST (a) Safe and suitable storage shall be provided for food supplements, for any medical supplies, for water treatment materials and for any other required materials.
(6) WASTE DISPOSAL (WD)
WD (a) In particular, all waste (food remains, faeces, etc.) must be removed from the pool, and from water processing equipment other than the filters, at least daily in order to prevent contamination and infection. Filters must be backwashed as necessary to maintain water quality and there must be suitable arrangements for the disposal of this waste and water.
WD (b) Precautions must be taken to prevent any foreign bodies entering pools. Pools must be thoroughly checked for foreign bodies at least twice a day and animals may be trained to cooperate in keeping pools free of foreign bodies, at the discretion of the establishment and of their veterinary advisers.
(7) STAFF FACILITIES (SF)
SF (a) Showers, lavatories and washbasins must be provided for staff, to ensure the cleanliness necessary for the well-being of the animals.
SF (b) These facilities, and any other staff areas, must be kept clean, tidy and in good repair.
SF (c) Clean uniforms, where appropriate, and protective clothing must be supplied for staff.
(5) SPACE REQUIREMENTS (SR)
In order to provide sufficient space both horizontally and vertically to enable the animals to take exercise, to protect animals from undue dominance or conflict, and to provide for their other needs, enclosures must be provided as follows:
SR
(a) General
Standards
Each
species must be held in social groups typical of that species and
only species which are known to be compatible may be held together.
Holding pens, if provided, may only be used briefly, except on direct veterinary advice. Animals should have access to as much water space as possible at all times.
For
the purpose of determining dimensions of enclosures for captive
Cetacea the average adult body lengths of the "reference
species" Tursiops
truncatus
and Orcinus
orca are
to be taken as 3.5 metres and 7.5 metes respectively.
(b)
Width
and Breadth
The
standard for minimum width and breadth of cetacean pools is based
upon the 110
concept of MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DIMENSION (MHD)
which is defined as:-
"The diameter of a circular enclosure, or in the case of enclosures of other shapes, the diameter of the largest circle that can be inserted within such an enclosure. Enclosures may be reduced by up to 20% of MHD in one direction providing the same percentage increase is added to the MHD at the 90 degree angle. Volume, depth and surface area criteria (if specified) must still be matched.
This results in MHD for the two "reference species" of:
Tursiops truncatus - 7.0 metres
Orcinus orca - 15.0 metres
SR (c) Volume of primary enclosures
The minimum volume for any primary enclosure (PEV) in which Cetacea are held should not be less than 1,000m3.
The minimum volume for a primary enclosure (PEV) containing up to five bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) should be 1,000m3 with each additional animal over five requiring a further 200m3.
The minimum volume for a primary enclosure (PEV) containing up to five killer whales (Orcinus orca) should be 12,000m3 with each additional animal over five requiring a further 2,500m3.
Where the Primary Enclosure Volume (PEV) is obtained by the linking of a complex of more than one identifiable enclosure, each must conform to the MHD requirement and the aggregate of the dimensions of these enclosures shall not be less than that of a single enclosure of the required minimum standard.
SR (d) Depth of primary enclosures
Depth of enclosures should be calculated on a similar basis to that for MHD. The Minimum Vertical Dimension (MVD) for the area necessary to achieve the minimum volume standard for the species should be equivalent to twice the average body length of the species concerned. Enclosure depths may be varied by up to 20% of the MVD to provide a Minimum Average Enclosure Depth (MAED) over that area of the pool. The MAED for the two "reference species" shall be:
Tursiops truncatus 5.6 metres
Orcinus orca 12 metres
SR
(e) Other species:
The accommodation for other species of
cetacean must be calculated in accordance with the principles set out
in SR (a-d) above.
(f) Mixed species groups:
Where a mixture of species is to be held in the same enclosure, the volume requirements should be the sum of the individual animal volumes for each species times the number of animals of each species held, but subject to the overriding minima required in SR (b-e) above.
Medical facilities:
In addition, all establishments will provide facilities for the medical care of animals. Hospital facilities may contain pools of less than the minimum dimensions, but with due regard for the volumes necessary for water processing in isolation, and must allow easy handling and medication.
(h) Variations:
Shallower areas than those set out in the minimum dimensions may be provided in addition, if indicated by the biology and behaviour of the species held, or by special husbandry requirements.
If other accommodation is required as an integral part of a research proposal, temporary variations might be permitted.
(9) FOOD AND FEEDING (FO)
FO (a) General:
Food for cetaceans shall be wholesome, palatable, and of a standard fit for human consumption.
It must be given to the animals in sufficient quantities and its nutritional value, as determined by previous analysis of each batch, must be sufficient to keep the animals healthy. The diet shall be prepared with consideration for species, age, condition, activity, and water and air temperature.
Animals should be weighed and measured regularly (at three monthly intervals subject to veterinary advice) and the results recorded and compared with the expected normal body development for the species. Any necessary changes in the feeding of individuals in the light of these results must be made. Animals may be trained to cooperate with weighing and measuring, at the discretion of the establishment and of its veterinary advisers.
FO (b) Food:
Food species must be quick-frozen, as soon as practicable after catching, and packaged in containers which are impervious to air and water.
Sufficient
quantities of food must be kept on hand to guard against problems
with supply, but stocks must be rotated and not stored for excessive
periods.
Frozen food must be stored in freezers at a maximum
temperature of -18°C, but preferably kept in the range of -25 to
-30°C.
Food species should be obtained, as far as possible, at seasons when their value as food for cetaceans is optimal.
FO (c) Food preparation:
All
chemical and bacterial contamination must be avoided when preparing
food.
The thawing and preparation of food must be done in a
manner which will assure that the food retains its nutritive and
wholesome quality.
The thawed product shall be kept
refrigerated until a reasonable time before feeding.
All foods shall be fed to the animals within 24 hours of removal from freezers for thawing, or properly discarded. Discarded food must not be kept, even temporarily, in fresh food storage areas.
Food supplements should be added to the diet in accordance with veterinary advice.
Food supplements must be handled, stored, and stocks rotated, in an appropriate manner.
(d) Feeding:
Animals must be offered foods at least twice a day, except on veterinary instructions.
Animals must be individually fed, by a trained person who must be sufficiently competent to see that each animal receives an appropriate quantity of food, and to observe variations in eating habits in order to ensure good health.
Feeding by the public shall only be permitted on veterinary advice and must only be done in the presence and under the supervision of at least two experienced, uniformed staff. Only food supplied by the establishment may be fed to animals.
The food taken by each animal at each feed must be recorded, as well as any variations in feeding behaviour.
FO (e) Hygiene:
All utensils used in the preparation and distribution of food must be cleaned after use. The kitchens and areas for handling food must be washed down daily and treated with cleaning products (eg hot water, detergents, disinfectants, etc.). Such products must not be harmful to animals, and must not be stored in areas used for storing food.
(10) THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT (AE)
AE (a) General:
The pools shall not contain water which would be detrimental to the health of the animals contained therein.
The coliform bacteria content of the pool must not exceed 100 MPN (most probable number) per 100 ml of water. Should the count exceed this level, the condition must be corrected immediately.
The levels of fungi and other pathogens, as well as of nitrogenous compounds, in pools must be low. Should higher levels be observed, the condition must be corrected immediately.
When the water is chemically treated, Closed systems:
AE (b) pH:
The pH of pool water must be maintained within the range 7.6-8.0, with a normal guide level of 7.8.
AE (c) Salinity:
For marine species, salt content of the pool water must be maintained near the average normally encountered by the species in the wild, and in any case within the upper region of the range 1.5-3.5%.
AE (d) Operating policy:
Establishments must determine all the normal operating water treatment parameters and investigate promptly if these are not being achieved.
Establishments must have a clear policy on pool water renewal if specific bacterial and pathogen content, nitrogenous compound content, combined chlorine content or any other limits are exceeded, and cannot be brought under control within a specified period.
Establishments must determine these limits, except those mentioned above, and periods in the light of their experience with their system, but the limits should not be far outside the normal operating range, and the periods hours or, at most, days.
AE (e) Training:
Establishments must ensure that all relevant staff are thoroughly instructed in the theory and practice of water treatment at the establishment, as well as in the general theory and practice of water treatment in cetacean pools.
AE (f) The contents of grids, meshes, skimmers and similar equipment must be carefully monitored, as well as filter debris after backwashing, and any unusual material promptly investigated.
AE (g) Water treatment equipment must have sufficient extra provision to allow efficient processing to continue during maintenance and partial breakdowns.
Open systems:
AE (h) Establishments using untreated water in open systems must monitor water quality closely.
Daily checks of the water for pathogens, nitrogenous compounds and other pollutants, pH and salinity must be made.
Operating parameters for water quality must be set up, and if these are impossible to maintain at any time, water must be treated. There must, therefore, be provision of sufficient water treatment equipment to ensure the maintenance of water quality at all times.
(11) GENERAL HYGIENE (GH)
GH (a) Any pool containing an animal with an infectious or contagious disease must be operated in isolation from the rest of the system.
Such a pool, related equipment and surroundings, must be cleaned and disinfected after the removal of the animal, as directed by the veterinary advisers, before any other animal is admitted to the area.
(12) STAFF (SA)
SA (a) A sufficient number of adequately trained and competent staff must be employed to maintain the prescribed level of husbandry at all times.
SA (b) Staff must be encouraged to improve their knowledge and practical skills through recognised training courses and a clear professional career structure.
SA (c) The senior staff in day to day contact with the animals must have representation at the highest management levels, to ensure full consideration of the needs of the animals, and authority to call for veterinary advice when required.
SA (d) Any training of cetaceans shall be done by or under the personal supervision of experienced trainers.
SA
(e) Records will be kept of the behaviour of each individual at each
training session and at each performance.
SA M All trainers and
other required details must be registered under the Performing
Animals (Regulation) Act 1925.
(13) SEPARATION (SE)
SE (a) Animals which are not compatible shall not be housed in the same enclosure.
SE (b) Animals must be given access to other compatible animals, except when temporarily maintained in isolation on medical advice.
SE (c) No single specimens of any species may be kept.
(14) VETERINARY CARE (V)
(a) A daily report must be made concerning the health and behaviour of each animal.
(b) Any unusual or interesting behaviour noted by any staff during the day must be recorded and included in the daily reports.
(c) A complete post mortem examination by a veterinary surgeon or practitioner, with training and experience of animal pathology, must be carried out on all dead animals. Copies of the reports must be kept by establishments and submitted to the appropriate authorities.
(15) HANDLING (H)
H (a) Handling cetaceans shall be kept to a minimum and shall be carried out as expeditiously and carefully as possible, in a manner that does not cause unnecessary discomfort, overheating, behavioural stress, or physical harm.
Animals should be trained to cooperate with handling and with regular veterinary procedures.
H
(b) Animals may only be displayed for periods of time and under
conditions consistent with their good health and welfare, as
determined by the veterinary advisers.
In particular,
precautions must be taken to prevent visitors transmitting any
pathogens to the animals.
(16) TRANSPORT (T)
T (a) Except in emergency, only animals certified by an experienced veterinary surgeon or practitioner to be capable of withstanding the journey, may be transported.
T (b) Except in emergency, no animals may be moved unless all the circumstances at the present and proposed accommodation have been taken into account.
T (c) At least two suitably trained attendants must accompany every consignment and each attendant must have no more than two animals in their care.
T (d) Attendants must have the means and the authority to deal with unexpected problems arising en route.
T (e) Animals should not be kept in transport containers for longer than 24 hours, although for longer journeys this period may be extended on veterinary advice.
T (f) For all transport, advance arrangements must be made at points along the route for animals to be removed to suitable water enclosures if holdups or health problems develop.
(17) RECORD KEEPING AND PUBLICATION (RK)
RK (a) Establishments will keep records of all cetaceans on an individual basis in a form which can be quickly and easily examined, analysed and compared with those kept by other establishments.
All papers and other information pertaining to each animal from previous locations must be kept safely.
Permanent back-up copies of all records will be kept and stored safely.
Animals moving to new locations will be accompanied by copies of all records relevant to those animals.
RK (b) The records will provide at least the following information:
the correct identification, scientific name and any personal name(s) and identity number(s);
the origin (ie. details of the wild population and social group or of the parents and their origin, and of any previous location);
the dates of acquisition and disposal, with details of circumstances and addresses;
the date or estimated date of birth;
any distinctive markings;
clinical data, including details of and dates when any form of treatment was given, results of routine health examinations and the daily health reports;
growth and development, including weight and length on arrival and the routine weight and length measurements;
social behaviour and social status, including any incompatibility and conflicts and the daily behaviour reports;
temperament
and response to training and handling, and the daily training
report;
breeding, and the details of any offspring; and
the date of death and the results of the post mortem reports.
(18) DISPOSAL (DI)
DI (a) Animals may not normally be sent to establishments which do not fully comply with these Standards.
DI (b) Exceptions might be made where no suitable accommodation is available and the current circumstances of the animal would be significantly improved by such a move.
© Crown copyright 1988
No comments:
Post a Comment