recommended that the Service undertake an investiga- 
tion to identify facilities maintaining marine mammals 
in isolation so that corrective action could be taken. 
By letter of 9 March 1989, the Service indicated that 
as the Commission had recommended, it had conduct- 
ed a field survey of the facilities, but had yet to 
compile and review the results. 
The issue of captive isolation was most recently 
raised by the Commission in a 24 April 1992 letter 
concerning a bottlenose dolphin being maintained 
alone. In that letter, the Commission again recom- 
mended that the Service reconsider its interpretation 
of the regulatory provision concerning maintenance of 
marine mammals in isolation. The Commission also 
reiterated an earlier request that the Service advise it 
of whether the results of the 1989 field survey of 
facilities had been compiled and analyzed. 
The Service replied by letter of 1 May 1992. 
Without further explanation, it stated its view that the 
Animal Welfare Act does not provide authority to 
require that at least two members of every social 
species of animal be maintained in captivity. The 
Service also provided its interpretation of the regulato- 
ry provision regarding isolation, which is that “marine 
mammals may be given access to other marine mam- 
mals of the same or different species, if they are 
compatible,...[t]hey may be given access to other 
. types of aquatic animals, or they may be provided 
with additional attention by their trainer.” With 
respect to the field surveys to identify facilities 
maintaining marine mammals in isolation, the Service 
indicated that “[d]ue to inadequate staffing levels, 
reorganization, increasing workloads, and other higher 
priority work assignments, the data were never 
reviewed.” The Service further noted that it had lost 
or discarded the information and that no analysis 
would be available unless it repeated the field surveys. 
Water Quality Seminar 
In 1992 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service held the first training seminar of its kind on 
water quality as it relates to marine mammal life 
support systems. With continual reference to actual 
field conditions, participants critically reviewed 
197 
Chapter XII — Marine Mammals in Captivity 
methods for insuring water quality, the strengths and 
weaknesses of each, and made recommendations for 
improvements. The seminar, designed primarily as a 
training program for Service inspectors, was held at 
the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. 
The Lacey Act 
As discussed above, the transport of marine 
mammals is regulated by the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service under the Animal Welfare Act as 
well as by the National Marine Fisheries Service and 
the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act. In addition, the Lacey Act 
Amendments of 1981 direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to prescribe requirements for the humane and 
healthful transport of wild animals and birds, includ- 
ing marine mammals, shipped to the United States. 
On 10 November 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
published a final rule establishing transport standards 
for animals and birds. It was to take effect 90 days 
later. 
Before the final rule became effective, however, a 
significant number of adverse comments were submit- 
ted to the Service. Commentors noted that compli- 
ance with the regulations could result in inhumane 
treatment of some animals. It also was argued that 
the regulations would, in some cases, be difficult to 
enforce, and without good reason would make it 
virtually impossible to transport some types of ani- 
mals. On 8 February 1988, the date the regulations 
would have taken effect, the Service postponed the 
effective date until 1 August 1988 to provide time to 
thoroughly evaluate these assertions. On 1 March 
1988, animal welfare groups brought suit against the 
Service, seeking to have the regulations take effect 
immediately. The District Court for the District of 
Columbia ruled on 18 April 1988 that the delay in 
implementing the transport regulations was without 
good cause and issued a preliminary injunction setting 
8 February 1988 as the effective date of the rule. 
Subsequently, the Service undertook a review of 
the regulations to identify those provisions that were 
in need of amendment or clarification. It published a 
notice of intent to amend the regulations and indicated 
