107 



captive-bred and there are probably sufficient numbers and genetic diversity available 

 among the captive population to sustain itself without supplementing with wild-caught 

 individuals. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) also are breeding consistently in 

 captivity and are close to self-sustaining. It is important to note that none of the species 

 concerned are endangered, so their captive-breeding programs cannot be considered 

 necessary for conservation. In further support of this point, facilities engaged in captive 

 breeding are not actively pursuing programs designed to rehabilitate and release into the 

 wild any progeny produced. We therefore question whether these programs benefit the 

 species involved or promote the intent of the MMPA but regardless, we maintain that, 

 by the industry's own admission, wild captures of individuals from these groups are no 

 longer necessary for public display or captive breeding. 



In addition, as earlier discussed, beached and stranded animals that cannot be released 

 provide a source for augmentation or replacement of captive collections of marine 

 mammals. Although frequently permanently disabled (e.g. blind, deaf, or missing 

 appendages), these animals can be used to educate the public just as can healthy 

 individuals, although their entertainment value may be diminished. As, according to the 

 industry, entertainment is not the primary goal of public display, this should not be an 

 issue. In short, public display can continue as a tool for education and conservation, 

 using captive-bred and unreleasable stranded animals, without capturing healthy 

 individuals from intact social groups in the wild. States such as Florida recognize this, as 

 indicated by the passage of a resolution asking Congress to ban captures. 



The industry maintains that because of small captive populations for all other cetacean 

 species (again, most of which are not endangered), wild captures will continue to be 

 necessary into the foreseeable future to maintain genetic diversity among the captive 

 population. This assertion does not support the intent of the MMPA or common sense. 

 If a species is not endangered and a self-sustaining captive breeding program is not 

 possible without wild-caught supplementation, then it is questionable that such a species 

 should even be maintained in captivity. Certainly wild captures in such a case are not 

 necessary for conservation and continuing to allow them is like allowing someone to try 

 to fill a bucket that obviously has a hole in it. 



For example, the four small whale species currently held in captivity include the killer 

 whale, the false killer whale, the beluga, and the pilot whale. These species suffer higher 

 mortality rates, reduced life spans, and lower birth rates in captivity than do populations 

 in the wild. Captive killer whales experience a mortality rate more than 3 times as high 

 as that observed in a well-documented wild population (7% annual mortality vs. 2% 

 annual mortality). In 30 years of holding these four species in captivity in the U.S., less 

 than 20 calves have survived past the first few months and are still alive today. It should 

 be clear that individuals of these species cannot handle the transition from the wild to 

 captivity. 



