40 



threatened, or depleted. If a stranded animal is deemed releasable, it should be re- 

 leased. 



4. The MMPA should be amerAed to prohibit invasive and lethal research on ma- 

 rine mammals unless it will directly benefit the species in the wild. 



We recognize that, despite excellent efforts, many stranded and/or b'^ached ani- 

 mals that are taken into captivity do unfortunately die. The bodies of these animals 

 contain data critical to scientific advancement and the study of their tissues can 

 provide valuable information. However, we believe that there are very few cir- 

 cumstances that justify the killing of healthy marine meunmals in scientific studies. 

 Invasive experiments, such as insertion of electrical apparatus, are also justified 

 only under a very limited set of circumstances. In both cases, we believe that such 

 research should be undert^en only when its results directly benefit the species 

 being studied. Lethal and invasive research is extremely disruptive to wild poou- 

 lations and can result in the unintentional deaths of both the animals being handled 

 and the animals involved in the social disruption, such as seal pups separated from 

 their mothers when researchers enter a rookery area. 



5. The MMPA and the Animal Welfare Act should be amended to place sole re- 

 sponsibility with NNFS for the care and maintenance of marine mammals in cap- 

 tivify. 



The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and NMFS currently 

 share responsibility for oversight of tne care and maintenance of marine mammals 

 in captivity. However, APHIS has been reluctant to modify certain requirements 

 (such as minimum social group size) for marine mammals because such require- 

 ments would then apply to all captive animals. Such conflicts emphasize why it is 

 inappropriate for APHIS to share oversight of captive marine mammals. In addition, 

 APHIS nas not demonstrated in the past that it can adequately ensure the humane 

 treatment and welfare of marine mammals on public display. 5lMFS has the exper- 

 tise and infrastructure to do so and should have sole responsibility for marine mam- 

 mals in captivity. 



6. The MMPA should be amended to prohibit the capture from the wild of marine 

 mammals for public display, including those animals captured outside the U.S. for 

 importation into this country. 



The public display industry has recently been extolling the successes of its captive 

 breeding programs for marine mammals. Indeed, most pinnipeds currently in cap- 

 tivity were captive-bred and there are nearly sufficient numbers and genetic diver- 

 sity available among the captive population to sustain itself without supplementing 

 with wild-caught individuals. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) also are breeding 

 well in captivity and are close to self-sustaining. It is important to note that neither 

 of these groups represent endangered species, so their captive-breeding programs 

 cannot be considered necessary for conservation. In further support of this point, fa- 

 cilities 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. 



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

 tacean species (agmn, most of which are not endangered), wild captures will con- 

 tinue 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 cap- 

 tive 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 aberrantly high mortality rates, reduced life spans, and low birth rates in 

 captivity compared to populations observed in the wild. Mortality rates in captivity 

 range from 42 percent (belugas) to 92 percent (pilot whales). Captive killer whales 

 experience a mortality rate more than 2.5 times as high as that observed in a well- 

 documented wild population (48 percent vs. 18 percent). The average life span in 

 captivity for all four species comoined is eight years (assuming a capture age of 

 three years, which is typical for these species); in the wild, the average life span 

 of all four species combined is approximately 25-35 years. In 30 years of holding 

 these four species in captivity in the U.S., only 10 calves have survived past the 

 first few months and were still alive as of February 1993. Wild-caught individuals 



