On 'captivity'

 

A dolphin born among humans, living a meaningful life, touching and playing with humans every day in a marine animal rehabilitation facility

Recently, several persons in online postings about human-dolphin interactions described me as "pro-captivity".

This is not correct.

If you want a label for me, say I am:
'pro-understanding the challenging situation we have with dolphins who live among humans'.

My work is dedicated to understanding this situation and to bettering the conditions under which they live. 

I oppose capturing dolphins for any reason other than to help them survive.

I seek the best possible care for dolphins wherever they may be. That includes those living among humans.

To respond to the inaccuracy, I will address the topic in some detail. It is a complex topic, and deserves no less.

To begin, a definition of ‘captivity’ will help clarify the discussion.

Dictionaries make a distinction between humans and animals, in regard to 'captivity', as if there is a difference. I don't think there is:  humans are animals too.

Dictionaries state that a human who has been captured is a captive, or ‘in captivity’. 
They also say that any non-human animal who is confined is a captive, or ‘in captivity’. 

Using one word to refer to two different conditions is one way the concept of 'captivity' has become a confused issue.

At what point in a relationship between a human and another animal is there 'captivity'? Are our cats captives? When is an animal unequivocally a 'captive'?

I find the word to be vague, ill-defined, and less than helpful in understanding the complexities of our relations with other animals. I don't accept ‘captivity’ as being an appropriate description for all circumstances in which a non-human animal is in a constructed environment...in fact I find it nearly useless.

Nevertheless, I have dedicated much of my adult life to understanding 'captivity' in all its complexities.

It is not a simple, single condition.

Horses in paddocks are confined so they cannot wander. Dogs on leashes are 'confined' to movements dictated by the person on the other end of the leash. Are these 'in captivity'? 

I think that they are at liberty to express innate capacities, with various restrictions on their movements, created by caring humans who seek their safety and well-being and that of others.

An elderly visitor to the dolphins, making contact, sharing a moment

 

Now to the topic of dolphins.

The ‘captivity’ of dolphins is a reality.

What I mean by saying that 'captivity is a reality' is this: All dolphins living in human care had their origins in the wild. 

The few still living who were captured while the collection of specimens was not an issue, and all their descendants, and those brought in to be cared for due to dire circumstances, and the few who came to be living in human made environments by other paths, live within enclosures. This is a fact.

 

Confinement of dolphins exists and must be acknowledged, understood and managed.

 

This situation is not going away in the foreseeable future.

Some dolphins have crossed the boundary lines into human-made spaces, and will remain within them.

There is no 'going back', except for those few who can be helped and released.

 
Approximately 80% of the dolphins living in dolphinariums in the developed world were either born there, or have been living among humans for over 20 years, and not 'releaseable'.
 

Whether we describe this as being the result of mistakes in the past, the product of legitimate curiosities and desire for scientific understandings, an outcome of economic opportunism for profit, or a part of a larger scenario in a spiritual context beyond our understanding, is open for interpretation.

Just as other species have joined humans in a relationship of companionship, so dolphins have joined us in our constructed world. They live among us, few of whom will stay only a short time.

I accept the situation as it is. This does not mean I like all aspects of it, or am 'pro-captivity'.

I accept it but do not condone it in all circumstances.

I work hard at understanding it, having done so for over 30 years.

I also work to make the confinement of non-human animals of all kinds to be part of the humane responses humans enact toward the living world. Rescues, best-practice care, release when possible, long-term committments to care, companionship, and compassion for all animals...everywhere. That is my position.

                                                         ~~~~~~~~

 

A brief synopsis of the various ethical positions regarding human/non-human relations may help to make more clear my understandings and position:

The position of 'Animal Liberation' is an extremist position, one that ignores many things. It justifies extreme actions, including the killing of dolphins "who would be better off dead than living in a pool", to quote an Animal Liberation dolphin murderer from here in Australia.

The "Empty Cages" promoted by Dr Tom Regan, Dr Thomas White, Dr Lori Marino, and many others are fantasies that are not based on animal welfare, but an abstract notion of 'The Natural World', a world in which humans and other animals live separate lives, apart from each other, leaving each other 'alone'.

The position of 'Animal Rights' has its own problems, inherent in its constructions. Rights and responsibilities are part of the same idea in the legal sense. Having one requires the other. Responsibilities cannot be required of a non-human...an impossible notion, to require specific actions of non-humans. 

 

The other way of understanding 'rights' is to conceive of them as 'natural rights', and not legal rights. However, 'natural rights' are impossible to clearly define in a world in which all living things are part of a biosystem in which each depends on consuming others.

This leaves 'Animal Welfare' as the last of the three major pillars of human ethical theories about how to be in right relations with other animals. Some would argue that no amount of improvement of conditions for animals is enough, that all non-humans should be out from under all human care. This anti-welfare position denies human compassion, the innate response we have toward suffering. Walk on by when we come across a dolphin struggling in the surf? No, never. 

Animal Welfare pays close attention to the needs of individuals. Animal Rights and Animal Liberation pay attention to species, not individuals as unique sites of complex histories and adaptations.

Consider this: A dolphin born in a constructed environment is not a 'captive', in my view. It was not captured. It literally and actually has nowhere else to go.

A dolphin rescued and rehabilitated who cannot be expected to survive in the Ocean, and who is given a life-long opportunity to live under human care, is not a ‘captive’. It also has nowhere else to go.

There is one more 'ethical pillar', one that is less acknowledged, but important: the Ethic of Care. Developed as part of Feminism, it recognises that caring for the wellbeing of another is not part of the 'calculus of suffering' that Animal Liberationist and Animal Rights campaigners use to determine ethical behaviour. The Ethic of Care is direct in its individualized responses to the needs of others, and does not discriminate against 'otherness' in any form...including non-human animals.

A young dolphin, born among humans, full of curiosity, delight, and willingness to accept humans into her space, just as humans have accepted her into theirs.
She will have a lifetime of excellent care, no matter how long that may be.

 

My position is this: We must always consider the actual individual as we work toward best possible outcomes. This is within the Animal Welfare concept. I add the concept of Animal Rights to this, partially, in the sense that I accept that we cannot know with certainty the 'natural rights' of other animals, but humans can create limits for human actions that enable other animals to thrive and not suffer under human care, as a natural right. And to this, I add the Ethic of Care, one that supports caring for any creature, just as religious traditions urge, as acts of compassion.

There are, of course, many details in this hybrid construction of my ethical stance that require more space and time to discuss than can be undertaken here.

Is this "pro-captivity"?

No, it is not.

It accepts the reality of what already is, without condoning it, and aims to continually improve how we treat dolphins who live among us. It accepts that some circumstances can bring dolphins across the species boundary, into human care, and that this is the most important part of the issue: how can humans improve their care of other animals, some of whom have joined humans in constructed environments?

Does this meet the demands of some activists who state that “captivity is captivity and it must be abolished”? No, it does not. Rather, my position suggests that we need to make clear what we oppose, what we accept, and what we can, in unity, support.

Sincerely,

C. Scott  Taylor, Ambassador

A Revised Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans

 

In 2010 a small group of self-selected scientists and activists gathered in Helsinki, Finland to discuss the rights of cetaceans under international law. Their stated purpose was to formulate a declaration of rights and to garner international support for such a declaration. The conference, entitled "Cetacean Rights: Fostering Moral and Legal Change", produced a declaration signed by the 11 members of the 'Helsinki Group'.

While this declaration is well intended, certain elements in it do not represent the well-being of some cetaceans, especially those 'who have nowhere else to go'. 

Because the Dolphin Embassy project and the Cetacean Studies Institute have done extensive research on this expanding population around the world, and have come to recognise the very real importance of protecting their needs against short-sighted, albeit well-meaning, efforts by activist organisations, a revision of the Helsinki Declaration has been undertaken.

The revised declaration is presented here. Comments are welcome, and the revised declaration is open for further revision.

To see the original Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans, as produced by the Helsinki Group, you can see their site here.

Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans: Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises

Based on the principle of the equal treatment of all persons;
Recognizing that scientific research gives us deeper insights into the complexities of cetacean minds, societies and cultures;

Recognizing that increased human interaction with cetaceans has produced deeper insights into their biological, social, and psychological requirements;
Recognizing that cetaceans have participated in mutually beneficial relationships with humans and have demonstrated adaptive capacity such that they manifest fully complex lives in built environments;
Noting that the progressive development of international law manifests an entitlement to life and well-being for cetaceans;
We affirm that all cetaceans as persons have the right to life, liberty and well-being.

We conclude that:
1. Every individual cetacean has the right to life, safety, clean water, and a sonic environment that does no harm.

2. No cetacean shall be taken into captivity or be removed from their natural environment unless not doing so would endanger their survival. Any cetacean taken into human care shall be returned to their natural environment when feasible, determined on both biological and compassionate grounds. If not feasible it shall be provided an enriching environment that includes socialization with other cetaceans and with humans. Cetaceans  in human care shall have the right to bear offspring, recognising this as an important part of their social and biological nature. Any cetacean born in a human-managed environment has special status with a life-long responsibility for their care by humans.

3. No cetacean shall be subject to cruel treatment.

4. All cetaceans not in human care have the right to freedom of movement and residence within their natural environment.

5. No cetacean is the property of any State, corporation, human group or individual, but may become a ward of such entities if necessary to protect and safeguard their life and well-being. Cetaceans who have come into human care, by natural circumstances or circumstances that are irreversible, shall be provided all due care for the duration of their natural lives.

6. Cetaceans have the right to the protection of their natural environment.

7. Cetaceans have the right, equal to protections provided for human cultures, to not be subject to the disruption of their cultures.

8. The rights, freedoms, and norms set forth in this Declaration shall be protected under international and domestic law as well as an international framework under the administration of the United Nations in which these rights, freedoms, and norms can be fully realized.

9. No State, corporation, human group or individual shall engage in any activity that undermines these rights, freedoms and norms.

10. Nothing in this Declaration shall prevent a State from enacting stricter provisions for the protection of cetacean rights as long as the well-being of cetaceans is foremost in such provisions.

Originally agreed and signed, 22nd May 2010, Helsinki, Finland

Revised by the Cetacean Studies Institute, Dec. 2013-Oct. 2014, Queensland, Australia

Geographies of the Liminal Dolphin: toward an understanding of the contested spaces of Dolphin-Assisted Therapy

A patient, a therapist, and a dolphin
Dolphin-Assisted Therapy at the Curacao Dolphin Therapy Center

 

I am reposting the announcement of the publication of the research project I completed in 2014. It is the basis for the Doctor of Philosophy granted to me, the first PhD ever conferred for social science research on Dolphin-Assisted Therapy. Its title is:

“Geographies of the Liminal Dolphin: 

toward an understanding of the contested spaces of 

Dolphin-Assisted Therapy” 

It is available from the University of the Sunshine Coast, in Queensland, Australia.

It can be downloaded here:
http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:13419

 

Abstract: This research explored Dolphin-Assisted Therapies that have benefitted persons with disabilities and their families, yet have been widely contested in academic and popular media. The research found that knowledge and ethical judgments about the therapies vary according to the distance from which they are produced and that these therapies highlight mutualism between species, requiring a hybrid understanding of ethics. It produced the first social science study of the many types of therapy in the field using Geographic analysis of its discourse and a case study of a clinic in Curacao based on observations and interviews with families and therapists.

For those who are not deeply interested in academic thesis development, and who want to read the parts about dolphins, therapy, and the research I did and my conclusions, I recommend reading Chapter One, then read Chapters Five thru Nine.

~~~~~
I had significant challenges in the development of this research. The first was constructing a definition of Dolphin-Assisted Therapy (DAT).  I found that I needed to developed an understanding of DAT's many varieties, highlighting 13 different types. 

The next challenge was to assemble a history of DAT. No truly comprehensive history of DAT existed. I visited and interviewed key persons in its history, did extensive research in original documents and were able to construct a history that should serve to make clear the key moments, ideas, and persons who have played important roles.

Every published paper on DAT that I could locate was analysed, including papers in Spanish, Greek, Russian, Finnish, German, and English. Some were doctoral theses, some were journal articles, some were seemingly academic but published in non-peer-reviewed sources. I analysed the research of academics who oppose DAT and discovered significant flaws. I did not find opposition based on open-minded and balanced research, but found influential papers written with strongly preconceived biases. 

Analysis of the 'gray literature' in the DAT discourse, that is, texts that are in the public domain that draw upon science but have not been peer-reviewed, were found to have a lack of rigorous standards. There I found statements made by academics demonstrating bias. 

What became clear in my review of the literature of DAT is that studies that conclude that DAT has no validity provide incentive to do better research. Critical analysis has pointed out various flaws and ways the research can be improved.

Research supportive of DAT was analyzed closely. In doing so, a definition of DAT was developed that includes its many varieties. Some notions of what DAT is were not based on evidence that was available to scientific analysis. While this poses problems for academic understanding it does bring some people to try DAT, drawn by the hopeful descriptions of non-scientific supporters. Some 'outcome research' was well done, revealing significant positive outcomes for many families.

What was significant to discover was the lack of field research by those who oppose DAT.  I found no significant published research critical of DAT that was based on interviews, visits to facilities, or analysis of medical records. Instead, I found a prevailing concern with the complex ethics of human-nonhuman relations as the primary driver of opposition to this field of therapies. There were few attempts to challenge the actual therapy itself, and these were found to have been done by academics without credentials or documented training for such analysis.

The Agencies of DAT:
The overlapping and distinct areas of influence in Dophin-Assisted Therapy

A significant finding in my research was the benefit to dolphins from being involved in DAT. For those dolphins who live in human care and found to be at ease in human presence and who demonstrate a willingness and enthusiasm for working alongside trainers and therapists, a life apart from the ocean and in daily contact with humans seems to provide important enrichment and social interaction. Therapists refer to the dolphins with whom they work in therapy sessions as their ‘colleagues’, a unique description for a non-human animal.

DAT flow chart:
Key factors and their relations to DAT

Among the other findings were that DAT is holistic, reaching far beyond the interactions in the spaces of dolphin enclosure. Families experienced DAT from the first determination to utilise it. Its effects are felt when their lives become focused on travel, fundraising, family adjustments, and community involvement. Several of the interviewed families described how their local community rallied in support of them, doing fundraising events and becoming much more engaged and supportive of them. DAT also reaches into the lives of providers, the therapists and dolphin trainers, causing global movement, relationship changes, career advancement, and improved lives for the therapists and trainers.

As I searched for concepts that support my findings I found the work of an early Geographer, Peter Kropotkin, who published a book in 1902 on his research that demonstrated cooperation as a significant part of relationships in nature. Kropotkin developed this theory to counter the notion put forward by Darwin and Huxley that competition was the fundamental basis of all relationships in nature. Calling it ‘Mutual Aid’, Kropotkin’s book still influences many areas of biology. Referred to as ‘mutualism’, the concept has now taken on the meaning of relationships that go beyond symbiosis into mutual benefit  based on cooperation. This describes the interspecies work going on in DAT and I used mutualism as an important concept to describe its cross-border work.

Other important work by Donna Haraway, Vicki Hearne, Bruno Latour, Nigel Thrift, William S. Lynn, J. Claude Evans, and Michel Foucault were influential in my work. Among those whose work on DAT has been of special importance to our research are David Cole, Dr. Steve Birch, Dr. David Nathanson, Marco Kuerschner, and Kirsten Kuhnert.

I extend my heartfelt thanks to the Curacao Dolphin Therapy Center for their  support of my research, and especially to the families who were willing to be interviewed, and the dedicated therapists and trainers who took time to share so much with me.

The Curacao Sea Aquarium (center), the Dolphin Academy (bottom right pools) and the Curacao Dolphin Therapy Center (top right pools)

 This is the first research ever published on the social dimensions of DAT, the spaces it creates, and the affective realities in which it exists. As a contribution to the body of literature on DAT, it will serve as a milestone. I am very pleased to make it available to anyone who cares to study it.

Warm regards,
Dr. C. Scott Taylor, BSocSc (Hons); PhD
Ambassador