Captain Paul Watson's Moral Compass Loses Its Way

 

2019. Paul Watson standing in front of the renamed Sea Shepherd Vessel the Steve Irwin. It is ironic that the late Steve Irwin was not only a conservationist but a zoo owner and his daughter, Bindi Irwin, was at one time an ambassador for SeaWorld.

"Actually oceanariums are in many ways are victims of their own success. They educated the public so well about dolphins, whales, and other marine life that a public that didn't care a fig about these animals [...] Unfortunately this compassion for whales and dolphins is not harnessed as a force against the killing industry, but is instead turned against the teacher. Paul Watson, 1995"

Many might be aware of the activities of the conservation organisation Sea Shepherd and its controversial founder Paul Watson. In recent years, Sea Shepherd seems to have lost its way and has drifted into the realms of animal-rights. Rather than just opposing the killing of whales and dolphins in whaling and drive fisheries, in such countries as Japan and the Faroe Isles, they have moved their sites to attacking the maintenance of whales and dolphins in captivity.

In a recent commentary on their website Paul Watson decries the death of a killer whale at the Marineland in Antibes, France. The whale called Valentin died some time after a serious flooding incident that seriously affected not only the marine park but also the surrounding area and involved the death of at least 19 people.

 

 

 The Sea Life Trust Beluga Sanctuary: Development, Challenges, and Current Reality

When the Sea Life Trust, supported by Merlin Entertainments, announced plans to create the world’s first open-water beluga sanctuary in Iceland, the project gained considerable public attention. It was framed as a progressive step toward more ethical treatment of cetaceans in human care. Two female belugas—Little White and Little Grey—were chosen as the first residents, with the promise of a more natural environment in which they could explore a sheltered bay after years of living in an indoor Chinese aquarium.

The idea was ambitious. However, nearly six years after the belugas arrived in Iceland, the sanctuary’s practical limitations have become clear. While the project has been successful in transporting the animals to an indoor facility on the island, the core vision—full-time residency in an open-water sea pen—has not been realised. Understanding why requires looking at the project’s history, the belugas’ background, the Icelandic environment, and the operational realities that emerged.


Origins and Transfer to Iceland

Little White and Little Grey were originally captured from Russian waters when young and spent most of their lives in the controlled environment of Changfeng Ocean World in Shanghai. When Merlin Entertainments acquired the aquarium, the company publicly committed to ending cetacean display and pledged to create a sanctuary. The chosen location was Klettsvík Bay in the Westman Islands, a site previously used during the rehabilitation programme for Keiko, the orca made famous by Free Willy.

The belugas were moved to Iceland in June 2019, in what was widely described as a highly complex but well-managed transport operation. Upon arrival, they entered specially designed landside care pools where they were expected to undergo a short period of adjustment before being introduced to the bay.

This period turned out to be far longer than originally projected.


Initial Delays and First Entry into the Bay

From 2019 through much of 2020, the belugas remained in the on-land pools. The sanctuary team reported the need for slow acclimatisation: the whales lacked the stamina required for open water, struggled with colder temperatures, and needed extensive preparatory training.

In August 2020, the pair were introduced to the sea pen in Klettsvík Bay for the first time. The move was celebrated as a milestone, and the whales did spend short periods in the bay. However, they were returned to the care pools soon afterwards. Observations at the time indicated that both animals experienced reduced appetite, decreased energy, and difficulty adjusting to the colder, more variable sea conditions. These were not emergency situations, but they were concerning enough to halt further extended bay use.


Environmental Challenges in Klettsvík Bay

One of the most significant issues - and a factor that many marine mammal professionals flagged early on - is the suitability of Klettsvík Bay as a long-term habitat. The bay is visually striking and remote, but it is also known for:

• cold, fluctuating water temperatures;
• heavy surge and strong tidal movement;
• sudden weather changes;
• harsh winter storms;
• seasonal conditions that make the bay; inaccessible for part of the year.

These challenges were not unknown. During the Keiko project, researchers and husbandry staff repeatedly reported that the bay was difficult to manage, particularly in winter. Nets required reinforcement, equipment was frequently damaged, and the conditions made consistent care difficult. Those issues were widely documented at the time (Simmons, 2014)

Keiko: From Captivity to the Wild

Given that history, it was foreseeable that two belugas with decades of indoor aquarium living might struggle in the same location.


Seasonal Limitations and the Need for Winter Housing

A fundamental practical challenge is that the sanctuary can only use the bay in the summer months. Winter conditions are far too severe, and infrastructure in the bay must be removed or reinforced annually. This means the whales must be housed in the indoor or semi-indoor care pools for much of the year.

From a welfare perspective, this creates a structural contradiction. A sanctuary is intended to be a permanent home, not a seasonal feature. Moving whales between radically different environments - indoor pools to cold, surging seawater - introduces stress and prevents them developing full acclimatisation or physical conditioning. It also means the whales will always be dependent on human-managed environments for most of the year.

This seasonal model was implicit in the geography of Iceland, but it was not prominent in early public messaging. For many professionals within the zoological community, the need to overwinter the whales indoors was a critical red flag.


Health Concerns and Acclimatisation Difficulties

While the belugas have not suffered catastrophic health problems, they have experienced a number of setbacks that are consistent with the challenges of transitioning from a controlled environment to a natural one.

Reported issues have included:

• lethargy during early bay exposure;
• reduced appetite and changes in feeding; behaviour
• challenges maintaining body temperature;
• periods of stress during environmental transitions;
• possible respiratory sensitivity.

It’s important to be fair here: the sanctuary team appears to have acted cautiously and appropriately when these issues arose. The setbacks were handled conservatively and the welfare of the whales was placed ahead of the timetable for using the bay. But the frequency of these setbacks does underline how difficult the environment is for animals coming from a very different background.


Current Status of the Sanctuary

As of the most recent public information, Little White and Little Grey remain in the landside care pools. There have been no recent extended trials in the bay, and no timeline has been offered for future access. The sanctuary continues to frame the project as ongoing, but the reality is that the original vision - belugas living freely in a natural bay- has not materialised.

The whales are appear to be well cared for and retired from exhibition. But the sanctuary functionally operates more as a specialised aquarium facility with occasional potential for bay access, rather than the open-water sanctuary concept originally promoted.


Was the Outcome Predictable?

While the intentions behind the project were undoubtedly sincere, many of the obstacles were foreseeable:

• The bay had a documented history of difficult conditions during the Keiko project.
• The climate limits the sanctuary to seasonal use.
• Long-term captive belugas often have poor fitness for natural conditions.
• Temperature and surge differences between aquarium pools and the North Atlantic are extreme.
• Acclimatisation tends to be slow, and sometimes incomplete, in older or long-term captive cetaceans.
• Moving whales in and out each winter disrupts the very stability a sanctuary aims to provide.

None of this means the project was malicious or ill-intentioned. But it does suggest that the planning may have underestimated the site’s environmental constraints and overestimated the whales’ ability to adapt to a wild or semi-wild setting after decades of indoor living.


A Fair Assessment

A balanced view might be summarised as follows:

Positive aspects:

• Significant logistical achievements were made in transporting the whales safely. 
• The animals that seem to adjust it well to their indoor environment in the tourist centre.

Limitations and negative aspects:

• The sea sanctuary bay has seen minimal use.
• Iceland’s climate makes full-time open-water living impossible.
• The belugas’ physical and behavioural backgrounds limit their adaptation.
• The project’s early messaging created expectations that have not been met.
• The location’s unsuitability was knowable in advance, particularly given Keiko’s documented experiences.

Conclusion

The Sea Life Trust Beluga Sanctuary represents an ambitious attempt to create a sea-based retirement facility for long-term captive whales. Its intentions were positive – although some would reasonably question that this was ideologically driven, particularly with the involvement of anti-captive lobbyist groups such as Whale And Dolphin Conservation, who have negligible experience in marine animal husbandry.

Nevertheless, Merlin's husbandry team has clearly prioritised the whales’ welfare. However, the sanctuary’s geographical location, the environmental challenges of Klettsvík Bay, and the belugas’ own histories have combined to limit the success of the original vision.

Currently, Little White and Little Grey are living safe, stable lives, but the idea of them living freely in the bay for extended periods now appears unlikely. For any future sanctuaries, environmental suitability, seasonal accessibility, and the physiological limitations of long-term captive cetaceans will need far more careful consideration.


Timeline of Beluga Sanctuary Transition (2019 – 2024)

2019: Arrival and Initial Acclimatisation

June 2019: The belugas arrived in Iceland from Shanghai and were placed in an indoor quarantine pool for health monitoring.

Late 2019: Care teams began cooling the pool to encourage the development of a protective blubber layer for the cold water.

2020: First Attempt at Bay Introduction

Early 2020: A planned move to the bay was delayed due to the detection of mild bacterial stomach infections.

August 2020: They were successfully moved into the netted sea care pools in Klettsvík Bay.
 
September-October 2020: They had their first free swims in the wider bay as part of the "Little Steps" programme and adapted to the cold water.

Late 2020: They were moved back indoors for the winter period as part of the safety and welfare plan.

2022: Infrastructure Setback

April 2022: A large, intermediate net structure called the “Halo” habitat was installed to facilitate a more gradual transition to the full bay.
 
August 2022: A contractor’s boat sank in the bay, causing oil/fuel contamination and forcing the repair/dismantling of structures, which delayed their return to the bay.

2023: Health Issues and Reversal
 
April 2023: The belugas returned to the sea care pools for the next phase of transition.
 
June 2023: Little Grey developed stomach ulcers, leading to both whales being transferred back to the indoor pool for intensive veterinary care.
 
Late 2023: Little Grey's ulcers were reported to be fully healed.

2024: Ongoing Delays
 
Mid-2024: The sanctuary announced further structural work was needed on the bay infrastructure (for veterinary access and weather resilience), postponing the expected seasonal return until at least 2026.


References

Almunia, J. & Canchal, M., 2025. Cetacean Sanctuaries: Do They Guarantee Better Welfare? Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens, 6(1), p.4. DOI: 10.3390/jzbg6010004. 

SEA LIFE Trust, 2025. An update on Little White and Little Grey. [online] Beluga Sanctuary. Available at: https://belugasanctuary.sealifetrust.org/en/about-us/news/an-update-on-little-white-and-little-grey/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

SEA LIFE Trust, 2024. Little Grey and Little White Update. [online] Beluga Sanctuary. Available at: https://belugasanctuary.sealifetrust.org/en/about-us/news/beluga-whale-sanctuary-update/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), 2025. A sanctuary for captive beluga whales – A suitable alternative to boost health and welfare? [PDF] Case Study. Available at: https://uk.whales.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2025/07/beluga-report-rev2025-FINAL.pdf [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), 2022. Giant new ‘halo’ habitat structure reaches beluga sanctuary after 16 hour sea journey. [online] WDC News. Available at: https://uk.whales.org/2022/04/21/giant-new-halo-habitat-structure-reaches-beluga-sanctuary-after-16-hour-sea-journey/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

SEA LIFE Trust, 2019. SEA LIFE TRUST Beluga Whale Sanctuary update. [online] Beluga Sanctuary. 16 April 2019. Available at: https://belugasanctuary.sealifetrust.org/en/about-us/news/sea-life-trust-beluga-whale-sanctuary-update/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

SEA LIFE Trust, 2019. SEA LIFE TRUST Beluga Whale Sanctuary update. [online] Beluga Sanctuary. 17 May 2019. Available at: https://belugasanctuary.sealifetrust.org/en/about-us/news/sea-life-trust-beluga-whale-sanctuary-update-1/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

Simmons, M.A., 2014. Killing Keiko: The True Story of Free Willy’s Return to the Wild. Callinectes Press. 

The Guardian, 2019. Two whales flown from Shanghai aquarium to sanctuary in Iceland. The Guardian, 20 June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/20/two-whales-flown-from-shanghai-aquarium-to-sanctuary-in-iceland [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

Blooloop, 2020. SEA LIFE Trust beluga whales first swim in new sanctuary home. [online] Blooloop. 5 January. Available at: https://blooloop.com/animals/news/beluga-whales-first-swim-sea-life-trust-sanctuary/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

WDC, 2022. Beluga move plans postponed after service boat sinks. [online] Whale & Dolphin Conservation. 24 August. Available at: https://uk.whales.org/2022/08/24/beluga-move-plans-postponed-after-service-boat-sinks/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

SEA LIFE Trust, n.d. About Us. [online] SEA LIFE Trust. Available at: https://sealifetrust.org/en/about-us/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

WDC, n.d. Creating sanctuaries for whales and dolphins. [online] Whale & Dolphin Conservation. Available at: https://uk.whales.org/end-captivity/creating-sanctuaries-for-whales-and-dolphins/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

Do Dolphins Commit Suicide?

Dr John Lilly, a neurologist who worked with dolphins between 1955 and 1968

 

Do Dolphins Commit Suicide?

Over the years, the idea that dolphins can consciously take their own lives has appeared in books, documentaries, and online discussions. It’s a claim that continues to provoke strong emotional responses and is often used to criticise dolphin care in captivity. But what does the scientific and historical evidence actually show? A closer look at the people and events behind this belief reveals a more complex — and much less dramatic — reality.

The Cove: Understanding Japan’s Dolphin Drive Fishery and the Myths Surrounding It

Photograph of mother and baby dolphin courtesy of Dolphin Quest

The Cove: Understanding Japan’s Dolphin Drive Fishery and the Myths Surrounding It

The Cove is a 2009 award-winning documentary that exposes the annual drive fishery hunt of dolphins and whales in the whaling village of Taiji, Wakayama, Japan.

Drive fisheries are not historically new. Several countries aside from Japan have used, or still use, this method to hunt animals, including the Solomon Islands, the Faroe Islands and Peru. The drive fishery at Taiji is believed to have existed for more than 350 years. However, The Cove was not the first to document this controversial hunt—publications such as National Geographic and television series by the late Jacques-Yves Cousteau in the mid-1970s also highlighted it. Many people have rightly raised concerns about these hunting methods, questioning them on moral, ethical and animal-welfare grounds.

Picking on Penguins: When Animal Rights Meets Animal Welfare

 

Picking on Penguins: When Animal Rights Meets Animal Welfare 

Introduction

In May 2011, Sea Life London Aquarium unveiled something entirely new for the capital: penguins. Ten Gentoo Penguins (Pygoscelis papua), transferred from Edinburgh Zoo, became the founding residents of a purpose-built enclosure known as Penguin Point. For the first time, visitors to London could watch these Antarctic birds dive, swim, and shuffle across an icy landscape recreated in the heart of the city.

More than fourteen years have passed since that opening, and the colony has grown and changed over time. Today, reports suggest that around fifteen Gentoo Penguins call the exhibit home, though the number has fluctuated as chicks have hatched and some birds have been relocated to other aquariums abroad. In 2021, the London site celebrated its first confirmed breeding success, with two chicks emerging from carefully managed nests - a milestone for the programme.

The enclosure itself is designed to mimic the penguins’ natural environment, with chilled air, cold water, and seasonal light cycles intended to encourage nesting and breeding. Sea Life presents the colony as part of its wider conservation and education efforts, highlighting the species’ adaptability and the challenges they face in the wild.

This long-running exhibit has become a fixture of the aquarium’s identity, offering Londoners a glimpse of Antarctic life without leaving the city. Yet, as with many captive animal displays, it has also attracted scrutiny and debate over welfare, environment, and ethics - issues that continue to shape how the penguins are perceived.

 

The Consequences of France’s Cetacean Ban and the Marineland Closure

The Consequences of France’s Cetacean Ban and the Marineland Closure

John Dineley, Zoological Consultant

Abstract

The closure of Marineland Antibes, following France’s legislative ban on the keeping and breeding of cetaceans, has left a number of dolphins and killer whales in an uncertain situation. This commentary examines the origins of the ban, the subsequent welfare and management implications, and the broader challenges faced by European zoos in navigating policy driven by activism rather than animal welfare science. The case also highlights the limitations of so-called “sanctuaries” and the complex regulatory environment surrounding cetacean management within the European Union.

Morgan Is Not The Only One Having Problems Hearing!

Loro Parque leads the way with study into the hearing of whales

Thursday, 13 November saw yet another judgment from the Dutch courts on the fate of the young female killer whale, “Morgan," who stranded on the Dutch coast in June 2010 and was rehabilitated by the group SOS Delfijn and employees from Dolfinarium Harderwijk. The animal was deemed unsuitable for release and was moved to live with a group of other killer whales at Loro Parque, Tenerife, Spain in November 2011.

TripAdvisor. Travel companies mislead the public in their bans of dolphins in human care.

Travel companies are a soft target for the animal rights industry. They obviously want to give the impression to their clients that they are caring organisation but this can lead to an erroneous view as to the actual reality particularly when it involves science and animal welfare. A case in point is the ban defunct Thomas Cook travel company and Richard Branson's Virgin holidays which decided on the information from the animal rights industry to stop promoting zoos and marine parks that display marine mammals such as dolphins.

Now, TripAdvisor seems to be the latest organisation to adopt this position.

Below I reproduce a comment from the marine mammal scientist Dr Jason Bruck regarding this matter.

Killer whales, car parks and The Whale Sanctuary.

The entertainment website LAD Bible perpetuating pseudoscience rather than objective journalism

"...there is no evidence to suggest the size of zoo car park should determine the size of their animal exhibits…"

One of the arguments against having large animals in human care such as whales and dolphins is that in the wild these animals range over large areas. This is then presented juxtaposed to the habitats these animals are provided with within human care. 

One such animal-rights meme (promoted by the animal rights group the Orca Project) has been an aerial photograph of one of the SeaWorld parks comparing the killer whale habitat with the size of the car park and an ornamental lake. As always this is an appeal to emotion from the animal rights industry. Moreover, as regards animal welfare it is not valid, particularly when comparing the life of animals in the wild with those in human care.

First, there is the obvious observation that there is no scientific correlation between the size of a car park in a zoological collection with the size of the facilities needed for the successful care of the animals they exhibit. Further, such a comparison is erroneous because in the wild many animal species may travel long distances for two primary reasons: one is to forage for food and the other is reproduction. They have to undertake these behaviours as a matter of survival: they are not undertaking this for recreational reasons. 

In fact, research that looked into the provisioning (feeding) of wild animals actually demonstrates that these animals do not move away from the area where they are being fed. This is why many countries like the USA prohibit the feeding of wild animals by the public because it distorts their natural behaviour; makes animals dependent on humans for their food and it can compromise their welfare. A case in point is the wild dolphins living in Australia at Monkey Mai where provisioning of the animals by the public has caused serious problems as regards animals welfare.

Moreover, animals in human care are living in artificial environments and therefore the dynamics are different than the wild. They are dependent on their food from their caretakers which does not involve the animals having to travel long distances. Therefore, giving them environments to live in that reflect travelling distance when foraging for food in the wild serves no useful purpose.

This is not to say that in human care animals can be kept in any form of restricted environment but these considerations need to be objectively assessed. Again, using the travelling distances that animals need to forage in the wild is not an appropriate parameter. It should be noted that a number of countries including the United States, have specific legislation that regulates the parameters of care that animals must be given. 

The Whale Sanctuary Project and their need for animals.

Perhaps it's worth considering why the animal rights industry is taking so much time and trouble with these kinds of campaigns. 

Originally, SeaWorld was going to extend their killer whale facilities in a project called the Blue World Project. However, problems developed in California in October 2015 when the California Coastline Commission (under pressure from animal rights activists) try to dictate SeaWorld's animal husbandry policy. The Commission stated that SeaWorld must undertake a breeding ban of their killer whales before they will give permission for the new facility to be built. SeaWorld then commenced suing the California Coastline Commission. 

However, Joel Manby - who became CEO of SeaWorld in December 2014 - announced in March 2016 that the group would discontinue breeding their killer whales in all their parks. Manby stated that his reason for instigating a group ban was due to the California Coastline Commission's decision. 

However, with a breeding ban in place across all the parks, SeaWorld made a business decision to cancelled its expansion plans for all their killer whale exhibits. As there were no plans to add additional animals to their current killer whale population, expansion plans were considered not viable due to the diminishing number of animals that would occur over the years.

In the meantime various animal rights activists meet in Vancouver, Canada to discussed the possibility of setting up a facility for holding killer whales. 

In April 2016, the Whale Sanctuary Project, as it was to be called, was officially launched; at this current time the Sanctuary only publicly exists as a website and they have yet to find a suitable location for the construction of the project. However, and perhaps more importantly, they have yet to raise the huge amounts of money needed to construct such a facility. In a meeting in Washington State in July 2019, The Whale Sanctuary stated the estimated cost of the project was 15 to 20 million US dollars for initial construction and 2 million dollars a year running costs which would maintain 6 to 8 whales. SeaWorld current display 20 killer whales at their parks.

Nevertheless, if such an animal rights run marine facility is going to be viable it needs to be populated with animals to attract visitors and generate income to secure its future. Therefore, these groups are targeting facilities such as SeaWorld's because they want their animals for there own marine park. With this in mind, it is easy to see why they continue to target SeaWorld despite the park being committed to a breeding ban with the current existing killer whales being the last to be displayed at the parks.

Other related blogs

Sea Pens: Not the Panacea They Are Perceived

Killer Whales, SeaWorld and Media Credibility

Not So Scientific American

No the killer whale did not say "set me free"

No the killer whale did not say "set me free"

Being a public broadcaster it would be hoped that the BBC would use a little bit more rigour when reporting issues particularly those that involve science. A case in point is an article in the Newsbeat strand written by reporter Talia Shadwell regarding research done on the mimicking behaviour of killer whales at an aquarium in France entitled: "Killer whale could be saying 'set me free'. 

The article is very disappointing due to the obvious lack of research and which appear to be based on views from the animal rights groups The Born Free Foundation and Whale and Dolphin Conversation - both known for their objection to animals maintained in captive care.  Further, there appears to be absolutely no effort to contact Marineland in France whose animals and facilities were used in the research cited or indeed any other zoos or aquarium that display whales or dolphins.

Did Vancouver Aquarium capitulate to the animal rights industry?

Vancouver Aquarium (VanAqua) announced in January 2018 that it is going to now discontinue the display of cetaceans (whales and dolphins).  This comes after a protracted period of protest from the animal rights industry and the controversial decision by the Vancouver Parks Board to arbitrarily ban the aquarium for keeping cetaceans at the aquarium. 

It is with a certain amount of irony that only a few years earlier the Park Board had approved the plan for the aquarium building new facility entitled "Canada's Arctic" which were to include new facilities for marine animals including belugas.

However, in 2017 (after pressure from the animal rights industry) the board introduced a by law to ban the display of cetaceans at the aquarium site.

Morgan the killer whale has become pregnant - would her calf be a be a hybrid.

Morgan at Loro Parque in Tenerife.
Photo copyright  Loro Parque

The paper makes it clear that the Icelandic and Norwegian killer whale populations were a single panmictic population; this term means random mating where all individuals are potential partners. 

The recent news that Morgan the killer whale (at the Spanish zoological collection Loro Parque at Puerto de la Cruz on Tenerife) has become pregnant has led to a number of people making allegations that the calf would be a hybrid.  

Morgan is believed to be an animal from the Norwegian killer whale population but the animals she lives with, whilst all captive-bred, are derived from animals from Iceland. 

In a paper published in 2014, an overview is given of the North Atlantic killer whale population and what is known so far.

The paper makes it clear that the Icelandic and Norwegian killer whale populations were a single panmictic population; this term means random mating where all individuals are potential partners. 

Whilst it is clear that animals within the North Atlantic population do follow specific feeding patterns which have in turn shaped their behaviour, the idea that Morgan's calf would be a hybrid - and as such this would be detrimental to the animal's welfare or conservational used in the future - is not based all our current scientific understanding of these animals in the wild. The North Atlantic populations are currently considered the same species but with possible different ecotypes.

Moreover, hybrids only occur across species. There have been hybrid whales and dolphins in both captive care and the wild.  Perhaps the most well documented is the wholphin which is a cross between a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale.


Reference and significant quotes.

North Atlantic killer whale research; past, present and future (2014) Andrew D. Foote, Sanna Kuningas and Filipa I.P. Samarra

"Further light has been shed on the relationship between Icelandic and Norwegian herring-eating killer whales by genetic investigations. Early genetic studies typically used DNA from captive Icelandic killer whales as outgroups for studies focused on North Pacific killer whales (e.g. Stevens et al., 1989). Only recently, have studies used larger sample sizes from across the North Atlantic using both mitochondrial and nuclear genetic markers. Allele frequencies of 17 polymorphic microsatellite loci indicated individuals from the Norwegian and Icelandic herring grounds were a single panmictic population; however, there was significant differentiation between the two regions based on mitochondrial DNA (Foote et al., 2011). Stable isotope ratios differed significantly between Icelandic and Norwegian killer whales assigned to this panmictic population, suggesting some differences in ecology, such as spatial distribution or trophic position (Foote et al., 2012)"

"The effectiveness of these large shared datasets was recently demonstrated in an unusual scenario, when a young killer whale became stranded off the coast of The Netherlands. No photo-identification matches were made, but sequencing of informative regions of the mitochondrial genome suggested that the whale belonged to the lineages that follow the *NSS herring. This was then further supported by the matching of several stereotyped call types produced by the whale and those recorded by groups feeding on herring in northern Norway (Samarra et al., 2010)"

*NSS: Norwegian spring spawning.

More details on Morgan's rescue can be found here. 
Morgan - The Rescued Female Killer Whale

A killer whale of a tale: when peer review sometimes fail.

 

Photo:  Rachael Griffin - aquagreenmarine.org
The extensive wear seen on the teeth of offshore killer whales may be caused by preying on sharks.

It would be interesting to know how appropriate and stringent the peer review was undertaken on this paper before it was published.  Judging by the credentials of the authors and the methodology used this paper seems to be very poor and really does not elevate the reputation of the journal Archives of Oral Biology.

When examining claims in the scientific press one always tend to look to whether or not the evidence that this is based on has been subject to peer review.  Science journalism can be something of a mixed bag and with the ever increasing need to produce headlines that will generate attention (clickbait) and advertising revenue.

One such example is a recent news report in the web based science news outlet Phys.Org entitled: "Killer toothaches likely cause misery for captive orca". The article relates to a paper published in the Archives of Oral Biology that claims that tooth damage in captive killer whales is endemic and harmful to the animals. However a closer look at the paper and its authors give some calls for concern.

 

Looking at what is available in the original paper it seems that the assessments made were from photographs taken by various individuals whilst visiting various facilities.  None of the authors appears to have had direct access to physically examine the teeth of any of these animals. The methodology of the data gathering is questionable and it is unlikely that all animals within the groups studied were assessed effectively. The authors clearly wanted to fit their hypothesis to the available data.

Only one of the authors,  Carolina Loch, has any academic qualification in dentistry. Although Dr Lock's claim in the Phys.Org article that the animals would have to have there teeth cavities flushed out with "chemicals” unfortunately resonates strongly with the mantra of the pseudo scientists when promoting An Appeal to Nature. These do not sound like the words of an objective scientist.

It should be noted that humans regularly the clean their teeth and wash their mouths out with “chemicals” to promote oral hygiene on the recommendation of a dentist. Moreover there is a growing trend in veterinary dentistry for both domestic and wild animals which would also use various chemicals to combat disease and promote the health of gums and teeth.

Moreover, the paper does acknowledge the fact that tooth erosion is seen commonly in wild cetaceans but it's not very clear on what kind of comparative analysis was used. Tooth erosion in wild killer whales is well documented.

A 5-metre wild killer whale that stranded on Saleens beach in Ireland in February 2015.  Extensive tooth erosion can be seen on this animal. Photo: Noel Browne. The MunsterExpress

Further, four of the authors are actively are opposed to killer whales in captive care:

 

Jeffrey Ventre and John Jett are former SeaWorld trainers who both left this facility in 1995 - with Ventre being dismissed for misconduct. They both appeared in the film Blackfish. Jett is now a biologists and lab coordinator and Ventre is now a physiotherapist

Ingrid Visser a scientist based in New Zealand who has undertaken work with wild killer whales. However her only direct contact with caring for a killer whale resulted in the death of a neonate killer whale due to her lack of experience in this field.

Jordan Waltz is a freelance graphic designer who has undertaken work for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation. Interestingly, his mailing address on the paper is the address of animal rights activist Ric O'Barry's Dolphin Project in Santa Monica an organisation Waltz actively contributes to in their news blogs. In his bio on this web site he states:

“...I am an artist by day, researcher by night. I served as archivist and researcher for the documentary films "Blackfish" and "Vancouver Aquarium: Uncovered." Most of my writings cater towards the lesser-known corners of the cetacean captivity issue...”

A small example of the large number of blogs and articles written by Jordan waltz for the Dolphin Project.

These facts alone should be a red flag to the actual objectivity and underlying agenda of this paper.

It would be interesting to know how appropriate and stringent the peer review was undertaken on this paper before it was published.  Judging by the credentials of the authors and the methodology used this paper seems to be very poor and really does not elevate the reputation of the journal Archives of Oral Biology.

Also see:  Response to the publication in The Journal of Oral Biology “Tooth damage in captive orcas”
 
Notes on tooth erosion in wild killer whales

Tooth erosion in wild killer whales is quite common but it is related to their diet. Broadly speaking killer whales dietary behaviour falls into three distinct areas: whales that exclusively feed on fish; whales thay exclusively feed on marine mammals and whales who adopted both behaviours which can be dependent on seasonality or migratory patterns.

It is the fish eating killer whales that appears to have the most evidence of tooth erosion with those that exclusively predatory mammals having the least.

A display of killer whales skulls and teeth accompanied by a video presentation was made regarding this subject at the British National History Museum special exhibition entitled: Whales Beneath the Waters which ran from June 2017 to February 2018.