Whales could languish forever in rule change
Georgia Straight News Features By Matthew Burrows
Publish Date: June 21, 2007

An animal-welfare group is dismissing an upcoming park board proposal to tweak the section of its aquatic-mammals bylaw regarding cetaceans (dolphins and whales) as "smoke and mirrors".

Annelise Sorg, spokesperson for the Coalition for No Whales in Captivity, told the Georgia Straight that she believes the park board's major tenant–the Vancouver Aquarium–is also engaged in an endless public-relations exercise to justify its continued addition to its dolphin stocks.

"To the public I would say, open up your eyes," Sorg said. "This latest amendment will be approved and it just means more smoke and mirrors that the Vancouver Aquarium has public support for buying "rescued" dolphins and filling up its pools."

At the Monday (June 25) board meeting at VanDusen Botanical Garden, commissioners will vote on amending the section of the bylaw that previously dictated the process for importation of "an animal that has been captured or otherwise taken from its natural wild habitat for the purpose of rehabilitating it from injury or preventing its death due to stranding provided that its capture or taking and subsequent release to natural habitat [emphasis added] is done under the jurisdiction and with the approval of the federal agency responsible…".

On November 27, 2006, the board voted 4-2 in favour of requesting a revision of this section. The upcoming board staff report on this request contains a rewording that now refers to "an animal that has been injured or is otherwise in distress and in need of assistance to survive or rehabilitation, whether or not the intention is to release it back into its natural wild habitat [emphasis added]".

As justification for the change, the staff report cites the aquarium's 2006 public-consultation process regarding its planned expansion. "The results of the public consultation process indicated that respondents had no concern with retaining stranded or wounded cetaceans after their rehabilitation," the report states.

In fact, though–according to the aquarium's own "Community Consultation Summary Report" released by Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd. on November 8, 2006, and not mentioned in the staff report–a higher percentage overall (77 percent) of respondents in the "consultation feedback" process agreed that the aquarium should be allowed to rehabilitate cetaceans with intent of release than agreed to permit rehabilitation with no intent of release (73 percent). And a much higher percentage (90 percent) in Kirk's "attitude survey" agreed to rehab with release than agreed to rehab with no intent of release (75 percent). The positive respondents to the "no intention of releasing" question agreed to wording that included allowing cetaceans to be brought "from another organization" if it had been injured or in distress "at any time in the past". This wording was not included in the "intention of safely releasing" question.

Denis Howarth, a retired lawyer retained by the coalition, told the Straight this is the latest signal that the aquarium is moving further away from the original intent behind the bylaw: to phase out the importation of cetaceans for captivity.
"The current park board has completely reversed what the 1996 park board did," Howarth said. "They already in effect did that and signalled their intention to revise the bylaw on November 27, 2006." He added: "On November 27, the aquarium came back and said, 'Guess what? We've done it [public consultation], and everybody we've talked to believes we've done a wonderful thing. We asked a question: If a dolphin has been injured and captured and has to be put in a pool, are you cool with us keeping it? People said "Sure."' If you put it that way, even the animal advocates are in favour. The issue is, do you capture it in the first place? The way it's written now, if you are a Japanese fisherman–or any kind of fisherman–and you want to sell a dolphin that will eventually be sold to Vancouver, just make sure that it's injured before it gets into the boat and it will get under this bylaw."

NPA commissioner Korina Houghton told the Straight the amendment is only a way to "tighten up language".
"Our intention from the very beginning was just to tighten up language so that it is clearer to the public, to the aquarium, and to the park board," she said.

COPE commissioner Spencer Herbert, who voted in favour of the aquarium expansion but against the bylaw change on November 27, told the Straight he believes there are better ways of dealing with injured cetaceans.

"I always felt that when they are injured, the best way to do that [rehabilitate] is in an open-sea pen up the coast somewhere, where they can have the possibility of being released again," Herbert said. "In all the research I have done, that is the only way you have a possibility of releasing them into the wild."

According to Howarth, "the new rule means there will be dolphins in Vancouver forever."

Aquarium president John Nightingale did not return a call from the Straight.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: editor@straight.com