Biting theHand that

Feeds

An investigative report by WDCS,the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society andThe Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

Spring 2003

THE CASE AGAINST DOLPHIN PETTING POOLS

Produced by:

WDCS, Whale and Dolphin Conservation SocietyBrookfield House38 St. Paul StreetChippenhamWiltshire SN15 1LYU.K.Tel. (44) (0)1249 449 500Fax. (44) (0)1249 449 501Website: www.wdcs.orgEmail: info@wdcs.orgRegistered Charity No. 1014705Registered Company No. 2737421.

WDCS, USP.O. Box 820064Portland, Oregon 97282-1064U.S.A.Tel/Fax. (503) 235-7050

© Copyright 2003 WDCS/HSUS. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS Introduction 1

Petting Pools: A threat to dolphin welfare 3

Petting Pools: A threat to the welfare of Petting Pool visitors 6

What do visitors learn at Petting Pools? 8

Conclusions Inside Back Cover

Recommendations Back Cover

All information in this report maybe reproduced for use as publiceducation providing written creditis given to WDCS and The HSUS.The report itself and photographscontained within it may not bereproduced without the prior writtenapproval of WDCS and The HSUS.

WDCS and The HSUS have takencare to ensure the accuracy ofinformation in this report. Wewelcome comments, updates andnew information on human-dolphininteractions in captivity and the wild.Please send information to:pettingpools@wdcs.org.

Illustration: Linda Shaw

HSUS, The Humane Society of the United States2100 L Street, NWWashington, DC 20037U.S.A.Tel. (301) 258-3048Fax. (301) 258-3080Website: www.hsus.orgE-mail: nrose@hsus.org

IntroductionOpportunities for physical contact withwhales and dolphins, including touching,feeding and swimming with both wild andcaptive animals, are increasing in rangeand intensity. The last five years have seena dramatic growth worldwide in human-dolphin interaction programs at publicdisplay facilities, which both stimulate andmeet the public’s demands to get closerand closer to these unique and fascinatinganimals. Few will deny that a personalencounter with a dolphin or whale is astimulating and moving experience but,until now, little attention has been paid tothe potentially negative consequences ofsuch intimacy.

For many years, WDCS and The HSUShave expressed concerns about the potentialrisks to both humans and dolphinsassociated with physical interactionprograms. This new report produced byWDCS and The HSUS focuses on one typeof interaction - dolphin petting and feedingprograms (hereafter known as ‘PettingPools’). The report is based on a five yearstudy of Petting Pools operated by SeaWorld in the United States (US), but itsfindings are representative of the problemsand hazards inherent in Petting Poolsoperated by other facilities.

We conclude that the intense and poorlyregulated physical interactions betweeninexperienced members of the public anddolphins in crowded Petting Pools poseunacceptable risks to both humans anddolphins. These risks should be of greatconcern to the public, the travel andinsurance industries, public display facilitiesthemselves, and the US agencies whichare not meeting regulatory responsibilities.

WDCS and The HSUS believe that thecompelling evidence presented in thisreport justifies the immediate closure of allPetting Pools on public safety and animalwelfare grounds.

An overview of dolphins in captivityFor over one hundred years, whales anddolphins (collectively known as cetaceans)have been captured in the wild and heldcaptive; objects of humankind’s desire foranimal entertainment and, more recently,for personal interaction. Thousands ofwhales and dolphins are held in tanks andsea-pens all over the world, but the species

most commonly displayed and used inperformance and interaction programs,including in Sea World’s Petting Pools, isthe bottlenose dolphin.

Public display facilities, irrespective of thecapacity of their tanks or sea-pens and thesophistication of their behavioral enrichmentprograms, are simply unable toaccommodate the physiological, behavioral,social and environmental needs of thesecomplex and wholly aquatic species. Asthis report depicts, by imposing humancontact on captive dolphins, Petting Poolsexacerbate the stress already wrought bycaptivity, and are entirely unacceptable.

Who is responsible for dolphins?As this report illustrates, issues relating tocaptive cetaceans (including capture andinternational trade, as well as interactionwith the public) are inextricably linked tothe protection of their wild counterparts.Although this seems obvious, the USgovernment’s legislative oversight of captiveand wild marine mammals has beenfractured since 1994.

Currently, all jurisdiction over the care andmaintenance of marine mammals withinpublic display facilities resides with theAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS) of the US Department ofAgriculture. APHIS’s regulatory authorityis governed by the US Animal Welfare Act(AWA)1

. Prior to 1994, however, jurisdictionfor the care of captive marine mammalswas shared by the National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), whose authority derivedfrom the Marine Mammal Protection Act(MMPA)2. NMFS regulates activities thatimpact wild marine mammals, includingtheir capture from the wild. The 1994amendments to the MMPA, however,removed most of NMFS’s authority toregulate captive display facilities. ThoughNMFS is still responsible for issuing permitsfor captive display, and authorizes thetransfer of animals between facilities, it hasvirtually no jurisdiction over the welfareand care of these animals once they arewithin a facility.

According to this division of responsibility,the regulation of Petting Pools should fallunder the jurisdiction of APHIS, but thereality is shamefully different. Regulationsfor the ‘Handling, Care, Treatment andTransport of Marine Mammals’ (theHumane Handling Regulations) wereestablished under the AWA in 19793. It was

Life in confinementCetaceans -bottlenose dolphinsin particular - areamong the mostcomplex and highlyintelligent ofmammals; renownedand celebrated fortheir close familybonds, boundlessenergy, co-operativehunting strategiesand complicatedcommunication. Thedifference betweena dolphin’s existencein the wild andunder the control ofhumans in captivityis immeasurable: Notonly is the scale andcomplexity of itsphysicalenvironmentdramatically reduced,but every singleaspect of its life -from the size andcomposition of itssocial grouping, tothe food it eats andthe hours it sleeps -is determined byhumans. Tragically,as witnessed in otherhighly developedmammals whosevery essence isextinguished inconfinement, inmany facilitiescaptive dolphinshave higher rates ofinfant mortality anda lower survival ratethan their wildcounterparts.

1

not until the 1990s that human-dolphininteraction programs became popular at USpublic display facilities and, accordingly,specific provisions were agreed in respectto ‘swim-with-the-dolphin’ (SWTD) programsin 1998, including vital provisions relatingto refuge areas, staff training, maximuminteraction times and provisions for addressingunsatisfactory, undesirable or unsafe behavior4.

Remarkably, however, these SWTDRegulations specifically excluded the animalsthat, in our opinion, are most in need ofprotection, and the programs most in needof statutory oversight - Petting Pools.Furthermore, following protests byrepresentatives of the US captivity industrywho claimed they were caught unawares bythe SWTD Regulations’ intended applicationto their ‘shallow water interactive programs’,the SWTD Regulations were suspended inApril 1999. This has left all US public displayfacilities that provide human-dolphininteraction programs without any specializedrequirements crucial to the protection ofboth visitors and dolphins.

Four years later, the SWTD Regulations areundergoing revision and new standards areexpected to be published during 2003. Weanticipate that, despite our best efforts, thesenew rules will again exclude Petting Pools.In view of the fact that the basic findings inthis report have been known to the relevantauthorities since 1999, we find this omissionastonishing and unacceptable.

As it is apparent that the US authorities willnot take responsibility for, and public displayfacilities will not submit to, proper regulationof Petting Pools, WDCS and The HSUS have

no alternative but to bring thisissue to the attention of the public,the media and the travel andinsurance industries. Weencourage each to respondresponsibly to the informationprovided.

What is a Petting Pool?Marine mammal Petting Poolspermit the visiting public to leanover the perimeter of a pool totouch and/or feed animals suchas dolphins, sea lions, belugas andeven orcas (killer whales).Although we have deep concernsabout the growing number ofPetting Pools in a number ofcountries, this report focuses on

three (originally four) dolphin Petting Poolsat Sea World Parks in the US which illustratethe problems of such human-dolphininteraction. These facilities, in Florida,California and Texas (and, originally, inOhio), market an opportunity for the publicto touch and feed ‘fun-loving’ and ‘playful’bottlenose dolphins. To help the publicattract the attention of the dolphins, fish issold periodically from a booth near thepool. Present around the pools areuniformed Sea World employees, includinganimal care staff and members of theEducation Department who givepresentations to visitors over the pools’public address (PA) system.

WDCS and The HSUS have been studyingSea World’s dolphin Petting Pools since1996; making more than 30 unannouncedday-long visits over this period to observeand record the conditions of the animalsand the interactions between them andhuman visitors. A summary of our findings,including a statistical analysis of potentiallyharmful human and dolphin behavior, wasreported to the US authorities in 1999, whoforwarded a copy to Sea World. During thefollowing three years, and as recently asOctober 2002, investigators have observedsome changes at the Petting Pools thatappear to respond to our assessment ofthe risks to both humans and dolphins.Although we welcome these minorimprovements, we have observed nothingto dissuade us from the conclusion thatthese are inhumane and unjustified regimesthat pose unacceptable risks to both humansand dolphins.

Our 1999 report to APHIS was based on72 hours of video, recording 189 feeding

RIGHT: During the busiesttimes at a Petting Pool,seemingly hundreds of

people can almost entirelysurround a dolphin pool.

Photo: WDCS

This obese dolphin hasapparently succeeded incompeting with other PettingPool dolphins for fish providedby visitors. Photo: WDCS

2

Even in ‘refuge areas’,underwater viewing walls ensurethat the dolphins are never farfrom the sight or sounds ofvisitors. Photo: WDCS

ABOVE AND BELOW: Beggingfor attention at a typical PettingPool interaction.Photos: WDCS

Orcas, too, can be subject topetting in public display facilities.Photo: WDCS

sessions at four Sea World Petting Pools in1996 (Sea World Orlando in Florida, SeaWorld San Diego in California, Sea WorldSan Antonio in Texas and Sea WorldCleveland in Ohio). The study recordedand assessed human and dolphin behaviorswhich appeared to present direct or indirectrisks to the health and welfare of visitorsor dolphins, including biting and butting,and the feeding of foreign objects andpotentially contaminated food. It alsoconsidered staff intervention and otherfactors that might have a direct impact onthe welfare of both dolphins and humans.These other factors included gull harassment,feeding regimes, access to refuge areas,and the potential for the bi-directionaltransmission of disease.

Petting Pools: Athreat to dolphinwelfareIn the wild, dolphins appear to lead someof the most active lives in the ocean:travelling sometimes up to hundreds ofmiles a day; using complicated, often co-operative, hunting strategies to catch fish;and socializing in constantly changinggroups. The confinement of dolphins isbelieved to be a source of considerablephysical and psychological stress.

As if the fact of confinement itself were notstressful enough for a dolphin - trappedwith associates that it can neither choosenor avoid, with its movement restricted andmost of its choices removed - dolphins inhuman interaction programs must contendwith additional sources of stress that arecurrently unregulated by the responsibleauthorities. Stress can increase an animal’ssusceptibility to disease. Case studies ofmortality and illness in captive bottlenosedolphins suggest that stress, resulting fromsocial instability and ensuing aggressiveinteractions inherent in a captiveenvironment, is likely to contribute to theseeffects. These additional sources of stressinclude:

Lack of refugeA lack of respite from human contact duringSea World’s long opening hours may haveserious implications for the health andwelfare of its Petting Pool dolphins.

The suspended Federal Regulations inrespect to SWTD programs appropriatelyacknowledged that captive dolphinsinvolved in human interaction programsneed rest periods and refuge from visitors.Accordingly, they required that interactiontime for each dolphin should not exceedtwo hours per day and designated that each‘program cetacean’ should be free frompublic interaction for at least ten continuoushours out of every 24. Furthermore, theRegulations provided that dolphins shouldhave unrestricted access to a sanctuary areawhere they could retreat from human contact.

In contrast, although the booths selling fishopen only periodically, visitors to Sea Worldstill have non-stop access to Petting Pooldolphins for as many hours as the park isopen - up to 12 hours/day in summermonths. This leaves the animals little timewhen the parks are closed to rest or engagein undisturbed social interactions.Furthermore, outside of opening hours,staff must undertake medical checks andpool maintenance, as well as training andsupplemental feeding - further reducingtime free from human disturbance.

At the time of our last visit, the Petting Poolat Sea World San Antonio provided noannexed ‘refuge area’ to which dolphinscan theoretically retreat from visitors. Theother Sea World Petting Pools did offersuch ‘refuge’, but we have observed thatthese are often closed off while the Parkis open. Sea World San Diego (whose refugearea was closed off during a visit inSeptember 2001) also has a section ofperimeter wall over which the public cannot(and are requested not to try to) reach thedolphins beneath. However, this section ofwall comprises a large underwater viewingwindow, through which visitors try to attractthe dolphins’ attention. At Sea WorldOrlando, even the refuge area itself includessuch a window. At Sea World Cleveland(which was sold to the Six Flags chain inJanuary 2001), we observed dolphinsconfined in the gated-off refuge areaundergoing medical treatment.

Nutritional problemsAPHIS regulates how food intended forcaptive cetaceans should be prepared andhandled “so as to minimize bacterial orchemical contamination and to assure thewholesomeness and nutritive value of thefood”5. The Humane Handling Regulations(which apply to Petting Pools) provide thatfeeding by members of the public is only

NoiseDuring the busiesttimes at a PettingPool, a large crowdof people canalmost entirelysurround the pool,the clamor of theirvoices adding to thenoisy environmentof the park itself.Although Sea Worldstaff present at thePetting Pools askvisitors not to splashthe water or slapthe sides of thepool, andacknowledge that‘sound can irritatethe dolphins’, somevisitors neverthelesstry all means toattract the dolphins’attention, whetheror not a feedingsession is inprogress (i.e., thebooth is sellingfish), includingtapping coins andother hard objectsagainst the poolwall.

Additionally,according to its website, Sea Worldconducts between100-120 fireworksdisplays every year,including nightlyshows from midJune through LaborDay at thebeginning ofSeptember.

3

permitted under the supervision of auniformed employee or attendant who mustensure that the animals receive the properamount and type of food, and only foodsupplied by the facility where the marinemammals are kept.

The adequate supervision of public feedingof Petting Pool dolphins is unattainable inthe context of sometimes hundreds of visitorscrowding around the enclosure over thecourse of hours. We believe that it isimpossible for Petting Pools to meet therequirement of the Humane HandlingRegulations that individual dolphins receivethe proper amount and type of food. Forexample, we have observed visitors toPetting Pools feeding sandwiches, Frenchfries, bread, popcorn and the contents ofdrink containers to the dolphins. Theseincidents were either not observed by SeaWorld staff, or no attempt was made to stopthem, within the sight of investigators.

The fish fed by the public only constitutesa portion of the daily diet of Petting Pooldolphins (40% according to Sea World

Orlando staff in 1999). Animal care staffthen provide supplemental food to eachdolphin individually. Investigatorsoccasionally observed trainers conductingsupplemental feeding during openinghours, in what appeared to be an attemptto provide ‘visitor entertainment’.

The Humane Handling Regulationsrequire that staff are “able to recognize

deviations from a normal state of goodhealth in each marine mammal so that foodintake can be adjusted accordingly”6.However, the continued obesity of somePetting Pool dolphins recognized in repeatedvisits to Sea World suggests thatsupplemental feeding does not take intoaccount the amount of fish that each dolphinreceives from the public.

Foreign objectsDolphins are curious animals that areattracted by unfamiliar objects in theirenvironment. Sadly, however, as thegovernment-maintained Marine MammalInventory Report and other publishedsources reveal, many captive cetaceanshave died after swallowing foreign objects.We are concerned that the provision byuntrained and poorly supervised visitorsof a significant proportion of their foodand stimulation makes Petting Pool dolphinsparticularly vulnerable to eating dangerousobjects.

A Sea World staff member supervising anunderwater inspection of the bottom of the

Where do thedolphins come from?Although many publicdisplay facilitiesendeavor to breedcetaceans, significantnumbers of whalesand dolphinscontinue to be takenfrom wild populationsto supply the growingdemands of thecaptivity industry andto compensate for thepremature deaths itcauses in manyfacilities. Methodsused to capture andtransport cetaceanscan be shockinglycruel, and manyindividuals die duringcapture operations orin transit. Althoughthe capture of wildcetaceans from USwaters is currentlyprohibited (exceptunder special permit),wild cetaceanscontinue to becaptured by andtraded between manyother countries andmay ultimately beimported into the US.Records show thatSea World displaysdolphins capturedfrom the wild as wellas those born incaptivity.

Because of the sheer size of dolphins competingfor fish in a Petting Pool, their abrupt movements ina confined area may put visitors at risk of harm.Photo: WDCS

4

Sunglasses are common troubleitems at Petting Pools.Photo: WDCS

Paper fish containersare among thecommon items foundin the mouths ofPetting Pool dolphins.Photo: WDCS

San Diego Petting Pool in September 2001acknowledged to a WDCS observer thatvisitors regularly drop personal items, suchas keys and sunglasses, into the pool, whichmust be retrieved to avoid harm to thedolphins. Pool-bottom inspections duringopening hours were not observed byinvestigators before 2001, and may havebeen initiated in response to our 1999 reportto APHIS, which included a report of a calfat Sea World San Diego picking up a coinfrom the bottom of the pool. Althoughthese inspections are a welcomedevelopment, we remain concerned thatthey do not address the problem of visitorsfeeding foreign objects directly to thedolphins.

Harassment bygullsThe Petting Poolat Sea World SanDiego attracts alarge number ofgulls and otherbirds that arepresent all day onthe perimeter wallof the Petting Pooland aggressivelysnatch fish fromvisitors’ hands anddolphins’ mouthsduring feedingsessions. Thepresence of thebirds and theirdroppings is notonly unhygienicand potentiallydangerous (theirbeaks can breakhuman skin andmay be the causeof some injuriesobserved to thedolphins), but theyalso appear toirritate thedolphins who aresometimesobserved to chasethem off - only forthe birds toresume theiroffensive a fewseconds later.

LEFT AND ABOVE: Evidence ofinjuries, both new and old, canbe found in Petting Pooldolphins. Photo: WDCS

Several Petting Pool dolphins are obese, despite a legal obligation to adjust captive dolphins’ food intake toensure a “normal state of good health”. Photo: WDCS

5

During our periodic visits to Sea World, wehave observed a wide variety of items actuallyentering the mouths of Petting Pool dolphins,including several pairs of glasses, paper fishcontainers, a stone, a baby’s pacifier, coins,a metal park souvenir, a bottletop and a hairbarrette. Each of these has the potential tocause gastrointestinal blockage, poisoningor even death.

The risks of behavioral conditioningAs Sea World explains on its website, itstrainers use food as a ‘primary reinforcer’to let an animal know when it has performeda desired behavior. In the case of unwantedbehavior, the trainer remains motionless andsilent for three seconds. But as the siteacknowledges, “Because we really don’t

always know what is reinforcing to marinemammals, any reaction has the potentialto be reinforcing”7.

Dolphin experts have noted that “a wholerange of inappropriate behaviors can beinadvertently conditioned by people whofeed marine mammals in the wild, rangingfrom increased aggressive competitionbetween animals, to ‘pushy,’ aggressive orthreatening behaviors directed at humans”8.

Our research indicates that this sameconditioning may be occurring in PettingPool dolphins and that visitors mayinadvertently be training dolphins toperform dangerous behaviors. It is clearfrom our observations of Petting Pools thatthe ‘pushiest’ dolphins, and those mostwilling to tolerate physical contact, get themost attention - and thus the most fish -from the public.

Petting Pools: Athreat to the welfareof Petting PoolvisitorsExposure to physical injuryIt is vital that public display facilities fullyreport data about injuries incurred by visitorsin order that the public can make informedchoices about whether to participate indolphin interaction programs such as PettingPools. Full reporting of, and access to, suchinformation is also necessary for the travelindustry to decide whether and how tomarket such programs and for insurers,both of tourists and the facilities themselves,to assess the physical and legal risks towhich their respective clients are exposed,in order to determine insurance coverageand premiums.

However, since the suspension of the SWTDRegulations in 1999, there has been nolegal requirement for public display facilitiesin the US to report injuries incurred byvisitors in human-dolphin interactionprograms to the authorities, nor for thefacilities to provide contact details to enablevisitors to report complaints or injuriesthemselves. Nevertheless, media reportsand historic government records reveal arange of serious injuries caused to visitorsby captive dolphins in interactive programs,

including cuts, bruises, broken bones, bitesand rakes.

Because of the sheer size of dolphins andtheir concentration in Petting Pools, abruptmovements and occasionally aggressivecompetition for food can put visitors at riskof physical harm. During visits to SeaWorld’s Petting Pools since 1996, we haveboth directly observed, and been told of,several incidents, including bites, headbutts and trapped hands. The risk of visitorinjury is recognized in SWTD and otherinteractive programs, including a studyconducted in 1994 on SWTD programswhich details aggression and other high-risk behavior by dolphins directed at thevisitors in the water with them9.

Sea World is clearly aware of the risk ofinjury to its Petting Pool visitors and itsconcerns are reflected in the warningsgiven by staff over the PA system to keephands out of dolphins’ mouths and awayfrom their sharp teeth. At Sea WorldCleveland, visitors were warned not totouch the entire head area of the dolphin.

However, these safety warnings - and thereasons for them - are not adequatelyreinforced on admission tickets and signsand do not appear to be heeded by visitors,some of whom have been observed takingrisks in order to achieve the closest orlongest possible interaction with thedolphins. For example, visitors have beenobserved holding young children, and evenbabies, out over the pool to better enablethem to touch the dolphins. In at least onecase we observed, this resulted in a childbeing hit full in the face by a dolphininteracting roughly with another.

We are concerned that the selective attentionof the public on the most assertive/leastshy dolphins not only results in someanimals becoming grossly obese, but mayactually reinforce and perpetuate dangerousattention-seeking behavior in dolphins,such as lunging out of the water andsnatching fish.

Staff oversightApparently recognizing the need forcomprehensive oversight by staff of physicalinteractions between dolphins and visitorsto ensure the safety of both, the formerSWTD regulations established a minimumratio of one qualified attendant to threevisitors in SWTD programs. WDCS and TheHSUS are concerned that many more

Contaminated fishIn addition to concernsrelating to the quantityof fish that is fed toeach Petting Pooldolphin, the quality offish is also at issue. Withhundreds of peoplebuying fish to feed thedolphins each day, it isimpossible to controlhow, and for how long,fish is handled beforeit is offered to thedolphins. Exposure toair, sunlight and visitors’hands will exacerbatebacterial growth in rawfish and, althoughhand-washing facilitiesare provided, PettingPool staff do notrequire visitors to washtheir hands prior tohandling fish andfeeding the dolphins.

Staff warn visitors notto feed damaged orbroken fish to dolphins,noting that bones cancut dolphins’ stomachsor throats. Despitethese warnings,however, investigatorsobserved damaged fishbeing sold at the fishbooths and somevisitors still break upfish to provide moreopportunities to feedPetting Pool dolphins.

Furthermore, despitestaff requests to returndropped fish to thebooth, some visitorshave been observedfeeding the dolphinswith fish that have beendropped and steppedon.

6

members of the public can participate ina Petting Pool feeding session than a SWTDsession and, although visitors are not inthe water with the dolphins in Petting Pools,they may have at least as much hands-oncontact with the animals. We thereforebelieve that the ratio of staff to visitors atPetting Pools needs to be at least equivalentto the former SWTD requirements - toensure control over the nature and extentof interactions between visitors and thedolphins and the safety of both parties.

Over the last five years, however, we haveobserved only one or two uniformed animalcare staff in attendance during feedingsessions, in addition to ‘Education’ staffwho conduct narrations, including publicsafety warnings, throughout the day.Although training staff regularly askedindividuals not to sit, stand or climb on theperimeter wall, they did not, within sightof investigators appear to observe orintervene to prevent the following,potentially dangerous, visitor behavior:

• Thrusting a battery-operated fan withblades at dolphin’s head;

• Touching within inches of a dolphin’seye or blowhole with pointed fishcontainers, park maps and other objects;

• Touching dolphins’ blowholes and eyes;• Offering fish containers, sunglasses,

wristwatches, cigarettes, and other foreignobjects to dolphins;

• Spitting into the dolphin pool;• Suspending a baby out over the water

and holding a child by its ankles;• Feeding broken fish and fish that had

been dropped and stepped on;• Teasing dolphins by deliberately pulling

a fish away or holding it out of reach toencourage the dolphin to rise out of thewater.

The potential for disease transmissionThe National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)has acknowledged that the potential existsfor transmission of diseases between wildmarine mammals and humans10. Since marinemammals are known to carry pathogens thatcan infect humans, the Service, in conjunctionwith the US Marine Mammal Commission, iscurrently conducting a survey of marinemammal handlers and professionalsinvestigating zoonotic disease occurrences11.

As NMFS has noted, not only do bites frommarine mammals carry a danger of infection,but there are a number of disease agentsthat are common to both humans and marinemammals and can be transmitted betweenthem. For example, a variety of opportunisticbacteria found on the skin of dolphins maypose a threat to human health, and severalfungal and viral agents which can affectmarine mammals have been or can betransmitted to humans.

WDCS and The HSUS are concerned thatthe potential for transfer of viral, bacterialand fungal infections between dolphins andhumans may be greatly enhanced by thedirect physical contact taking place at PettingPools. Although Petting Pool dolphins maybe regularly screened for disease, there isno legal requirement to do this and, in anyevent, it is impossible to determine whatillnesses visitors may carry and transmit tothe dolphins.

Furthermore, although Petting Pools providehand-washing facilities, visitors are notrequired to use them and investigatorsobserved very few visitors washing theirhands after physical contact with the dolphins.Several people even continued to eat snackswhile they handled both raw fish and thedolphins.

LEFT: Visitors have beenobserved feeding thedolphins with fish that havebeen dropped and steppedon. Photo: WDCS

7

The laceration to thelower tip of thisdolphin’s jaw isexposed to a visitor’stouch. Photo WDCS

Injuries anddisabilitiesIn addition toobserving ‘rakes’(scratches causedby teeth) onPetting Pooldolphins, we havealso recordedseveral freshwounds to theface, jaws anddorsal fins ofseveral dolphins,including thesevered tip of alower beak,lacerations andgouging to beaksand a fresh cut tothe head. We areconcerned that, insuch a competitiveand crowdedenvironment as aPetting Pool, theseinjuries may be theresult of ‘bullying’type behavior bydominantdolphins.

The US government haslaunched a public campaign todeter feeding, touching andswimming with dolphins in thewild. Photo: NOAA/NMFS/OPR

VandalismMany of the humanactivities that pose arisk to Petting Pooldolphins have alsobeen documented byNMFS in the wild,including enticementof dolphins withalcohol and humanfood. NMFS has evenreported the use ofbaited lines. Sadly,the government’sMarine MammalStranding Recordscontain numerousaccounts of wilddolphin deathscaused by ingestionof inappropriatematerials. Oneperson was observedtrying to feed afirecracker to a wilddolphin.

What do visitors learnat Petting Pools?

8

Any US facility applying to the governmentfor a permit to capture or import a marinemammal for public display mustdemonstrate that the facility offers “aprogram for education or conservationpurposes that is based on professionallyrecognized standards of the public displaycommunity”12.

However, the requirement is easily satisfiedbecause education programs have onlyto meet standards that are recognized asbenchmarks by the captivity industry.These standards are not set or monitoredby an independent public institution orregulatory agency and, not surprisingly,NMFS has never denied a public displaypermit on the grounds of insufficienteducational value13.

Sea World claims to be “striving to providean enthusiastic, imaginative, andintellectually stimulating atmosphere tohelp students and guests develop a lifelongappreciation, understanding, andstewardship for our environment” and “toinstill a respect for all living creatures”14.Although information about dolphinbiology, behavior and, to a lesser extent,conservation, is provided through displayboards and narration by Education staff,the context in which the information isdelivered at a Petting Pool seriouslydiminishes its value and impact.

Hand-feeding dead fish to obese dolphinsin a cramped, overcrowded and featurelesstank of chemically-treated water providesvisitors with scant insight into normaldolphin behavior in the naturalenvironment. By reducing dolphins, andindeed other species, to a theme-parkattraction, Petting Pools may beperpetuating a dangerous indifferencetowards their welfare and that of theirwild counterparts.

Wild dolphins at riskWDCS and The HSUS are concerned that,by promoting and reinforcing theacceptability of feeding and touchingdolphins, captive feeding programs willencourage the public to repeat theirexperiences with wild cetaceans.

Not only is petting and feeding wilddolphins potentially dangerous, but in the

US it constitutes the offense of harassmentunder the Marine Mammal Protection Act.However, despite heavy fines, such activitieshave increased at an alarming rate, notablyin Florida, Texas and South Carolina.

In addition to the risk of poisoning or otherfood-related hazards, wild dolphins thatapproach, or rely upon humans for foodare at risk of collision with boats and theirpropellers, entanglement in nets, or attackby sharks.

Furthermore, wild dolphins conditioned toseek food from humans can become lesswilling to hunt for themselves and may notteach their young vital hunting skills. Theyare also in danger of becoming targets ofirritated fishermen or boaters who perceivetheir begging as a nuisance. Dolphins haveeven been shot by fishermen. Wild feedingmay also attract non-local dolphins to anarea, placing stress on the ecosystem, whichmay not have the capacity to sustain theincreased population.

Humans trying to interact with wild cetaceansalso put themselves at risk of physical injury,and NMFS warns that swimmers and otherwater users may be at increased risk ofaggression from dolphins looking for ahandout. In two separate recent incidentsin Florida, members of the public werebadly bitten by wild dolphins. One needed20 stitches to her leg, and the other neededemergency room treatment for a deep woundin her hand.

Human interactions with wild dolphins arebecoming so prevalent, and theconsequences so serious, that the USgovernment has recently launched a publiccampaign to deter feeding, touching andswimming with dolphins in the wild (the‘Protect Dolphins’ Program). The publicdisplay industry is uniquely positioned toeducate the public about the negative impactsof interacting with wild dolphins. Yet, duringour investigations, we rarely heard statementsfrom Sea World employees that wild feedingis illegal and we understand that attemptsby NMFS to encourage Sea World to provideinformation and literature at Petting Poolson the problems of feeding dolphins in thewild have proven unsuccessful15.

Recent visits to Sea World in the past fewmonths indicate that messages regardingthe illegality of feeding dolphins in the wildare communicated through the narrationthat occurs before feeding activitiescommence, but on an inconsistent and

This wild dolphin, which wasroutinely fed by people, hasinjuries around its eye and throat.Photo: Thomas Murphy

limited basis. Such narration does little toeducate visitors of the personal risksinvolved, and the harmful effects suchactivities have on wild dolphin populations.

Why other parks do not havepetting/feeding programsA detailed survey of public display facilities,conducted in 1989, provides interestinginsights into why many parks do not havea public ‘feeder pool’ or, if they did, whythey closed it16. The responses of severalindustry representatives to the surveyvindicate our conclusions that Petting Poolsare impossible to regulate and poseunacceptable risks. The survey elicitedthe following statements:

• “We abandoned the practice because ofoverfeeding, difficulties regulatingamounts fed, and potential injury to thepublic”.

• “I suspect that the reason for a feederpool is financial and not educational”.

• “We endeavor to de-emphasize messagesof exotic animals [sic] similarity with petsand feel that this sort of message maybe derived through public feedings”.

• “My objections are hygiene (the state ofthe public’s hands), the possibility offoreign bodies being placed in the fish…and the staffing commitment that wouldbe necessary to police such a facility”.

• “We do not feel that feeder pools arebeneficial. It encourages the public tofeed other animals items that are not ontheir diet and could be harmful. Therisk of lawsuits from being bitten ishigh…”

A representative of Gulf World Marine Parkin Florida reported that: “anticipatedproblems [with dolphin-public interactivedisplays] included control of guests, foreignbody ingestion, training difficultiesstemming from inadvertent reinforcementof undesirable behavior by the public andthe potential for injury to guests bysometimes too-rough dolphin play”.

ConclusionsAs we have illustrated, the US government’s history of failure toregulate Petting Pools, including exempting them from regulationsgoverning other human-dolphin interaction programs, isunacceptable. The government’s rationale for not requiringconsistency of crucial welfare provisions across the range ofinteraction programs has never been adequately justified and wecan only assume that it represents a response to pressure fromthe captivity industry.

As this report demonstrates, physical interaction between humansand dolphins may pose serious risks to the health and welfare ofboth parties. Our collective concerns apply to all human-dolphininteraction programs, but Petting Pools represent an extreme case.Our focus on Sea World’s Petting Pools in this report is intendedto be illustrative of the problems present in the currently unregulatedregime of public petting and feeding programs, in addition to thephysical and psychological stress associated with captivity:

• Potentially unlimited numbers of inexperienced members of thepublic are permitted to engage in poorly regulated physicalinteraction with large, powerful animals in a crowdedenvironment;

• Dolphins are enticed with food, exacerbating aggressivecompetition between individuals and inciting attacks by birds;

• Dolphins are accessible to the public without respite for up to12 hours each day, often without adequate access to a physicalrefuge;

• The daily participation of hundreds of visitors makes it impossibleto ensure that individual dolphins are receiving an appropriateamount and type of food, and are not fed dangerous foreignobjects or contaminated food;

• Abrupt movements by, and aggressive competition betweendolphins can result in physical injury to visitors, including bites,head butts and trapped hands;

• The selective attention of the public on the ‘pushiest’ dolphinsresults in obesity and may reinforce and perpetuate dangerousattention-seeking behavior;

• Physical contact between visitors and dolphins provides anopportunity for the bi-directional transmission of diseases;

• A misconception promoted and reinforced by public feedingof captive dolphins that it is appropriate to feed and touchdolphins may lead to harassment of wild dolphins.

In the clear absence of a willingness to regulate Petting Pools, atleast consistently with other human-dolphin interaction programs,our findings leave the US government and the public displayindustry with no other option but to close all Petting Poolsimmediately.

Busch Entertainment Corporation Sea WorldMr. August Busch IIICEO, Anheuser-Busch Companies Vice President, Zoological OperationsOne Busch Place 7007 Sea World DriveSt. Louis, Missouri 63118 Orlando, FL 32821-8097Fax: (314) 577-2900 Fax: (407) 345-5397E-mail: dialbud@anheuser-busch.com Email: shamu@seaworld.org

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)Ms. Barbara Heffernan US Department of AgricultureDirector, National Affairs Chester A. GipsonRepublic Place Deputy Administrator1776 I Street, NW, Suite 200 4700 River Road Unit 84Washington, D.C. 20006 Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1234

Fax: (301) 734-4993Fax: (202) 223-9594

Based on the risks to human and dolphinhealth and welfare posed by their physicalinteraction in Petting Pools, WDCS and TheHSUS make the following recommendations:

To the public display industry:• Sea World and other public display facilities

to immediately close their Petting Pools;

To the US authorities:• The US regulatory authorities to withdraw

federal and state approval for all dolphinpetting and feeding programs;

To the travel and insurance industries:• Tourism and travel companies not to

promote facilities and holidays that offerpetting and feeding of captive or wilddolphins - and to tell customers why;

• The insurance industry to re-evaluateinsurance coverage for tourists who engagein petting and feeding activities with captiveor wild dolphins, and for facilities whichoffer such activities;

To the public:• The concerned public to contact Sea World

and its owner, Anheuser-Busch CompaniesInc., to call for a closure of its PettingPools;

• The concerned public to write to APHISto urge stricter regulation of public displayfacilities in the US.

Recommendations

1 Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159.

2 Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§1361 et seq.

3 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Part 3,subpart E, Section 3.100 - 3.125. Specificationsfor the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment,and Transportation of Marine Mammals.

4 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Parts 1and 3, subpart E, Section 3.111. Swim-with-the-dolphin programs.

5 9 CFR Part 3, subpart E, section 3.105.

6 9 CFR Part 3, subpart E, section 3.105.

7 http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/training/mmtrain.html

8 Flanagan, P. 1996. Wild and Dangerous: WhyInteracting with Marine Mammals in the WildCan Be Harmful. Soundings 25-32, Volume21, Number 3.

9 Samuels, A. and Spradlin, T. 1994. QuantitativeBehavioral Study of Bottlenose Dolphins inSwim-with-the-dolphins Programs in the UnitedStates. Final report to the National MarineFisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources,56 pages.

10 Wilkinson, D. 1991. Report to AssistantAdministrator For Fisheries: Program Reviewof the Marine Mammal Stranding Networks.National Marine Fisheries Service, Office ofProtected Resources. p. 45-50.

11 http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/whc/mmsurvey.htm

12 As provided in the Marine Mammal ProtectionAct of 1972, Permits, 16 U.S.C. 1374, Section104(c): Importation for Display and Research.

13 Personal communication, Office of ProtectedResources, NMFS. April 2001.

14 http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/training/home.html

15 Personal communication, Office of ProtectedResources, NMFS, March 2001.

16 Boling, C. 1991. To Feed or Not to Feed:The Results of a Survey. Proceedings of 19thAnnual Conference of the International MarineAnimal Trainers Association, November 4-8,1991.

Mr. Brad Andrews