Cetaceans in Captivity

[Sintact]

A month ago a Spain representative from a dolphin aquarium went to my university to speak at a Wildlife conservancy conference. When he started exposing everyone in the auditorium was perplexed because the expert would only talk about the perfect dolphin aquarium, water quality and needed space for owning a dolphin with “circus” purpose. At the end of the exposition there wasn’t enough time as for asking questions to the expert, but now I have a question for you guys; what do you think about Dolphin aquariums?

I personally think it’s not correct to have any kind of wild animal contained in a reduced space for human entertainment. I would accept the idea if the animal contained was rescued from the wild because it’s family was killed, or the specie was rejected from its family group for example. Besides, I don’t see the educational point in having wild trained animals if the zoo (for example) has no clear educational purposes. At the end I feel like people will want to have their own wild animal at home and that will promote illegal animal traffic.

[paperpaws]

• * Just as a heads-up for everyone, try to avoid this topic from getting either too political or humans-are-evil thread. :)

Anyway...

I've personally always had kind of a two-sided opinion about zoos and aquariums in general. I think that it is a good initiative if the zoos aim to educate about all kinds of animal species and help to raise awareness about the preservation of species. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of exploiting animals for profit. It all depends on the case for me.

This sounds like one of the cases where I don't really approve. Sounds like they want to provide the dolphin with enough resources to properly live, but apart from that merely use it as a source of income and entertainment. I believe dolphins can enjoy training, but this is just one of those cases where I am really sceptical for the wellbeing of the animal.

[Edme1]

The purpose of a zoo is to have animals in pens so people can view them safely, but zoos are also educational. Dolphin aquariums usually lack the learning aspect and are merely to entertain us. It would be better if they taught people things about the dolphins, too, and perhaps took tours of the area they keep them in.

[WolvesOfTheSeas]

I think Dolphin Aquariums are fine because i hardly see dolphins, s oit be nice to see there tricks^^

[wolfbeat]

I'm a very wildlife-friendly person; I like to see animals in their own habitat. Let the dolphins free! If you want to see dolphins, go on a cruise and see a lot of animals on the way.

[SpiralStar9]

Hmm...maybe just "ok". Pretty much, a zoo is for learning and education. Dolphins sure are great attractions! So lets say if you made a zoo. The dolphins would sort of be heart broken, but if you made the walls a reef, and the ground like sand and add aquatic plants, then the dolphins would probably feel at home (and toys also) so, ya

[TheSeaWolf]

Completely in favor, as long as they are well-cared for. AZA-accredited facilities (Indianapolis Zoo, Shedd Aquarium, SeaWorld) unarguably take amazing care of their animals. I have researched and observed captive cetaceans extensively, and they are doing well in good zoos/aquariums. They are educational. Indy Zoo's show is extremely educational, as it talks about the physical adaptations of dolphins, their communication, and the importance of ocean preservation. SeaWorld has a show called Killer Whales Up Close, which is full of education (not to mention Sea Lions Tonight, the turtle/manatee area, educational signs, and more). The AZA actually requires participation in conservation and education, so again there's no question.

Many people feel (and this has been encouraged by the recent spread of propaganda films) that cetaceans do not thrive in captivity. But all of the cited welfare "issues" can be seen in other animals; and let me tell you from experience, zoo animals are definitely thriving. I have seen no difference in welfare between my pets, the animals at my zoo, or the bottlenose dolphins I have come to know at the Indianapolis Zoo. And we definitely need zoos - they provide crucial conservation and education, needed now more than ever as we face the sixth extinction. So yes, I am 100% in favor of the keeping and display of cetaceans - and other animals - in good facilities.

[Sambhur]

((I feel like this should become a 'cetaceans in captivity' discussion thread, since I don't think we have one of those? I'll change it))

Completely in favor, as long as they are well-cared for. AZA-accredited facilities (Indianapolis Zoo, Shedd Aquarium, SeaWorld) unarguably take amazing care of their animals. I have researched and observed captive cetaceans extensively, and they are doing well in good zoos/aquariums. They are educational. Indy Zoo's show is extremely educational, as it talks about the physical adaptations of dolphins, their communication, and the importance of ocean preservation. SeaWorld has a show called Killer Whales Up Close, which is full of education (not to mention Sea Lions Tonight, the turtle/manatee area, educational signs, and more). The AZA actually requires participation in conservation and education, so again there's no question.

Many people feel (and this has been encouraged by the recent spread of propaganda films) that cetaceans do not thrive in captivity. But all of the cited welfare "issues" can be seen in other animals; and let me tell you from experience, zoo animals are definitely thriving. I have seen no difference in welfare between my pets, the animals at my zoo, or the bottlenose dolphins I have come to know at the Indianapolis Zoo. And we definitely need zoos - they provide crucial conservation and education, needed now more than ever as we face the sixth extinction. So yes, I am 100% in favor of the keeping and display of cetaceans - and other animals - in good facilities.

Since you mentioned orcas, and how cetaceans apparently thrive in captivity, I'd like to ask if you've taken a look at many of the links collected in this post ?

I don't see how you can compare your pets, other animals at zoos, and cetaceans in the same sentence. Your pets are probably domesticated, and if they're not, they probably still do not have needs that are hard to meet. I'm not anti-zoo, and I'm aware that animals in good zoos are indeed thriving. However these other animals in zoos like terrestrial mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, etc. all have very different needs to each other, and especially to cetaceans, as you should know. It is possible to meet the needs of these other animals, while providing stimulation on top, but at the moment it is impossible to keep cetaceans in captivity happily - we just don't have the space for that. That 'cetaceans in captivity are like being stuck in a bathtub' thing isn't a lie, there's proof of how much they travel in a day, which is absolutely enormous compared to the size of their tanks: & http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divi ... g/blog.cfm . Even if they can survive (although barely, if you compare the lifespans of captive and wild orcas), it's hardly humane keeping them in a space that will leave them under-stimulated and frustrated day in and day out. For example, you can keep a dog in a kennel with appropriate needs met with the top veterinary care, but you wouldn't consider that humane, or say that the dog is 'thriving'. You also say that the "issues" can be seen in other animals, but a bear pacing in its enclosure (although animals can pace for a variety of reasons that aren't just stress) is not the same as the level of self-mutilation that these cetaceans inflict.

Also by "propaganda films" I'm guessing you mean Blackfish? Have you watched it? I know that it has its faults as it's incredibly one-sided, it's hard to find something perfect, but it still presents a lot of real issues that exist whether you take them with a grain of salt or not. I've heard that there's a better documentary called A Fall From Freedom but I haven't had the time to find it and watch it yet - apparently it actually explains why cetaceans cannot be kept in captivity.

Just because SeaWorld is AZA accredited, it doesn't change the fact that there's evidence of cetaceans being unable to thrive in captivity. You have to admit, though, that SeaWorld does seem very sketchy, and doesn't even bother to hide it. They say that they don't collect cetaceans from the wild any more, and then do this http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Sea- ... 36101.html to try to keep that legal? Why would they need to do that if what they say means that it shouldn't affect them? I hope that you see what I mean. I don't really mean to attack your view here, so I'm sorry if I've accidentally made it seem that way, but I'm wondering if you've really considered the other side to this debate, for the sake of the animals.

[TheSeaWolf]

Since you mentioned orcas, and how cetaceans apparently thrive in captivity, I'd like to ask if you've taken a look at many of the links collected in this post ?

I don't see how you can compare your pets, other animals at zoos, and cetaceans in the same sentence. Your pets are probably domesticated, and if they're not, they probably still do not have needs that are hard to meet. I'm not anti-zoo, and I'm aware that animals in good zoos are indeed thriving. However these other animals in zoos like terrestrial mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, etc. all have very different needs to each other, and especially to cetaceans, as you should know. It is possible to meet the needs of these other animals, while providing stimulation on top, but at the moment it is impossible to keep cetaceans in captivity happily - we just don't have the space for that. That 'cetaceans in captivity are like being stuck in a bathtub' thing isn't a lie, there's proof of how much they travel in a day, which is absolutely enormous compared to the size of their tanks: & http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divi ... g/blog.cfm . Even if they can survive (although barely, if you compare the lifespans of captive and wild orcas), it's hardly humane keeping them in a space that will leave them under-stimulated and frustrated day in and day out. For example, you can keep a dog in a kennel with appropriate needs met with the top veterinary care, but you wouldn't consider that humane, or say that the dog is 'thriving'. You also say that the "issues" can be seen in other animals, but a bear pacing in its enclosure (although animals can pace for a variety of reasons that aren't just stress) is not the same as the level of self-mutilation that these cetaceans inflict.

Also by "propaganda films" I'm guessing you mean Blackfish? Have you watched it? I know that it has its faults as it's incredibly one-sided, it's hard to find something perfect, but it still presents a lot of real issues that exist whether you take them with a grain of salt or not. I've heard that there's a better documentary called A Fall From Freedom but I haven't had the time to find it and watch it yet - apparently it actually explains why cetaceans cannot be kept in captivity.

Just because SeaWorld is AZA accredited, it doesn't change the fact that there's evidence of cetaceans being unable to thrive in captivity. You have to admit, though, that SeaWorld does seem very sketchy, and doesn't even bother to hide it. They say that they don't collect cetaceans from the wild any more, and then do this http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Sea- ... 36101.html to try to keep that legal? Why would they need to do that if what they say means that it shouldn't affect them? I hope that you see what I mean. I don't really mean to attack your view here, so I'm sorry if I've accidentally made it seem that way, but I'm wondering if you've really considered the other side to this debate, for the sake of the animals.

Just want to start off by saying - many people literally want me to die or be seriously injured, so I doubt I will ever feel "attacked" here. I'm used to much worse than anything a forum that has rules can throw at me. You're good.

Since you mentioned orcas, and how cetaceans apparently thrive in captivity, I'd like to ask if you've taken a look at many of the links collected in this post?

Yep, sure have.

I don't see how you can compare your pets, other animals at zoos, and cetaceans in the same sentence.

A. Don't be close-minded, now. Simply asking me why I did so would have sufficed.

I compared the welfare of the animals. I've seen nothing in Indy's dolphins that in any way suggests that they are suffering more than my dog, or the birds at my zoo. I'm definitely against the whole idea of raising cetaceans on a pedestal like so many do. Many other animals in captivity have just as large, if not larger, range in the wild. Some have comparable intelligence to cetaceans. Literally no issue that cetaceans have are not comparable to at least some other animal. You'll be seeing examples as I address everything individually.

All have very different needs to each other, and especially to cetaceans.

Different animals all have the same basic needs, and many different animals share aspects of welfare. Researching animal welfare as a whole and having experience - rather than just focusing on cetaceans - reveals this.

That 'cetaceans in captivity are like being stuck in a bathtub' thing isn't a lie....there's proof of how much they travel in a day, which is absolutely enormous compared to the size of their tanks

Yes it is. Basic math proves that this statement is a lie. Just an example of emotionally charged, false statements coined and propagated by animal rights organizations.

Again, no different from other animals. If you really look at how much whale there is compared to how much tank, it's pretty similar to many zoo exhibits. They usually have access to all or almost all of their pools, which is a lot of space! We have hghly intelligent parrots in similar space dimensions and they're fantastic. And again...polar bears have huge ranges and can travel up to 50 miles a day. Big cats are long-ranging as well, as are exotic canids. Some parrots can travel up to 400 miles in one day. The only reason why wild animals travel extensively is to find food, mates, etc. All of these things are provided in human care.

Even if they can survive (although barely, if you compare the lifespans of captive and wild orcas), it's hardly humane keeping them in a space that will leave them under-stimulated and frustrated day in and day out.

Peer-reviewed research and simple math have proven that SeaWorld's killer whales have the same annual survival rate as wild ones. This is a SeaWorld link, I know, but it explains the issue well: http://seaworldcares.com/killer-whales/lifespan/
Here's the study: http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/conte ... ticle-info
And fun fact, the study is co-authored by a Minnesota Zoo employee. Someone from the zoo who helped bring us our own beloved WolfQuest supports SW...as do all AZA-accredited facilities.
Here's math done by an independent person: http://fav.me/d7vhwm5

Now, for the space thing...it is not the space itself that determines successful enrichment. A tank for a whale, a cage for a bird, an aquarium for fish, an enclosure for a tiger, a stall for a horse, a house for a cat...all of these spaces are, in and of themselves, sterile and boring. It depends on the environmental enrichment devices - or EEDs - and how you design the space, plus the rest of your enrichment program. SeaWorld's animals get daily EEDs as well as training, shows, husbandry sessions, and relationship-building interaction sessions with trainers. Not much different from how say a pet parrot would live. Sure a cage is small and boring, but the bird will be provided with toys; bells, chewing toys, puzzle feeders, even TV or radio while the owner is away. When the owner gets home they will spend lots of time with the bird, including training and practicing tricks. (Seeing as parrots and cetaceans are both highly intelligent, social wild animals, their enrichment is indeed quite comparable - don't think that cetaceans are so special that this comparison is inappropriate) This is pretty much the same for cetaceans. They're often interacting with either EEDs or trainers, and if not they do have other whales to interact with,

You also say that the "issues" can be seen in other animals, but a bear pacing in its enclosure is not the same as the level of self-mutilation that these cetaceans inflict.

I mean the excuses that people use to try and prove that cetaceans "can't" thrive in human care. Small space in captivity vs. wild? See the animals I listed earlier. Too intelligent? Great apes, elephants, some parrots and corvids have been proven to have comparable cognitive capabilities. Unnatural social structure/unnatural anything? See literally ever captive animal.

Self-mutilation? Like? The only things that I can imagine counting as this are worn teeth (quite natural, happens due to the food they eat, sometimes chewing on walls and gates, exploring and using enrichment devices, and jaw-popping) and hitting heads on walls (has only happened to a few animals when they have had serious health issues - seizures and prior to complicated births). And these things don't even happen to other cetaceans, just orcas.

Also by "propaganda films" I'm guessing you mean Blackfish? Have you watched it?

Yep. XD
Yes, I've watched it around five times now, actually. I've seen A Fall From Freedom, too. Plus read Death at SeaWorld. Plus watched lots of interviews with anti-cap ex-trainers, scientists, and more. Plus read a lot of papers and Internet stuff that is against captivity.

I know that it has its faults.

By faults do you mean blatantly lying about SeaWorld, wild orcas, animal behavior, the history of human attacks and fatalities, including tons of misleading statements, footage, and arguments? Which has all lead to creating hordes of people bullying people more informed than they are? Yes, it has faults. I have nothing against the anti-captivity stance, but Blackfish is simply unacceptable.

A Fall from Freedom isn't bad. It mostly talks about captures. I dislike it because it lies about Indianapolis Zoo's involvement in Taiji (says they got dolphins from there - too bad they've always had ATLANTIC bottlenose dolphins, not Pacific) and Tilikum. The way they represent him shows a BLATANT misunderstanding of ethology and him as an individual. It's disgraceful.

Just because SeaWorld is AZA accredited, it doesn't change the fact that there's evidence of cetaceans being unable to thrive in captivity

It does, actually.
The AZA requires for the animals to have their physical, mental, and social needs to be fully met. If the experts at the AZA - who know more about animal welfare than you, I, or any AR organization/scientist ever will. And they say that these animals have needs that are met, that they are thriving, and that keeping them is contributing to education and conservation (which is also required).

Furthermore, it is possible perhaps that the AZA would accredit a facility and then come to realize that a certain animal is not thriving or needs improvements in welfare. If this was true, they would require some sort of change. Example time!
I went to the Louisville Zoo in August on a field trip that my own zoo had. We got a behind-the-scenes tour, as well as a guide who told us insider information on everything in the zoo. One thing he told us was that the AZA decided a while back that no more woolly monkeys are to be bred in captivity. The reason is that they have a dangerously high blood pressure in captivity, and they just simply aren’t thriving. The hypothesis is that they can’t get the right diet in captivity, which has led to these problems. So they’re being phased out. Another example is elephants – and I’ve known this for a while, but it was mentioned again at Louisville. The AZA decided that elephants needed better welfare rules, so zoos with small elephant enclosures had two choices – build bigger enclosures, or give up your elephants. Some zoos decided that they don’t have the room or resources to care for elephants as well as they ought, so they sent them to sanctuaries. Other zoos decided to expand their enclosures and keep their elephants.

So, if cetaceans really were not thriving, one of two things would happen. The AZA would simply say “no more,” like they did with the monkeys. Or they would demand improvements to fix whatever welfare issues were being left unaddressed, like they did with elephants. Instead they have left the cetaceans alone. In fact, just this year, SeaWorld Orlando’s accreditation was re-issued. And it’s not like they have never been involved in important cetacean welfare! They banned the importation of wild-caught cetaceans from drive hunts years ago (although American aquariums never participated in that too much to begin with). Shouka, a female orca, was being kept alone at Six Flags: Discovery Kingdom. The AZA demanded that she be moved to another facility, because her social needs weren’t being met there. She was moved to SeaWorld San Diego and has integrated with their pod extremely well.

They say that they don't collect cetaceans from the wild any more, and then do this http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Sea- ... 36101.html to try to keep that legal?

Let's actually read the entire thing, that can be quite helpful to do. It says that violators include "anyone who imports wild-caught or captive-bred cetaceans into the State." So it's hardly just an "orca capturing bill." It's an attack on the entire industry, so it makes sense that SeaWorld isn't happy with it. That's the top of a slippery slope that slides on down to having the same laws pop up and potentially pass in California, Texas, and Florida - or any State with zoos and aquariums who REALLY don't want this to pass. So of course they fought that bill. It has nothing to do with capturing whales. In their permit for the Blue World Project, they promised that they will never import cetaceans caught after February 2014, or even use genetic material (so no, SeaWorld will NOT get sperm from wild-caught cetaceans, which is something that anti-caps expected would happen).

I don't really mean to attack your view here, so I'm sorry if I've accidentally made it seem that way, but I'm wondering if you've really considered the other side to this debate, for the sake of the animals.

As I said in the beginning, I have endured much worse. You're good. :)
I'm an ENTP anyways, debates are my bread and butter. Remember when we talked about enrichment? This is my enrichment! Talking about animals and science, and debating on it, is how I keep my mind stimulated. I would honestly be unhappy if I didn't have the opportunity to talk about things like this.

But anyways, yes, I have. Quite a lot. Have you?

[Sambhur]

I find it hard to believe that you have looked at all the sources on the anti-cap side and still believe that these animals are thriving. Are the videos of their unusual behaviour not enough? I've got some more links for you here: (you have to scroll down a bit first past the blogs) http://freedomforwhales.tumblr.com/links . Also I read that article you linked, and don't you think that SeaWorld should have much better survival rates than wild populations, rather than similar ones? You'd think that animals in captivity live in a more controlled environment in which they aren't subjected to the harshness of living in the wild. Also, a number of SeaWorld orca deaths seem to have been preventable, as inbreeding could've been avoided, orcas could have been better mothers if they'd had the chance to live in their family groups, and deaths from mosquito bites haven't been seen in wild orcas. Regarding the tooth wear, it is only natural in the 'offshore' group of orcas, because of their diet which consists of sharks. The table in this paper: http://www.int-res.com/articles/ab2010/11/b011p213.pdf once you scroll down a bit, shows that tooth wear that is anywhere near comparable to that of the captive orcas (who require drilling and constant dental care) only happens to these orcas, and none of the other types. So unless SeaWorld has been feeding their orcas a large amount of sharks this whole time, this tooth wear shouldn't be seen. And yes, it does come from chewing on walls and gates, an unhealthy/unnatural behaviour present as a result of a lack of stimulation. But this isn't a natural wearing-down of teeth over the years as can be seen in the wild orcas, instead, captive orcas fracture their teeth on these steel bars, and then grind them against the concrete. That's hardly natural. I would have liked to match your post in terms of size, but I honestly don't have the time for that right now, I have to get back to studying. ):

[TheSeaWolf]

I find it hard to believe that you have looked at all the sources on the anti-cap side and still believe that these animals are thriving. Are the videos of their unusual behaviour not enough? I've got some more links for you here: (you have to scroll down a bit first past the blogs) http://freedomforwhales.tumblr.com/links . Also I read that article you linked, and don't you think that SeaWorld should have much better survival rates than wild populations, rather than similar ones? You'd think that animals in captivity live in a more controlled environment in which they aren't subjected to the harshness of living in the wild. Also, a number of SeaWorld orca deaths seem to have been preventable, as inbreeding could've been avoided, orcas could have been better mothers if they'd had the chance to live in their family groups, and deaths from mosquito bites haven't been seen in wild orcas. Regarding the tooth wear, it is only natural in the 'offshore' group of orcas, because of their diet which consists of sharks. The table in this paper: http://www.int-res.com/articles/ab2010/11/b011p213.pdf once you scroll down a bit, shows that tooth wear that is anywhere near comparable to that of the captive orcas (who require drilling and constant dental care) only happens to these orcas, and none of the other types. So unless SeaWorld has been feeding their orcas a large amount of sharks this whole time, this tooth wear shouldn't be seen. And yes, it does come from chewing on walls and gates, an unhealthy/unnatural behaviour present as a result of a lack of stimulation. But this isn't a natural wearing-down of teeth over the years as can be seen in the wild orcas, instead, captive orcas fracture their teeth on these steel bars, and then grind them against the concrete. That's hardly natural. I would have liked to match your post in terms of size, but I honestly don't have the time for that right now, I have to get back to studying. ):

I find it hard to believe that you have looked at all the sources on the anti-cap side and still believe that these animals are thriving.

What you do or do not believe has no relevance to me. I know how much research I've done. Another close-minded anti is really no surprise to me. My experience with exotics, including the time spent observing cetaceans, speaks for itself. Nothing from anti-caps has ever disproved that, or my research into the topic. In all honesty I'm fairly confident that I've read and seen just as much anti-SW content as you have, if not more.

Are the videos of their unusual behaviour not enough? I've got some more links for you here...

No. I have seen much more stereotypical behavior in horses than in cetaceans, actually. The testimony of the AZA, the AMMPA, my own observations, and viewing all of the videos on channels like EchoBeluga https://www.youtube.com/user/Echobeluga?spfreload=10 that shows a variety of what they do (not just antis misleadingly using brief videos of stereotypes to prove a point) is enough for me. Not to mention what veterinarians and trainers have to say, plus people like this: http://t.co/rZLzCUvZvq. Also, when SeaWorld builds Blue World Project, it will be more stimulating and will decrease undesired behavior.

And yes, I have seen almost every single one of those links and looked at them before.

Don't you think that SeaWorld should have much better survival rates than wild populations, rather than similar ones?

This is actually a great question. Yes, and I'm sure they will when this generation of whales have died. Husbandry has improved rapidly over the past 50 years, but unfortunately this means that in the past it was drastically worse than it is now. As the research paper shows, ASR has also increased over the years. And currently we have reached wild ASR, but these numbers are still a bit outdated. The last killer whale to die at SeaWorld was Kalina in 2010, so for five years whales have been getting older and not dying. As they get older and older, the ASR goes up. The ASR they produced isn't necessarily definite because the animals now haven't died yet, and are still ageing, and the ASR is increasing with every passing day. So I believe, without a doubt, that ASR will in fact start outperforming wild ASR quite soon.

And since we've been kind of mentioning cetaceans other than orcas, studies have also found that captive bottlenose dolphins WAY outlive their wild counterparts. "A study comparing the survival of dolphins in captivity from 1940 through 1992 showed no significant difference in annual survival rates (ASR) between the "captive population" and the Sarasota Bay wild population. The ASR for the captive population was 0.944 (life expectancy: 17.4 years). In captivity dolphins have also reached ages over 40 years and one is even over 50 years old." Even that long ago, captive bottlenose had the same ASR as wild, and had individuals far outliving the wild average age (which is about 20 years old). In fact, many dolphins in the Indianapolis Zoo pod are approaching 40 years old, which is again way past the average for wild dolphins. Actually I do believe we can see a trend here. Once upon a time, captive bottlenose dolphins had awful husbandry and died younger than in the wild. Then their ASR rose to be equal to wild populations. And now there are a lot of individuals living past what wild dolphins live (there are actually bottlenose who died in human care at ages 60-61!). Orcas seem to be following the exact same pattern, only you and I haven't seen the last bit yet because orca captivity is much younger. But already, captive orcas like Corky, Ulises, and Tilikum have out-lived the average for wild whales (31 for males, 46 for females http://www.freemorgan.org/wp-content/up ... rca_bc.pdf). Now we have equal ASR, it can only possibly improve from here.

Also, a number of SeaWorld orca deaths seem to have been preventable, as inbreeding could've been avoided, orcas could have been better mothers if they'd had the chance to live in their family groups, and deaths from mosquito bites haven't been seen in wild orcas.

Inbreeding could be avoided by separating mother-calf pairs...which is what antis dislike. You have to choose one or the other, it doesn't work both ways. And actually, only Nalani is severely inbred. Other inbreedings (like Adan) are less severe and perfectly common in managing zoological populations (or even pets). Even Nalani's severity isn't awful as long as it isn't done consistently and severely over several generations. Even my zoo has an inbred wallaby who produces perfectly healthy babies every year. Many dogs, cats, snakes, etc. are inbred to perfect or maintain breed standards/morphs. Breeds and morphs are basically created through inbreeding. The only time inbreeding is a problem is when consistently severe over many generations, such as when inbreeding to produce white lions and tigers (which the AZA has banned).

There have only ever been very few "bad mothers," and at every SeaWorld park there are always more experienced females there to help. It doesn't have to be a mother or sister. SeaWorld's orcas have consistently shown how adaptable their social structure is, with unrelated whales still integrating well in a pod and essentially becoming "friends" for lack of a better word. Unrelated females still have strong social bonds and help out with calves. I've heard that Shouka gets along swimmingly with Kasatka and her family, despite not being related, and was one of the first whales introduced to Kalia's calf Amaya because she's so close to the family

Plus it depends on the individual as much as the situation. Katina gave birth to Kalina at age 8 (too young, yes, but this was waaay back in 1978) at was an excellent mother despite having no adult female to help, and never observing a calf being raised. Whereas Taima, despite living with experienced mothers who could have helped her, always rejected her calves. But Taima is dead now, the only real bad mother left is Skyla in Loro Parque who has no one to help her. And yes I strongly disagree with the whole LP situation. LP is a good facility, voted one of the best zoos in the world, but SW sent young orcas there without a matriarch so that social structure is a wreck. But, I digress...

Yes, mosquitoes don't affect wild whales. But boat propellers, starvation, stranding, and pollution are all things that kill wild whales/calves that don't affect SeaWorld's animals, so your logic can go both ways.

Regarding the tooth wear, it is only natural in the 'offshore' group of orcas, because of their diet which consists of sharks.

Wrong. It occurs in Type 1 North Atlantic killer whales, which is the population that 80% of SeaWorld's population is descended from.
"We found that one form, which we call 'type 1' had severely worn teeth in all adult specimens," explains Dr Foote. http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_ne ... 440002.stm At least not ALL SeaWorld whales have tooth issues. Most of the ones with problems have only a few teeth that are worn, chipped, and drilled. As you can see here, very few have severe tooth wear in every tooth: http://postimg.org/image/k0gm8aqg3/full/

And yes, it does come from chewing on walls and gates, an unhealthy/unnatural behaviour present as a result of a lack of stimulation.

So you've gone to SeaWorld and watched them chew on concrete? I haven't, nor have I ever seen a single video of it - much less a recent video. But I have seen them chewing on a lot of hard plastic EEDs. Actually, if you see here, there are some huge plastic balls and disks that have very clear tooth marks all over them. https://youtu.be/rjJv39wz47M SeaWorld veterinarians have said that manipulating and exploring EEDs is a big contribution to tooth wear. That could also explain why some whales have a lot of tooth wear, and others don't - one whale may like the harder toys, while another prefers kelp, ice, and fire hoses. I can imagine the skepticism - "the vets are lying to protect their job!" Yes, because the ones who actually work with and observe the animals on a daily basis couldn't possible know more about their behavior than people with an animal rights agenda. If someone can provide me with a pile of videos showing the animals chewing on concrete, I'll give that argument more thought.

I would have liked to match your post in terms of size, but I honestly don't have the time for that right now, I have to get back to studying. ):

Studying sucks. Good luck with whatever you're studying for!