The Frontal Cortex

I'll have to agree with Scott, above: if whale sharks are "gentle" then white sharks must be "vicious killers", Orcas must be "Hunters of the Sea" and so on?

Trying to keep the species in captivity before knowing what environmental, dietary and other aspects are crucial sure is a bit stupid, sure, but that does not plant a glory-circle on the head of the animal in question.

Posted by: Janne | March 29, 2007 1:19 PM

Who cares whether a whale shark is gentle? The point is that aquariums shouldn't try to keep them until and unless they know how to keep them alive.

Posted by: Mark | March 29, 2007 4:41 PM

Damn... tinisoli beat me to the point; while the aquarium shouldn't have been experimenting on the sharks to see if they could keep them (and breed them, as they were intending to do somehow), the sharks would have likely ended up as food if they were not purchased from the Taiwan (they're called "tofu shark" there, if it gives you any hint). When the issue originally came up, I remember expressing my outrage to a friend of mine and his response was "Well, how are we ever going to learn to keep them if we don't try?" Such seems to be the sentiment of many in the aquarium business (and it is increasingly a business). It's hard enough keeping terrestrial animals in an environment where they're comfortable and reasonably content in order to breed them and implement conservation plans; imagine how difficult it is to ethically care for a large pelagic species that lives in an entirely different medium. I volunteered at an aquarium briefly until I discovered they were continually displaying animals that were dying of stress, the mentality being "Well, we'll just get a new one" than deciding not to display the species anymore.

The whale shark story also reminds me of the constant attempts to keep a great white in captivity; they always have to be returned to the ocean because they stop eating or keep ramming the walls. If anything was being learned from these experiences, if papers were being produced and published, I could at least understand the case for keeping such animals in captivity, but no such efforts seem to be made, the big fish just making for bigger box-office takes than education.

Posted by: Laelaps | April 1, 2007 10:23 PM

Thomas,
The situation in Taiwan with the whale sharks was that they are allowed to catch a very limited number of them per year, and in this case the aquarium paid for four of those sharks that had been caught. Selling those sharks for live display rather than for food did not entitle the fishermen to take four more sharks. The annual quotas are hard; where the sharks end up doesn't matter. If the fishermen sold all 30 sharks (2007 quota) to aquariums around the world it would not entitle them to go catch 30 more for the meat/fin market. The aquarium certainly wouldn't acquire sharks in this way if it effectively encouraged MORE fishing for whale sharks. They'd never get away with that from a PR standpoint.

Posted by: tinisoli | April 2, 2007 12:52 PM

"Yes, so long as papers are being published, anything whatsoever should be allowed"

Rick, I was not suggesting that unethical and inhumane collecting and display practices are permissible if done in the name of science, but rather suggesting that these institutions aren't even trying to learn anything about the animals they have captured. It seems to be all about box office, and what I was trying to convey (although I should have expanded on it) was that if these aquariums were learning anything from the animals I could at least understand (although still oppose) their rationale and at least we would learn something; as they currently stand many zoos and aquariums are visual experiences, and few people actually learn anything by their visits.

Anyway, sorry I did not clarify my position more thoroughly, and thanks for calling me on it.

Posted by: Laelaps | April 2, 2007 5:10 PM

Aquariums have to draw visitors, but most do so to fund research and conservation activities. Having a high-profile animal like a white shark or a whale shark could justifiably be called a necessary evil, but it needn't always end with a dead fish. And there certainly is a lot of legit research going on in the back rooms and labs of many aquariums. It's hard to imagine that, on the whole, aquariums do not benefit the oceans by at least getting people to be aware of what's out there. For many people, aquariums offer them their one and only chance to see what species are out there in the seas.

Posted by: tinisoli | April 2, 2007 9:05 PM

You disagree with the statement "aquariums have to draw visitors"? Is there a single public aquarium on Earth that does not rely on large numbers of paying customers to support its operations and very existence?

Posted by: tinisoli | April 4, 2007 1:26 PM

Right. And if I said “Automobile engines require fuel” and you said “No they don’t” and I asked “Why not?” I suppose you’d say “Because we don’t really need automobiles.” Reminds me of Orr, Yossarian’s roommate in “Catch-22.”

Posted by: tinisoli | April 4, 2007 2:21 PM