Research Paper on Exploring Vancouver Aquarium: A Conservation-Based Initiative

Introduction

Vancouver Aquarium is a public ocean wise initiative located in Stanley Park Vancouver, Canada. Animals reared in the Aquarium come from many sources as part of the exchange program with other large aquatic reservoirs and universities. The management of the Aquarium gets fish from conservation-based organizations and sustainable fisheries who collect fish with nets but not explosives or chemicals. Divers working with the Aquarium collect marine invertebrates like starfish and sea stars, and many other aquatic animals are born in the care of the Aquarium. Notably, many animals under the supervision of Vancouver aquarium live for so many years because they do not serve as food but are for recreational purposes. However, the Canadian government passed legislation to rule out the rearing of whales and dolphins. The management of the Aquarium is fighting the ruling, so it looks like they are giving up on the war.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Nevertheless, I believe that the landmark legislation by the government, terming cetacean keeping captivation of wild animals, was not appropriate. I do not think there should be a total ban on keeping whales and dolphins. Therefore, I want to counter-argue the S-203 bill passed by the government-banning cetacean in Aquarium.

S-203 bill describes the keeping of whales and dolphins cetacean captivation for display and entertainment, which the government regards as a capital offense (Sykes 349). Additionally, it states that it is an out of date practice to keep whales and dolphins in tanks, and it is out of Canadian values. This provision raises questions when it further explains that Canadians are opposing cetacean keeping by a two-to-one margin. Consequently, the staff at this non-profit initiative learned about the state's motive to fight against cetacean keeping in entire Canada, according to the CEO Mr. John Nightingale.

The Aquarium is giving up on the fight to continue keeping whales and dolphins within its waters, citing that the much-publicized debate is hindering the initiative (Roland 105). Realistically, apart from the landmark legislation, discussion in the community, with the politicians and legal professionals, demeans the work of the Aquarium. As a sign of despair on keeping these precious animals, the management board of the Aquarium voted to prevent bringing in any new cetaceans. The voting process came because the commissioner's reaction questions the ethics of keeping these animals for recreational purposes. On the contrary, the CEO reiterated that they would fight the ban to the end because he felt the biasness and prejudice that accompanied the legislation.

In his counter-argument against the legislation, the CEO pointed out that the Aquarium has been in existence for 61 years and will still exist for another 61 years. For that reason, the entire board encouraged the reservoir to continue with the passionate public debate o the issue so that they can understand the position of the public on the matter at hand. Over the last one year, the public voice termed the continuing importation, and display of cetaceans was incompatible and unethical according to the Canadian values (Dye 1411). This unexpected public reaction resulted in the amendment of the Aquarium bylaws, and the park's board chairperson remarked that they would intensify Ocean wise research and conservation.

Since the voting mentioned above, the remaining three cetaceans died, leaving only one Pacific white-sided dolphin named Helen. The drawback shows how negatively affected the keeping of whale is the Aquarium since the passing of the legislation and public reaction on that same issue. Therefore, the CEO felt that they have only two options for the ill-fated dolphin. She would get transfer to either a new facility or bringing in a companion. However the issue of companion had adverse challenges including defying the park's board of management orders of not bringing in any more cetaceans.

Similarly, to be safe during this unfortunate transition period, any rehabilitated animal that cannot go back into the wild had to get transfer to another facility. The effecting of the transfer would come once their health condition is okay. The transfer decision equally had no guarantee since that other facility also had to feel the effect of the ill-advised legislation by the government stopping the keeping of these animals.

Regardless of all these challenges, the CEO insisted that he would continue to fight for an opportunity to keep temporarily animals that he felt were not ready for the transfer. The implication would then mean that keeping them in the display pool even after the legislation ruled out such activities. Moreover, he recognized that the number of visitors to the Aquarium d dropped drastically after two belugas died in the fall of 2016 (Vigars 491). However, he insisted that he believed that the public would still keep visiting to learn about the universe below the surface of the ocean once the cetaceans are all gone. He quoted, "As a biologist, I find life in the oceans fascinating, and I do not care whether it is a guppy or a beluga."

Personal Reaction

In the spirit of environmental conservation, I share the same sentiments with the Vancouver aquarium CEO; therefore, I think the Aquarium should continue keeping whales and dolphins. First, I want to criticize the landmark legislation enacted by the law-making body of the Canadian government that needed to stop the keeping of these friends and social animals. The S-203 entitled "Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act" is an ill-advised and prejudiced bill. I feel so because it never followed the social norms and proper public participation process (Sykes 450). The law recognized that there are only two facilities across the nation that still rear cetaceans, i.e., the Marine land in the Niagara Falls and the Vancouver Aquarium in Stanley Park.

Additionally, it gives a summary of the history of cetaceans' captivity in the country and the existing law regulating the keeping of such animals. The main argument of the Act elaborates that social norms and the rule changed fundamentally over the years in Canada due to several factors. For instance, I am advocating on behalf of the animals, including court proceedings and in the legislative arena. Besides, continuous research informs a more understanding of the cetaceans' intelligence and social behavior and the adverse welfare effects of captivating them.

Regardless of how reasonable the bill speaks the legal terms on the keeping of whales and dolphins in private entities, I still feel it is times are not fair to Vancouver Aquarium. Concerning the principles that guide the Aquarium's framework, it is not any offensive to keep any of the aquatic animals for adventure and prestige in the Aquarium. While the bill cites breach of the animal's high intelligence and social behavior, causing adverse effects on their welfare, the Aquarium allows them to interact with human beings (Marceau 930). The Aquarium is a non-profit organization that keeps all aquatic wild animals for prestige and adventure. It is an entity recognized by the state to run a non-profit business of keeping sea animals within the confines of tanks and dams.

The Aquarium describes that it receives its animals from various means, and none of which is against the social and environmental conservation ethics (Holmberg 98). It receives animals as part of exchange programs when other reservoirs feel that those animals need a change of environment or mating partners. Therefore, it does the exchange programs with other either legal conservation-based associations or fisheries. Moreover, most of the tropical fish to the Aquarium come from authorized dealers across the universe. Its efforts to buy fish and other sea animals direct to sustainable fish dealers who collect fish with fishnets and neither chemicals nor explosives. This mode of animal acquisition is, in itself, an environmental conservation technique because the Aquarium acquires healthy animals and gives them an enabling environment to live long (Brown 10). Regarding the cetaceans being social and high intelligent animals, the park provides a platform for the whales and dolphins to interact and play with humans, scientifically extending their life expectancy.

The Aquarium also has a unique feeding program for the animals that it keeps; it feeds these animals a wide variety of nourishing diets Knapp et al. 214). Most of the feeds come from local fisheries and aquatic food suppliers and others from regular grocery stores. These animals are under the care of intelligent scientists, whom the researches on a daily basis to find out what best can make their life more comfortable within the park. For this reason, there is such an environmentally friendly way of acquiring the animals and unique feeding program for each species of the animals. The focus of the team keeping these animals is to ensure that the animals live in good condition for a very long period. The interest of the management is to have continuous creational activities while maintaining the healthy living standards of the animals in the Aquarium (Brando et al. 5). Such environmental friendly motives have been sustaining the operations of the Aquarium for the last 61 years, how then did the rearing of whales and dolphins become a capital offense? Is it that the state colluded with the management of the Aquarium to participate in illegal animal rearing activities? Then it realized that this was not okay, so it has to stop?

So many legal questions accompany the decisions made by the state to the table and enact landmark legislation of such magnitude on rearing cetaceans. Some of which are still making legal proceedings in courts relevant, for example, the ones I asked in the above paragraph. The complex nature of this issue brings up mixed reactions in the public domain. I believe that the front supporting the bill, for example, animal activists and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is not worth the fight.

I firmly welcome the sentiments of Andrew Trites, the director of the Marine Mammal Research Unit, supporting the rearing of whales and dolphins in the Vancouver Aquarium. In his reaction to the S-203 enacted bill, he says, "I work a lot with marine mammals, and I understand the need and pressure they are facing. Most common questions that we have about things such as underwater noise on them are disrupting our daily research activities. We can only answer those questions by working with animal control settings like the Vancouver Aquarium" (Ames 12). As an expert, the director confirms that there is nothing wrong with restricting animals in parks; it is advantageous for the sake of technical aquatic research. The entire management of the Aquarium should not relent on this fight until they win it. Instead, they should take as much time as possible to seek legal redress over the legislation to allow continuity in cetaceans keeping.

Conclusion

Vancouver, as a public and legal non-profit entity, has the right to rear aquatic animals. It conducted the business of keeping whales and dolphins for over 60 years before the S-203 bill, which is currently interfering with cetaceans keeping. This war of interest is already causing a rift between a section of the Canadian people and the government. The point of contention is whether it is legal to continue keeping cetaceans in captivity. The legislation bases its arguments o the social rights of the animals without assessing the welfare of the same animals for the last 61 years of business at the Vancouver Aquarium. Interestingly, some aquatic intelligence teams like People for the Ethical Treatment of animals and other right-minded individuals join the state in supporting the catastrophic bill. For that reason, I argued my personal views supporting the continui...