Wo-w!

Do you or anyone else have links to support me when I tell people sanctuaries don't have to have accreditation like zoos and more often get away with neglect/abuse I'm stuck arguing with people who say all zoos are abusive and all sanctuaries are good

Hi! I talked a bit about the differences between zoos and sanctuaries here. Unfortunately, this isn’t really a topic there’s a lot of formal research on this topic. But let’s use some quick stats. For the purpose of this post, I’ll focus on the United States.

There are roughly ~2,000 facilities in the US holding a USDA Class C (exhibitor) license. This is the license required to legally hold exotic warm-blooded animals for public display, including zoos, circuses, educational organizations, and sanctuaries. Note that this expressly does not include facilities that house only cold-blooded animals. These animals are largely unregulated.

If a sanctuary does not display the animals to the public under any circumstances, (including private tours), they may be exempt from this requirement. However, most sanctuaries do rely on private donors, which count as “the public” according to USDA guidelines. For example, the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee (which is a great place by the way!) explicitly does not allow tours. However, they still hold a USDA Class C license.

It is technically possible for a facility to exist that calls itself a “sanctuary” but is free of all regulatory oversight, even the USDA. However, this likely isn’t a common situation, since as I mentioned above, most sanctuaries do count as “exhibitors” and would require a USDA Class C license, subjecting them to inspection.

USDA guidelines, however, are the “bare minimum.” The “gold standard” of care is found in voluntary accreditation. In the US, that usually means the AZA. AZA inspections are incredibly rigorous. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Their guidelines are publicly available on their website. Of the thousands of USDA-licensed exhibitors in the United States, only 229 are AZA-accredited or certified (the remaining 25 accredited facilities are outside the US). Very few of these are sanctuaries.

To rehash what I said in my linked post, the sanctuary “counterpart” to the AZA is the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS). They accredit sanctuaries for both domestic and exotic animals. There are no exact statistics on their website, but it does state there are “over 200” worldwide (not just in the US). The website does provide a map of where their members are found, but there’s no list breaking down exactly how many are found in the US, or how many house captive wildlife rather than domestic species like cattle and pigs. I do not know how GFAS standards compare to AZA, as I’m not overly familiar with them.

Tl;dr it is technically easier for sanctuaries than zoos to operate without regulatory oversight, particularly if they do not display to the public. In the United States, there are fewer sanctuaries than zoos that are voluntarily accredited by organizations ensuring high standards of animal care.

orcacharm

J3 Merlin in 1977 (Ken Balcomb)

ralfmaximus

The Food and Drug Administration is warning the public to not feed dogs Raaw Energy dog food because samples have shown contamination with m

The Food and Drug Administration is warning the public to not feed dogs Raaw Energy dog food because samples have shown contamination with multiple pathogens that are dangerous to both people and pets. The FDA requested the company recall its implicated products, but the company has not done so. The implicated dog food has tested positive for one or more of the following bacteria: Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, E. coli O157 and Campylobacter jejuni.

Frozen dog food is contaminated with bacteria that can kill your dog if you feed it to them. And the company refuses to recall their product.

They don't use lot numbers, only manufacture dates. If you have any of these Raaw Energy products in your freezer, with these date codes, throw it out:

Current as of January 23, 2026.

astrocorvus

I met this funky little fella at the zoo, today! I’m gonna miss this goober.

The fish of all time!

scientists that are anti cap are wrong? I thought their thing was science and facts

Scientists are susceptible to bias, just like any human being is. And unfortunately there are lobbyists who perform as scientists who publish papers through “pay to play” journals or journals that aren’t informed enough about cetacean welfare to provide appropriate peer review.

And if these scientists are forced to actually defend their papers, they get upset and say that they’re being “silenced”.

You can see the peer reviews here:

View the review history for An update on captive cetacean welfare

These reviewers are all independently picking up on excessive self-citation, misinterpretation of the data of the papers that suggest positive welfare and also just blatantly incorrect citations, claiming a paper is supporting them, but it doing the opposite. It’s just. Obvious that these people are not interested in doing science, they want to perform science and make it fit a specific narrative. They then will use these papers to lobby governments and promote their non-existent sea sanctuary.

Science is not a monolith - and cetacean science consists of a vast amount of scientists all collecting data in their respective fields. And if a paper is published that is so obviously biased, it will be called out. This paper breaks down yet another Marino et al’s paper:

Reliable scientific knowledge is crucial for informing legislative, regulatory, and policy decisions in a variety of areas. To that end, sci

The thing is. These “performer scientists” will complain that they can’t get the data because the facilities won’t let them in. Because… yeah. They aren’t behaving like scientists - they haven’t published data on wild or captive cetaceans in years. They have shown zero curiosity or interest in learning and have been actively hostile to the entire industry (but they also want these same industry professionals to work in their non-existent “sanctuary”). Most of them are also not associated with any university or seem involved in academia beyond publishing lobby papers.

They have deliberately misrepresented and manipulated information to suit their narrative. They are not interested in objective science and data collection. That’s not how you do science.

(Also, funnily enough, a lot of these “scientists” are anti vaxxers now, so go figure)

There are wild cetacean scientists that are doing field work, collecting data and publishing papers, who are anti cap. And that’s fine. I would argue that studying wild orca doesn’t give them the qualifications to assess orca welfare in human care. They’re not doing detailed behaviour observations and creating time budgets. They don’t have access to these animals’ veterinary records. Field work is very different to studying welfare in a controlled environment. And it is difficult to compare the lives of wild orcas to captive orcas, as they have adapted to very different environments and deal with very different stressors.

There’s actually a project ongoing through the Dolphin Communication Project that is comparing orca behaviour in human care (at Loro Parque) to wild orcas behaviour, which should be interesting to see!

Anyway

Scientific fields, especially as specialised as cetacean welfare, are not monoliths. Just because you see a headline that says “orca scientists says orca captivity bad”, doesn’t mean every orca scientist supports this assertion. It’s likely a paper that got picked up by the media for its “click-bait” and any critique or concerns of the paper were ignored.

There is a steadily growing body of data supported research regarding cetacean welfare - measuring it objectively, determining positive vs negative welfare ect. But I have yet to see any of these anti cap scientists actually engage in that work or be interested in the lives of these animals beyond their own personal perceptions and biases.

commersons

Layla the Pacific bottlenose dolphin yeeting a basketball into space 🚀

Even in a sea pen in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, the dolphins still needed regular enrichment in the form of toys.

All the native flora and fauna gets pretty boring when you’re desensitised to it - basketballs are way more fun.

Question re captive orcas. Why are their dorsal fins often curving over to one side? I rarely see that in photos of wild orcas, and have seen assertions that it's a sign of poor conditions in captivity, but I've never seen any scientific sources on what's actually going on.

Really good question. It’s mostly to do with the fact that orcas in human care spend more time at the surface of the water than their wild counterparts. Male dorsal fins are the only ones that completely collapse and that’s just because orca males will have rapid growth spurts as they age and their dorsal fin grows very tall. But because they are not constantly moving and diving, the cartilage of the towering fin doesn’t have enough support from the water column so it bends down and may fold over or completely collapse.

The female dorsal fins are much smaller and don’t carry as much weight so they don’t tend to bend or collapse. Most females have upright dorsal fins. Even Tokitae, who was living in objectively poor conditions and had no ability to dive deep, maintained an upright dorsal fin into her 60’s.

Interestingly though, any calf from the late Katina did also show the characteristic right bend of her dorsal fin, which was likely genetics related - so it could very much be that as well.

(See below Katina and her daughter Nalani)

My biggest question to people who immediately assume poor welfare from a bent dorsal fin is this: If we were to assume that dorsal fin collapse was a sign of illness or poor welfare, then wouldn’t that mean that only the males were in poor welfare states and the females are fine?

I think the issue is that if we compare to wild populations there are indeed cases of orcas having dorsal collapse due to injury or illness. But it’s more likely the collapse is due to an actual physical injury to the cartilage structure, malnutrition that deteriorates the whale’s condition or due to the whale staying at the surface for long periods of time because they are too sick and weak to do energetically costly deep dives.

An example would be K21 who went from a large healthy active bull with a very tall dorsal fin.

(Source)

To severely emaciated and barely able to swim against the currents, with his dorsal fin completely collapsed.

But then there’s the famous Port and Starboard - both with collapsed dorsal fins but seem to be thriving! It’s unclear what caused their dorsal fin collapse but it doesn’t seem to bother them.

TL;DR Most dorsal fin collapse is related to gravity in human care, but can be related to illness and injury in the wild. Dorsal fin collapse in human care is not a sign of poor welfare and is simply related to time spent at the surface of the water, genetics and the weight and height of the dorsal fin itself.

I need people to stop using words like “tortured” when talking about cetacean welfare it’s so hard to take them seriously

Like?

Not to anthropomorphise but tell Nola she’s being tortured when she squeals with excitement when she hears her bridge

Or old granny Cirrus getting massages all day long

If they’re being tortured then I guess sign me up?

namu-the-orca

Good additions! Also beyond the larger "threats" like illness, starvation and predation in the wild, I imagine wild animals have really mundane day-to-day negative experiences too (just like in captivity btw!). This is probably beyond the scope of anything that can be scientifically quantified, but like.. they must have just shit days. The matriarch is being really snappy with them and they don't know why. All the females in the pod have calves and they are so hyperactive and just won't leave them alone. They couldn't sleep well and have a stomach ache and now the hunt went bad too.

Perfect existence with only rainbows and happy times, free from all negativity and frustrations, really doesn't exist anywhere.

listen i'm not advocating for exotic animals as pets, but i really just feel like cheetahs are probably different

i feel like we need to give them another shot as housebeasts

this is a critter who wants greenies and then to take a nap on the couch next to me, and i KNOW it

cheetah in House perfec t size for put inside! inside very Soft and Comfort cheetah sleep soundly put cheetah in House. Put Cheetah In House. no problems ever in cheetah in ho use because good Happy and Satisfy for human where sleep. House yes a place for a cheetah put cheetah in house can trust cheetah for giveing good love to humans in house. friend cheetah

justasmidgx

I mean, as someone who as worked in a zoo, this is fairly true.

Obvious disclaimer that you shouldn't have wild animals as pets.

But like, cheetahs are the only large cats that keepers will do free contact with. Hell, even most small cats don't get free contact. (Because small cats can be VICIOUS. They'll have a baby pallas cat wearing thicker gloves than when handling an owl. Because small cats can just be vicious.)

Like I think the only other cat at our zoo where I've seen free contact with was servals? Because I know they've used servals in shows to demonstrate their natural jumping ability. But I know servals can sometimes have a mean temper as well. Meanwhile they'll do the cheetah run and afterwards put the mic by the cheetahs and it's just like an engine with them purring. It's fascinating to watch when the message in every other large animal is "no free contact because it's dangerous even when they're born in captivity".

Legit if any wild animal could be adapted to a pet it would be cheetahs lmao. Only problem is they can be skittish and very anxious and that's why they're often raised around dogs in zoos to gain confidence.

congrats, i award you funniest take on this post

carriefisher

BLACK BEAUTY dir. Caroline Thompson, 1994

philocake

finished, the entire San Diego pod! clockwise from the top, Ulises, Shouka, Keet, Nakai, Orkid, Ikaika & Corky outside, Amaya, Makani, Kalia & Kasatka in the center

this was as fun as it was stressful lmao. i might do this with the other two pods…

wheremyscalesslither

Here’s a doozy. How would you reply to this one professionally and in a kind way?

Background: someone asked how to humanely euthanize their betta who has tumors.

talesfromtreatment

The blunt version: Death is inevitable. Nothing is immortal. Cancer is painful. A fish does not have a concept of "the future" and there's worse things than being dead. Existing in pain with no way for that to change is worse for an animal than dead. "Dying peacefully" in cancer patients as seen in obituaries is due to being drugged into insensibility in most cases. It is a comforting lie of omission we tell each other. But we can't give this fish morphine in a hospice situation. In the wild this fish would get eaten as the cancer causes it to slow down. Something is going to kill it, the only question is in what manner. A painless death in the face of a terminal condition is a thousand times better than any other option. To not do otherwise it's cruelty.

This person is also almost certainly projecting their own fear of death onto animals.

“In the wild this fish would get eaten as the cancer causes it to slow down. Something is going to kill it, the only question is in what manner.”

Very true. In aquariums, we see fish living far beyond their natural life expectancy and developing a host of age-related diseases. Eventually, that often gets to the point where they cannot swim or eat properly. Since there is no predator to pick them off, should we leave them to lie at the bottom of the habitat, gasping and suffering? No. Euthanasia is a kinder death than 99.9% of fish in existence will ever be granted, and it is the responsibility we take on for animals in our care.

Jason James Richter (aka, the actor who played main character Jesse in Free Willy) just made a video with Tidebreakers where he calls for Wikie and Keijo to be sent to another marine park, pointing out that a Hollywood ending like the one he portrayed as a child actor is unrealistic, and that no orca sanctuary exists. If they are not moved soon, euthanasia will become an option.

An unexpected turn of events, but a welcome one.

To be clear, I very much dislike the use of celebrity spokespeople to endorse a cause, considering they are typically the least qualified people imaginable to speak on any given topic. However, since so many people had their perception of orcas in human care shaped by Free Willy, and insist on treating it as a how-to manual for dealing with these animals, it might help to see the face they most associate with that movie telling them “hey, that was a make-believe story, and it won’t work in real life.”

I know it’s annoying but if someone provides sources you need to check them and make sure they’re actually supporting whatever claim they’re being used to validate.

saltycetaceans

Katina has passed away at 50 years old, Seaworld Orlando has made an official statement, I have no energy to type everything out word by word so you get the ripped text from my Instagram post.

Oh Katina, I knew this was going to eventually happen but I never thought it would be this soon or like this, where the last time I would ever see you was August of this years, now hundreds of miles away from you.

You were an amazing, awe-inspiring animal, you were my favorite and one of the whales who I've been around since day one when I first went to the parks as a baby, I dont know how to describe how to even feel about the news of your unfortunate passing, it doesn't even feel like you're gone right now, like you're still at Shamu Stadium waiting for a show or swimming with your daughter, son, grandson, and Malia. You're still there in my mind right now, not gone, alive and energetic like how you used to be before this illness took a turn for the worse for you.

I miss you and I love you, you're with your other children now, and the rest of the whales you became close with overtime throughout your hefty, long, and amazing life, this is probably one of the worst things I will go through, I feel weird, this whole situation is weird and doesn't feel real, but that's just part of grief and how the body processes a death of someone special to them, rest in peace Katina, maybe you have all the tongue pat downs and fish in the afterlife.