Cetacean and Pinniped Protection and Establishment of Rights Bill (Failed)

[Senator Cris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Ebowed

[DKrol]

This bill is silly. Next we'll have bills defending the "rights" of dogs, cats, and birds. Do they have brain activity? Yes. Is that justification for giving them "rights"? No. Heck no. Now, you show me evidence that dolphins, whales, and seals can arrange themselves into structured, hierarchical societies with a definitive leadership ladder and the expression of creative thought and we might have a discussion.

I motion to table this bill.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This bill is certainly... unusual, and I eagerly await Senator Ebowed's explanation of its provisions, particularly Section 1.

[Senator Cris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clark Kent]

I agree with Senator DKrol, and second the motion to table the bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Any one who finds purpose in eating porpoise needs to be in some kind of facility locked up. Probably won dealing with mental health, but we don't have those anymore, not from lack of trying on my part either.

Anyway, I do think the Dolphin declaration of Independence is a little excessive.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There are certain issues that exist with establishing legal rights for non-human animals. Issues that disquiet me greatly here.

[Ebowed]

This bill is certainly... unusual, and I eagerly await Senator Ebowed's explanation of its provisions, particularly Section 1.

The idea is essentially to prohibit keeping whales, dolphins, porpoises, and seals as "performers" in amusement parks.  Our animal welfare laws, despite otherwise being comprehensive, actually don't include provisions for animals kept for the purposes of entertainment.  Anyone who has read up on the orcas being kept at SeaWorld will have some idea of what is wrong with this.

This bill is silly. Next we'll have bills defending the "rights" of dogs, cats, and birds. Do they have brain activity? Yes. Is that justification for giving them "rights"? No. Heck no. Now, you show me evidence that dolphins, whales, and seals can arrange themselves into structured, hierarchical societies with a definitive leadership ladder and the expression of creative thought and we might have a discussion.

I have no idea where you got that criteria from, but animals do already have certain protections, including dogs, cats, and birds.  In fact, whales and dolphins have some of the strongest legal protections of any animals.  This is merely an attempt to make them consistent.  Anyway, your requirement for 'structured, hierarchical societies definitive leadership ladder and the expression of creative thought' is actually met by elephants, so we could include them in this legislation if that would be something you support, by all means.  [Notably, elephants performing in circuses are, as far as I'm aware, also not specifically protected by our current animal welfare laws.]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How many whales, dolphins, porpoises, and seals are kept for entertainment purposes?

Also what is the full extent of the negative impact on them? I would guess that being restricted causes various problems beyond just removing them from their natural environment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, this amendment preserves the intended protections of cetaceans and pinnipeds proposed by Senator Ebowed while removing the problematic and logically flawed designation of these animals as "persons."

[Senator Cris]

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Clark Kent]

I still think this is ridiculous, but Senator Truman's amendment is less objectionable.

[Ebowed]

How many whales, dolphins, porpoises, and seals are kept for entertainment purposes?

Also what is the full extent of the negative impact on them? I would guess that being restricted causes various problems beyond just removing them from their natural environment.

There's a very good documentary on this, Blackfish, which I highly recommend.

Essentially now that it's illegal to take whales and dolphins from the sea for the purposes of entertainment, the ones at Sea World are being bred in captivity, which poses additional problems, including the possibility of an increased risk of violent incidents against humans as the genetic diversity is reduced.  Outside of this, these animals are kept in spaces too small, separated from their mothers after birth to "break" them, learn tricks through abusive negative re-enforcement, and exhibit 'zoochosis' - i.e. when you go to the zoo and many of the animals are pacing around in their enclosures, you will find with aquatic animals that they are also constantly cycling around aimlessly.  There have also been orcas filmed trying to "beach" themselves at their Sea World pools - it is indeed possible this as a suicide attempt given how sentient these creatures are.

I can't find any figures on seals, and many other figures quoted seem to focus exclusively on orcas (the focus of Blackfish).  However, this site appears to have counted all whales, dolphins and porpoises.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is to be done with those held and especially those "bred in captivity"? Surely, they would struggle if released immediately into a natural environment, no? Would they be able to interact correctly with members of their species, have the ability to survive if immediately released?


Is some kind of transitional facility that could ease the impact and make them more likely to be viable? Granted, as part of the natural cycle some of these creatures would die in the wild, but my fear is that if released immediately, they would face an elevated risk of such as a result if that makes sense. And my question is inquiring as to the process of the release and the concerns that need to be addressed in regards to such.

[Ebowed]

What is to be done with those held and especially those "bred in captivity"? Surely, they would struggle if released immediately into a natural environment, no? Would they be able to interact correctly with members of their species, have the ability to survive if immediately released?


Is some kind of transitional facility that could ease the impact and make them more likely to be viable? Granted, as part of the natural cycle some of these creatures would die in the wild, but my fear is that if released immediately, they would face an elevated risk of such as a result if that makes sense. And my question is inquiring as to the process of the release and the concerns that need to be addressed in regards to such.

It's a good question, and certainly is an oversight of omission in my original draft of the legislation.  It's true that logistically, creating an artificial sanctuary in the ocean for all 556 cetaceans being kept in US/Atlasian captivity would be impossible, especially since different species thrive in various habitats, and also as you point out the ones bred in captivity would have particular difficulty adjusting to the wild, and once released, it would be impossible to prevent them from interacting with untamed wild cetaceans.  I wonder if the most practicable solution would be to simply close down these parks (removing the profit incentive) and establishing government operated facilities to house cetaceans in certain locations with minimum welfare standards, combined with sterilization to prevent continued breeding in unnatural environments.  This may not be necessary for all of them; after all, if wild whales and dolphins can be habituated to human environments by humans, perhaps they can be habituated back into wild environments particularly if they have previous experience in them.  This is the sort of situation that will perpetuate itself without action, and indeed, while it's difficult to come up with a precise solution, the status quo is absolutely unacceptable.

[Senator Cris]

The Truman's amendment has been adopted.

[Dereich]

Mistreatment, intended harm, and malicious killing of any animal is already adequately banned by the Animal Protection Act. There is no reason to give this specific type of animal special protections and to ban perfectly legitimate uses for them, such as scientific testing.

Butt my biggest problem with the bill is the deference and rights it gives animals in general. Murder, enslavement, and imprisonment are serious concepts which I believe are completely reserved for humans. I doubt any revision could get rid of those and still fit with the spirit of what you're trying to do here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ebowed, how narrow has been the application of "mistreatment" with regards to the Animal Protection Act?

Basically, is any of what is being sought her already being accomplished under existing Atlasian statute that may not be so with regards to real life?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Are we ready for a final vote?

[Senator Cris]

Motion for a final vote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I second the motion for a final vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I third the motion.

[Senator Cris]

A final vote is now open. Please vote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nay

[Ebowed]

Aye