Description
UK-based animal protection charity, the Captive Animals' Protection Society (CAPS), commissioned a detailed investigation into the operation of the UK's largest chain of aquariums, Sea Life; a brand owned by the global company, Merlin Entertainments. This report summaries some of the main findings of that investigation.
www.captiveanimals.org
WORKING FOR A WORLD
WITHOUT CAGES
SINCE 1957
CAPS
Captive Animals’ Protection Society
An investigation into
the UK’s largest public
aquarium chain
Summary Report
In the second half of 2013, UK-based animal protection charity,
the Captive Animals’ Protection Society (CAPS), commissioned a
detailed investigation into the operation of the UK’s largest chain
of aquariums, Sea Life; a brand owned by the global company,
Merlin Entertainments. This report summarises some of the main
findings of that investigation.
The investigation follows a similar project carried out by the same organisation
ten years previously which culminated in the report, Suffering Deep Down.
The 2004 study considered a number of different aquariums, not just those
operated by Merlin under the Sea Life brand. As such, a direct comparison cannot
be drawn between the results found in 2004 and those found a decade later.
However, as Sea Life describes itself as the “world’s largest aquarium brand”, it is
perhaps safe to assume that standards might be found to be higher in Sea Life
centres than others. As such, problems or concerns raised with regard to Sea Life
aquariums may also be applicable to other public aquariums around the UK.
Despite the inability to draw direct comparisons between the two studies, a
number of areas of general concern noted in 2004 were found to be of equal
concern today. In particular, that animals are still being taken from the wild to
stock aquariums, that animal welfare provision was lacking and that a generally
poor standard of educational information was provided to visitors were all
practices noted by investigators in both studies, ten years apart. In addition,
a number of issues specific to Sea Life have been highlighted by this new
investigation including those surrounding conservation claims, rescue and
release programmes, the keeping of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) in
captivity and the provision of false and misleading information to visitors.
This report seeks to summarise the main themes identified during the study.
It does not seek to represent detailed data or methodology but aims offer the
reader an overview of the issues identified and provide broad conclusions.
For detailed information relating to the data from the main study, and the
methodology employed, the study report can be found at www.sea-lies.org.uk
or a copy can be provided on request to [email protected].
This summary report offers a sobering view of a company which, it becomes
apparent, has little to do with conservation and, it seems, much more to
do with profit.
Introduction
2
THE CLAIM: “We never get any
animal - from the shrimps to the
sharks - never get any animal from
the sea because we find it cruel. It’s
part of our company policy not to”
[Sea Life staff member]
THE TRUTH: Sea Life centres take
animals from the wild to stock their
tanks but senior management refuse
to reveal how many of the thousands
of fish and other animals have been
taken from the sea.
THE CLAIM: Giant crabs and 20 turtles
were “rescued” by Sea Life
THE TRUTH: Sea Life bought crabs
directly from fisherman for thousands
of pounds at a time and 20 turtles
were acquired from a turtle farm in
the Cayman Islands in 2006. The
turtles were acquired despite opposition
from conservation organisations
which said the import of the animals
breached international rules on trade
in endangered species.
THE CLAIM: “Sea Life believes it is
wrong to keep whales and dolphins in
captivity. No matter how spacious, no
captive facility can ever provide such
far-ranging, highly social and highly
intelligent animals with the stimulation
they need for a good quality of life”.
[Sea Life website]
THE TRUTH: Sea Life’s parent company
has, since 2006, purchased at least
three attractions which housed captive
cetaceans. The most recent purchase in
2012 was Chang Feng Ocean World in
Shanghai which has been rebranded as
a Sea Life centre. Beluga whales were
still “performing” in the Shanghai centre
in March 2014. Merlin is part-owned by
the same company which bought the
notorious Sea World marine parks in
the US in 2009.
Ssshhh...don’t tell the visitors!
Just some of the false claims made by Sea Life...
3
THE CLAIM: “Many of our creatures
are on the endangered list”
[Sea Life Website]
THE TRUTH: Only 2.5% of the exhibits
observed housed animals belonging
to endangered species. The vast
majority of species housed in Sea Life
aquariums have not been assessed for
conservation purposes.
THE CLAIM: “Naturally, we choose
only those species that flourish in
aquarium surroundings”
[Sea Life website]
THE TRUTH: Various incidences of
captivity-related stress behaviours
were recognised during the study as
well as recurring health issues which,
staff admitted, had resulted in high
numbers of deaths.
THE CLAIM: “Breeding programmes
help us to reinstate struggling species
to environments they help to maintain”
[Sea Life website]
THE TRUTH: Evidence of release of
species bred in Sea Life centres is
notably absent, with the exception of
lobsters (who, in any case, are released
to “sustainable fisheries”). Sea Life
confirms in published information
that breeding programmes serve the
purpose of ensuring that Sea Life
aquariums remain stocked to avoid
having to take animals from the wild.
THE CLAIM: “Sea Life never kills a
healthy animal” [Sea Life staff member,
Hunstanton] and “We never put any-
thing to sleep because we have got
too many of them or because they
are a problem”
[Sea Life staff member, Great Yarmouth]
THE TRUTH: Killing healthy animals
because they are “surplus to requirements”
or “too large to house” is permitted in
Sea Life aquariums but must be
discussed by the company’s ethics
committee. No information has been
made available as to how many
animals are killed for these reasons.
Figure 2: Sea Life's euthanasia policy clearly
lists "surplus to requirements" or "too large for
tank" as a reason that healthy animals might
be killed. Staff denied this to the CAPS
researcher.
“Sea Life claims to be opposed
to whales and dolphins in
captivity. Yet whales perform
circus-style tricks three times
a day in the company’s
Shanghai centre.”
Figure 1: The permanent home of an octopus
at a Sea Life centre. Can any animal "flourish"
in this tiny glass box?.
Taken from the ocean
and put into a fish tank
Whilst most zoos have moved away from taking
animals from the wild to stock their cages, and
most members of the public assume that animals
held in zoos will have been bred in captivity, for
aquariums, this is certainly not the case. In 2004,
it was found that a huge 79% of animals held in
public aquariums had been taken directly from
their ocean home to live in tanks and the current
study found little evidence to suggest that things
have changed. What has changed however,
perhaps as a result of the public backlash as it
was revealed that aquariums were removing
animals from the wild, is that Sea Life staff are
noticeably reluctant to share the truth about the
animals’ origin with visitors. When asked outright
how many animals came from the wild, some
staff refused to answer and others claimed they
did not know. One member of staff informed our
investigator that it was company policy never to take
an animal from the wild. This is simply not true.
At five of the 12 centres, when asked, staff
denied that any animals were taken from the wild.
At the remaining seven, it was admitted that some
animals were wild-caught with the implication
that this was only the case on rare occasions. This
reluctance to be honest about the source of the
animals mirrors the response of one of Sea Life’s
most senior managers, who refused to answer the
same question when asked during a meeting with
CAPS’ director during 2013 and, instead, promised
to provide an answer in writing. The answer was
never provided and the true figure remains
unknown today.
At least one member of staff was honest about the
reason for withholding the information. He told the
CAPS investigator to contact head office for Sea
Life’s policy on wild capture as it was a “sensitive
subject” and “some people get quite irate about
it”. There appears to be a clear consensus, from the
most senior management to the staff interacting
daily with visitors, that the taking of animals from
the wild to stock Sea Life aquariums should
be played down as much as possible, or even
denied outright.
Despite denials, the CAPS investigator was able
to confirm that sharks, fish, crabs, octopuses and
turtles, amongst others, had been taken from their
wild home to live in Sea Life tanks.
Commercial trade in
wildlife dressed up in
claims of “rescue”
Whilst the origin of many animals that end up in
Sea Life tanks is a secret kept closely guarded by
the company, the arrival of others from their ocean
home are subject to a great deal of publicity;
particularly those that can be seen to bolster Sea
Life’s reputation for wildlife rescue.
Sea Life claims that its work has a strong focus on
the rescue of animals. Indeed, the Sea Life brand
owns two seal sanctuaries in Gweek (Cornwall) and
Oban (Scotland) which do carry out valuable rescue
projects. Conversely, many of the highly publicised
“rescues” carried out by the company have, in fact,
4
Figure 3: Some Sea Life staff insisted
that no animals were taken from
the wild. This is simply not true.
Figure 4: CAPS 2004 research showed almost
80% of animals in aquariums originated from
the wild. It seems that little has changed.
5
transpired to be commercial transactions where
animals appear to have been purchased by Sea Life
in order for them to spend their lives in a tank.
For example, in March 2013, a nine-foot Japanese
spider crab was, according to Sea Life, “rescued
from being on Japanese dinner plates”
i
. In fact,
Sea Life had purchased the animal from a fisherman.
The purchase of the male crab appeared to be
particularly well-timed as, at that time, the
aquarium also held a female of the same species
that required a male to fertilise her eggs.
This follows a similar transaction in 2012, when
three Tasmanian king crabs were “rescued from
fisherman” off the coast of Tasmania. Sea Life
“saved them from death” by buying them from the
fishermen for £3,000
ii
. It appears that the practice
of buying animals from those people removing them
from their natural habitat and then characterising
that transaction as a rescue is a way in which Sea
Life generates positive publicity about its work.
A similar situation occurred when 20 turtles were
reportedly “rescued” from a turtle farm in the
Cayman Islands; one of whom is likely to be ‘Ernie’,
the Green sea turtle at Manchester Sea Life. At the
time the proposal to acquire the turtles was made,
it was met with opposition by leading conservation
organisations who maintained that the move
would contravene rules on the trade in endangered
species
iii
. It appears that despite this strong opposition,
Sea Life went ahead and imported the 20 turtles
from the Cayman Islands farm with permission
from UK authorities. No published information
is available to confirm whether or not money
changed hands in the transaction but given that
the turtle farm is a for-profit business, it seems
reasonable to assume that this was a commercial
transaction.
According to both national media and Sea Life
staff, the removal of ‘Ernie’ from the farm for
exhibit was another “rescue”
iv.
However, as in the
case of Sea Life’s acquisition of the giant crabs, the
acquisition of the turtles from a company which
breeds them for sale can hardly be characterised as
a rescue. Furthermore, these types of practices
unarguably fuels the trade in wildlife, as demand is
met by those willing to supply animals to those
seeking them out.
Finally, some of the other turtles in Sea Life centres
have reportedly been rescued by the company after
being injured by speedboats. Whilst caring for
injured wildlife appears to offer legitimate cause for
rescue, the CAPS investigator was informed that
the turtles had been flown in from Florida in order
©
D
a
l
l
a
s
K
r
e
n
t
z
e
l
(
C
C
L
i
c
e
n
c
e
)
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
c
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
o
n
s
.
o
r
g
/
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
s
b
y
4
.
0
Figure 5: Giant crabs were bought
from fishermen and sent to live in
tanks in UK aquariums.
Figure 6: Turtles were imported from a farm on
the Cayman Islands to Sea Life centres in the
UK, despite allegations by leading conserva-
tionists that the import was illegal.
©
A
n
i
m
a
l
s
A
s
i
a
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
6
to live in Sea Life tanks in the UK. Given the known
threats to animal health and welfare during travel,
transporting injured wildlife over 4,000 miles
suggests that the “rescue” of these animals was not
carried out with the individuals’ welfare in mind.
Furthermore, included in the list of charitable
organisations that Sea Life claims to support is
“Florida Sea Turtle Rescue”. An internet search
showed no organisation currently operating under
this name but its inclusion in Sea Life’s list of
beneficiaries suggests that the aquarium chain has
or has had active links with an organisation focused
upon turtle rescue in the very place from which
they originate. This raises further concerns over the
company’s decision to transport the allegedly
injured animals to the UK.
“Saving animals from the
dinner plate” ... and serving
others to visitors
Many people associate zoos and aquariums with
the protection of species and believe that their
ultimate aim is to release animals back to the wild.
Whilst release to the wild very rarely happens in
zoos and, indeed, it has been shown that aquariums
are still taking animals from the sea to stock their
tanks, CAPS’ investigator was told that there are
some release programmes in operation at Sea Life
centres. In particular the lobsters, it was stated by
a member of staff at the Hunstanton centre, are
part of a release programme with 20-30 being
freed every few months. However when questioned
further, it was confirmed that the animals were
released as part of a “sustainable fishery”. In other
words, they were released with a view to end up as
food. Sea Life state that this “helps both lobster
conservation and the food industry”.
On the one hand, Sea Life tells its visitors that it
has saved some animals, such as giant crabs, from
death on people’s dinner plates, whilst knowingly
sending others to suffer the same fate. This can
hardly fail to present a confusing and contradictory
message to visitors.
This confused messaging involving claims of saving
animals from being eaten whilst sending other
animals to be eaten is further compounded by the
serving of fish in the aquarium restaurants. Fish
available at Sea Life events includes cod; a species
which, until recently, was recommended by experts
for inclusion on the endangered species list.
Perhaps more importantly, from an ethical perspective,
it is difficult to encourage visitors, and particularly
young people, to develop empathy and respect for
animals that they are seeing in aquariums if those
same animals are later presented to them as food.
The overriding message is not that oceans and
marine life should be conserved because the lives
of those animals and the habitats in which they
live are valuable in their own right, but that
conservation of these species is necessary in order
to ensure an endless supply of food for people.
In truth, marine animal species and habitats are
suffering catastrophic degradation as the result
of fishing for human consumption. The most
important message that Sea Life could pass on to
its visitors is to refrain from eating fish, and thus
supporting destructive industries (either directly or
indirectly) altogether. Of course, whilst Sea Life
buys animals from fishermen, takes animals from
the wild itself, and serves fish up to visitors in its
restaurants, delivering this simple conservation
message becomes impossible without condemning
its own practices.
Conservation claims that do
not stand up to scrutiny
In addition to other claims, Sea Life asserts that
marine conservation is at the heart of its work.
Whilst it is accepted that effective conservation
cannot be measured in monetary terms, the
amount of money that conservation organisations
donate to worthy projects has long been used as a
benchmark to establish who the main contributors
are. Given that Sea Life advertises itself as the world’s
largest aquarium brand and has over 10 million
visitors per year, one might expect the conservation
contribution of the organisation to be significant.
Merlin, the parent organisation of Sea Life, reported
revenue of over £1 billion (£1,074,000,000) in
2012
v
. Despite this, when questioned specifically on
monetary contribution to conservation efforts, a
senior manager from Sea Life was only able to offer
concrete evidence of £250,000 donated to a turtle
sanctuary in Greece. This amounts to just 0.02% of
Merlin’s total revenue and less than three pence
per person being able to be traced directly to in
situ conservation. It was noticed by the CAPS
investigator that there were donation collection
points asking for money from Sea Life visitors for
the turtle sanctuary in each of its centres. As such,
it is not clear whether or not Sea Life donates any
of its own takings to the initiative or simply the
money that its customers give over and above their
entrance fee (currently around £65 per family
group, dependent on location).
According to signage at Brighton Sea Life centre,
almost £1,000 has been raised for the charity,
Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), and
£10,000 for the Greek turtle sanctuary. It is unclear
whether this £10,000 is part of, or in addition to,
the £250,000 already disclosed.
Amongst its conservation claims, the company cites
sea horse breeding as one of its major activities.
Most zoos claim that breeding of animals is carried
out in order to provide a “safety net” population
for eventual reintroduction to the wild and Sea Life
does state that if sea horses become extinct, the
Figure 7: Fish on the menu at Sea Life while
other animals have been "rescued from dinner
plates". Confusing messaging for visitors.
7
animals bred in their aquariums could be released.
The company is, however, honest in admitting that
the foremost purpose of breeding sea horses is to
stock its own tanks which, it is stated, reduces the
need to take animals from the sea. Of course most
conservation organisations do not, themselves, pose
a direct threat to wild species and so to claim that
not removing animals from their natural habitat is
active conservation work is somewhat misleading.
Notwithstanding the capture of animals from the
wild, the vast majority of species held by Sea Life
centres belong to species either not threatened in
the wild, or species that have not been assessed for
conservation purposes. Just 2.5% of exhibits house
species which are classed as endangered.
According to a member of staff at the Hunstanton
centre “Sea Life has standard stock ... they are all
key creatures that people want to see”. These
animals include clown fish and regal tangs which
were made famous by the film, Finding Nemo.
Choosing species based on the popularity of
characters in animated movies suggests that
conservation is not a primary consideration
for which animals might be held captive in
Sea Life aquariums.
If Sea Life is not offering significant support to in
situ conservation (despite its huge income) nor
caring for many endangered species, there seems
to be little meaningful conservation contribution
being made by the business. Of course, while Sea
Life continues to take animals from the wild, rather
than making a positive impact on conservation,
Sea Life rather appears to be part of the problem.
Animal welfare worries
It was once thought that fish lacked intelligence
and sentience but, for a number of years, it has
been recognised that this is not the case. The myth
that fish have three-second memories has long
been dispelled by clear scientific evidence, and yet
fish are still treated as little more than ornaments
rather than the sentient animals that they are. Fish
and other aquatic animals have physical, social,
behavioural and environmental needs which must
be met in order for them to experience a good
quality of life. Sea Life makes the claim that it
only keeps animals that “flourish” in an aquarium
environment, but in many cases this claim does
not appear to be borne out in evidence.
The CAPS investigator found evidence of stress-
related disease, high mortality and repetitive
Figures 8 & 9: Staff told the CAPS investigator
that animals are kept at Sea Life based on
which species visitors wanted to see, rather
than for conservation purposes.
8
behaviours indicative of an inability to cope with
captive situations in the centres visited.
A clear case of neglect was described by a member
of Sea Life staff during the investigation. At Oban
Sea Life, an apparently knowledgeable member
of staff allegedly voiced concerns to senior
management regarding signs that the Shore
crabs were infected with a dangerous parasite
(Sacculina carcini). The CAPS investigator was told
that concerns were ignored for several weeks by
the Animal Care team and eventually the crabs
were deemed too sick to be on display and were
killed. The animals were allegedly killed by a senior
member of staff by placing them into a box filled
with an (unknown) toxic substance. The animals
apparently took 30 minutes to die.
In 2007, Sea Life staff negligence was responsible
for the deaths of three Blacktip reef sharks who
were being transported 70 miles between Great
Yarmouth Sea Life and a refurbished tank at
Hunstanton. It was reported that the three died
because their water was too cold
vi
. According to a
news report, the company confirmed that, due to a
mistake made by a staff member, the water was
two degrees centigrade below the minimum
required for sharks.
When specifically asked about how the welfare of
the animals was monitored and assessed, answers
from staff were vague. One member of staff said
that the welfare of the turtles was decided based
on whether they were “feeding and swimming”
along with “a general sort of looking over the
body”. The Animal Care member of staff added
“I mean if he’s swimming around he’s pretty happy
then that’s probably a good indicator” and “if they
stop eating they are not happy”.
Staff at Great Yarmouth Sea Life informed the CAPS
investigator that successful breeding is a positive
indicator of welfare. Yet it has been demonstrated
that breeding when considered as a stand-alone
criterion cannot be considered a viable indicator of
good welfare
vii
. Even if it were, Sea Life itself admits
that many of the species in its care are not breeding
in their centres. Indeed, the fact that marine fish
do not breed well in captivity is the very reason
that these animals are taken from the sea. By the
company’s own welfare indicators, therefore, it
seems that the needs of many of the animals are
unlikely to be being met in full.
Welfare concerns with regard to provision of a
suitable environment included lack of an appropriate
substrate (particularly for fish and other animals
that spend time buried in the sea bed), lack of
space to leave the water (in the case of turtles
and alligators), lack of space to swim (in the case
of alligators), no access to outdoors whatsoever
(in the case of penguins and reptiles), lack of
environmental enrichment (for many species), lack
of space to retreat from view (for many species),
lack of space to retreat from other animals (for
many species) and nocturnal and diurnal species
being housed together and thus being subjected
to each others’ light cycle, amongst other things.
Staff at Scarborough Sea Life admitted: “White
spot [a parasite] is quite common, especially in
blue [Regal] tangs as they get a bit stressed with
a lack of space” and that the animals may “feel
claustrophobic” in their tanks. Staff at Sea Life
aquariums mentioned white spot as if it was intrinsic
with aquariums but it is, in fact, as confirmed by
staff at the Scarborough centre, “very easy to
treat”. Despite this, at Blackpool it was admitted
that “obviously we get white spot from time-to-
time, which has meant high mortality in those tanks”.
As white spot can, by the company’s own
admission, be treated, it is unclear how high
mortality in tanks in Blackpool was allowed to occur.
Some large fish were housed in cylindrical tanks
which were barely longer than their own body
length. One large arowana was unable to swim
more than one body length. Other large fish that
are naturally social and construct nests in the wild
were housed alone in barren tanks not much larger
than their own body length. These tanks also
lacked enrichment which meant the fish were
Figure 10: Three blacktip reef sharks
died in 2007 when being moved
between aquariums.
Figure 11: This huge crab is
forced to live in a tiny tank.
9
denied the ability to carry out even the bare
minimum of their natural behaviours.
Abnormal behaviour such as pacing and surface
breaking behaviour (SBB) was documented in
various sites but was often dismissed by staff.
Staff at different centres gave differing reasons for
surface breaking behaviour in ray species, including
that the rays were greedy (and thus constantly
looking for food), that they were “dancing”,
“excited”, “friendly”, “coming up for oxygen” or
that they were trying to “read visitor’s heartbeats”.
Perhaps the most bizarre suggestion was that
that the persistent surface breaking behaviour
demonstrated by a dog fish was the fish coming
to the surface to “smell the air”. These responses
either show a serious lack of understanding on
the part of the staff entrusted with educating
aquarium visitors or deliberate attempts to cover
up undesirable behaviours in the animals, which
are likely caused by captivity related stress.
Naturally migratory sharks live in small pools in
Sea Life centres. At the Manchester centre, visitors
can pay to enter the tanks with them as part of
the company’s “Sea Trek” experience. This close
encounter experience is offered despite a shark dying
from a haemorrhage thought to have been caused
by stress when a person entered the tank at Brighton
Sea Life in 2003. Staff at the time were quoted in
press as saying that an unfamiliar person swimming
around would have caused a lot of stress
viii
.
Other “close encounters” were offered to visitors
where they could stroke a starfish or pick up a
crab. Starfish were kept in tubs of water, not much
larger than their own bodies, in shallow rock pool
exhibits. When asked why the animals were kept in
tubs, a member of staff told the CAPS investigator
that it was so they could be easily removed for
people to be able to touch them. The starfish were
rotated on a two hourly basis.
Crabs were taken directly out of the pool and
shown to visitors. One member of staff turned one
crab upside down in order to make the animal
Figure 13: Two large fish live in a
tank where they can swim little
more than one body length.
Figure 12: This crocodile lives with no natural
light, enough water to submerge but no space
to swim. Nowhere to hide from the gaze and
flash photography of visitors.
10
“play dead” whilst explaining that the crab was
tame, like a cat or a dog. This “playing dead” was,
in fact, likely a stress or fear response by the animal
to being removed abruptly from the water. Some
crab species feign death when disturbed by a
predator. Deliberately eliciting this response for
entertainment of visitors is, at best, irresponsible
and, at worst, cruel. One staff put the situation
quite bluntly, stating: “to be fair, with the crabs,
their job is to be picked up and poked in the head”.
Sea Life’s cetacean hypocrisy
Sea Life states on its website: “Sea Life believes it
is wrong to keep whales and dolphins in captivity.
No matter how spacious, no captive facility can ever
provide such far-ranging, highly social and highly
intelligent animals with the stimulation they need
for a good quality of life.”
Sea Life’s apparent concern over cetacean captivity
led to its public opposition to a permit application
made by a consortium of US-based aquariums to
import beluga whales from the wild in order to
populate their attractions. Sea Life joined whale
and dolphin conservation groups in a call to the
US Federal Government to refuse the application.
On 6th August 2013, the application was denied
and the move was celebrated as a victory amongst
animal protection advocates.
At the same time that the application was being
considered by the US government, three beluga
whales were performing tricks for audiences
alongside sea lions in the Chang Feng Ocean World
aquarium in Shanghai. The beluga whale show was
reportedly part of a new programme developed for
2013 and an investigator confirmed that the whale
show was ongoing in early 2014. The Chang Feng
aquarium is owned by Merlin Entertainments and
operates under the Sea Life brand.
The site was bought in 2012 by Merlin and an
interview with a senior manager in press in October
2012 queried the company’s stance on captive
cetaceans; specifically drawing attention to the
stated policy against keeping whales and dolphins
which appeared to conflict with the keeping of
beluga whales in Shanghai.
The spokesperson suggested that the policy in
practice was more flexible than the firm statements
on the company’s website might suggest, saying:
“we understand that [opposition to keeping
cetaceans in captivity] is not the view in all cultures,
Figure 14: People are encouraged
to touch the animals.
Figure 15: This turtle, in a tiny tank,
was demonstrating stereotypic
behaviour (ITB).
11
and given Merlin’s fast growth, we have at times
acquired businesses which historically have included
shows or displays which involve these creatures.
This has never been a reason not to take on a
good business”
ix
.
He went on to say that: “In the short term, we will
for example completely cease or review ‘shows’
involving such creatures”. However, almost two
years after Merlin purchased the Shanghai aquarium,
the whales continue to perform daily, with no sign
that the company has attempted to bring the
spectacle to an end. Beluga whale toys fill the gift
shop and even the Shanghai Sea Life centre’s logo
is a Beluga whale. In addition, sea lions perform at
the aquarium in the type of circus-style show that
will be banned in the UK in the coming years. There
is no mention whatsoever of the Beluga whales on
any Merlin or Sea Life websites and a weblink
included on the Merlin website under the Chang
Feng Ocean World name links to another aquarium’s
website; one which is not owned by Merlin.
The Shanghai aquarium is not the first Merlin
business to house captive cetaceans as, in
November 2006, Merlin announced its acquisition
of the Italian theme park 'Gardaland' which operated
one of Europe’s largest captive dolphin shows and
housed six dolphins at the time: Nau, Ted, Betty,
Robin, Tango and Mia. Betty and Robin had been
captured from the wild in the 1980s. Tango died in
2008, whilst under Merlin’s care.
Upon discovery of the acquisition of this first park,
UK based charity, Marine Connection, working for
the protection and welfare of dolphins and whales
worldwide, immediately raised concerns. Merlin
responded stating that the welfare of dolphins at
Gardaland would be the “overriding consideration
governing all decisions on their behalf”
x
.
Following the acquisition of Gardaland, in 2007
Merlin Entertainments went on to acquire the
Tussauds Group whose facilities include Heide Park
in Germany; another park which featured a dolphin
pool with at least one dolphin housed there at
the time of acquisition.
In response to criticism over its apparently
contradictory stance on cetacean captivity,
Merlin released a statement in 2012 claiming
that the company was planning to create a
sanctuary for the Gardaland and Heide Park
dolphins
xi
. However the Heide Park dolphins had
already been transferred to Nuremberg Zoo by
Merlin in 2008 and the Gardaland dolphins were
sent to Genoa Aquarium in 2013. It is unclear
whether or not Merlin retain ownership of the
animals. At present, all continue to be on public
display (including ongoing dolphin shows at
Nuremberg) and no evidence of a sanctuary
being developed is available in the public domain
in March 2014. This is in spite of repeated
references to the sanctuary plans made in press
statements by Merlin. CAPS contacted Merlin in
March 2014 to request information on the
progress of the proposed sanctuary but no
response was received.
Additionally, a major stakeholder in Merlin
Entertainments is the Blackstone Group, which also
holds a 25% share in the notorious Sea World marine
parks. Sea World has come under increasing criticism
for its use of performing Orcas. This criticism
reached new levels with the 2013 release of the
damning documentary, Blackfish, which highlighted
the serious welfare and safety concerns surrounding
the capture of cetaceans from the wild as well as
their wellbeing in captivity.
Clearly, while whales continue to perform tricks
daily in the Shanghai Sea Life centre, and
dolphins previously under Merlin’s care are simply
sent to another location where they continue to
be used for entertainment, any claims that the
company is opposed to cetacean captivity is
demonstrably false. This means that visitors to
Sea Life centres in the UK and the rest of Europe
may be unwittingly supporting the exploitation
of these animals.
12
Conclusion
The Sea Life brand is part of a huge and ever-expanding commercial
business with an increasing influence around the world. This study strongly
suggests that Sea Life aquariums are not benign institutions with the best
interests of animals in mind but businesses adept at attracting positive
publicity from sometimes questionable activities, whilst actively avoiding
areas of controversy. The pursuit of positive publicity continues even if it
means being somewhat economical with the truth. In some cases, simple
questions to staff are met with outright lies when it was deemed the true
answer might not be one which Sea Life visitors might expect to hear.
Given the evidence of removing animals from the wild, welfare concerns, poor education
and contradictory messaging to its visitors, the prospect of Sea Life’s increasing global
influence should not just be a concern for animal protection advocates, but for all of us.
Healthy oceans are vital for a healthy planet and Sea Life, whose mission appears to be
focused not upon the protection of such habitats, but upon the furtherance of its own
business brand and expanding empire, should not, in our opinion, be trusted as a reliable
ambassador of these precious and threatened environments.
The ethical and animal welfare concerns surrounding the zoo industry are being
brought under increasing scrutiny worldwide but fish and other marine animals are
often overlooked. This is perhaps because it is easier for us to empathise with the plight
of mammals, who are more like us and share so many of our own traits. Since Suffering
Deep Down was published by CAPS in 2004, many myths surrounding aquatic animals
have been dispelled. Fish have lives of their own. They suffer and experience pain. They
learn and choose to avoid situations which put them under threat of harm. It is time that
we gave fish and other aquatic animals our full consideration; and that can begin by
bringing an end to support for their lifelong confinement in public aquariums.
Figures 16: Sea Life centre in
Shanghai advertises daily
whale shows, despite Sea
Life's proclaimed opposition
to cetacean captivity.
PO Box 540, Salford, M5 0DS, UK
Phone: +44 (0)845 330 3911 (local-call rate)
or +44 (0)161 869 0020
E-mail: [email protected]
Websites: www.sea-lies.org.uk
www.captiveanimals.org
The Captive Animals' Protection Society is a
registered charity in England and Wales No.1124436
CAPS
Captive Animals’ Protection Society
References
i
www.metro.co.uk/2013/03/20/giant-japanese-spider-
crab-big-daddy-arrives-at-blackpool-sea-life-centre-
3550751 [Accessed 20.3.2014]
ii
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137356/Monster-
Tasmanian-King-Crabs-saved-pot-shipped-Britain-
aquarium-display.html [Accessed 20.3.2014]
iii
www.conserveturtles.org/caymanislandturtles.php
[Accessed 20.3.2014]
iv
www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2013/may/
30/ernie-the-sprout-eating-turtle-manchester-sealife
[Accessed 20.3.2014]
v
www.merlinentertainments.biz/results-and-presentations
[Accessed 20.3.2014]
vi
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?
sid=1196 [Accessed 20.3.2014]
vii
Broom, D. and Johnson K. G. (1993) Stress and
Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall/Kluwer
viii
www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/
q2984936.stm [Accessed 20.3.2014]
ix
www.blooloop.com/features/aquariums-rob-hicks-
director-of-displays-develop/452#.Uv41O84QOPY
[Accessed 20.3.2014]
x
www.marineconnection.org/campaigns/Merlin_
statement_17.11.06.htm [Accessed 20.3.2014]
xi
www.marineconnection.org/campaigns/
slcgardaland.htm [Accessed 20.3.2014]
Design: www.designsolutions.me.uk
doc_898623267.pdf
UK-based animal protection charity, the Captive Animals' Protection Society (CAPS), commissioned a detailed investigation into the operation of the UK's largest chain of aquariums, Sea Life; a brand owned by the global company, Merlin Entertainments. This report summaries some of the main findings of that investigation.
www.captiveanimals.org
WORKING FOR A WORLD
WITHOUT CAGES
SINCE 1957
CAPS
Captive Animals’ Protection Society
An investigation into
the UK’s largest public
aquarium chain
Summary Report
In the second half of 2013, UK-based animal protection charity,
the Captive Animals’ Protection Society (CAPS), commissioned a
detailed investigation into the operation of the UK’s largest chain
of aquariums, Sea Life; a brand owned by the global company,
Merlin Entertainments. This report summarises some of the main
findings of that investigation.
The investigation follows a similar project carried out by the same organisation
ten years previously which culminated in the report, Suffering Deep Down.
The 2004 study considered a number of different aquariums, not just those
operated by Merlin under the Sea Life brand. As such, a direct comparison cannot
be drawn between the results found in 2004 and those found a decade later.
However, as Sea Life describes itself as the “world’s largest aquarium brand”, it is
perhaps safe to assume that standards might be found to be higher in Sea Life
centres than others. As such, problems or concerns raised with regard to Sea Life
aquariums may also be applicable to other public aquariums around the UK.
Despite the inability to draw direct comparisons between the two studies, a
number of areas of general concern noted in 2004 were found to be of equal
concern today. In particular, that animals are still being taken from the wild to
stock aquariums, that animal welfare provision was lacking and that a generally
poor standard of educational information was provided to visitors were all
practices noted by investigators in both studies, ten years apart. In addition,
a number of issues specific to Sea Life have been highlighted by this new
investigation including those surrounding conservation claims, rescue and
release programmes, the keeping of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) in
captivity and the provision of false and misleading information to visitors.
This report seeks to summarise the main themes identified during the study.
It does not seek to represent detailed data or methodology but aims offer the
reader an overview of the issues identified and provide broad conclusions.
For detailed information relating to the data from the main study, and the
methodology employed, the study report can be found at www.sea-lies.org.uk
or a copy can be provided on request to [email protected].
This summary report offers a sobering view of a company which, it becomes
apparent, has little to do with conservation and, it seems, much more to
do with profit.
Introduction
2
THE CLAIM: “We never get any
animal - from the shrimps to the
sharks - never get any animal from
the sea because we find it cruel. It’s
part of our company policy not to”
[Sea Life staff member]
THE TRUTH: Sea Life centres take
animals from the wild to stock their
tanks but senior management refuse
to reveal how many of the thousands
of fish and other animals have been
taken from the sea.
THE CLAIM: Giant crabs and 20 turtles
were “rescued” by Sea Life
THE TRUTH: Sea Life bought crabs
directly from fisherman for thousands
of pounds at a time and 20 turtles
were acquired from a turtle farm in
the Cayman Islands in 2006. The
turtles were acquired despite opposition
from conservation organisations
which said the import of the animals
breached international rules on trade
in endangered species.
THE CLAIM: “Sea Life believes it is
wrong to keep whales and dolphins in
captivity. No matter how spacious, no
captive facility can ever provide such
far-ranging, highly social and highly
intelligent animals with the stimulation
they need for a good quality of life”.
[Sea Life website]
THE TRUTH: Sea Life’s parent company
has, since 2006, purchased at least
three attractions which housed captive
cetaceans. The most recent purchase in
2012 was Chang Feng Ocean World in
Shanghai which has been rebranded as
a Sea Life centre. Beluga whales were
still “performing” in the Shanghai centre
in March 2014. Merlin is part-owned by
the same company which bought the
notorious Sea World marine parks in
the US in 2009.
Ssshhh...don’t tell the visitors!
Just some of the false claims made by Sea Life...
3
THE CLAIM: “Many of our creatures
are on the endangered list”
[Sea Life Website]
THE TRUTH: Only 2.5% of the exhibits
observed housed animals belonging
to endangered species. The vast
majority of species housed in Sea Life
aquariums have not been assessed for
conservation purposes.
THE CLAIM: “Naturally, we choose
only those species that flourish in
aquarium surroundings”
[Sea Life website]
THE TRUTH: Various incidences of
captivity-related stress behaviours
were recognised during the study as
well as recurring health issues which,
staff admitted, had resulted in high
numbers of deaths.
THE CLAIM: “Breeding programmes
help us to reinstate struggling species
to environments they help to maintain”
[Sea Life website]
THE TRUTH: Evidence of release of
species bred in Sea Life centres is
notably absent, with the exception of
lobsters (who, in any case, are released
to “sustainable fisheries”). Sea Life
confirms in published information
that breeding programmes serve the
purpose of ensuring that Sea Life
aquariums remain stocked to avoid
having to take animals from the wild.
THE CLAIM: “Sea Life never kills a
healthy animal” [Sea Life staff member,
Hunstanton] and “We never put any-
thing to sleep because we have got
too many of them or because they
are a problem”
[Sea Life staff member, Great Yarmouth]
THE TRUTH: Killing healthy animals
because they are “surplus to requirements”
or “too large to house” is permitted in
Sea Life aquariums but must be
discussed by the company’s ethics
committee. No information has been
made available as to how many
animals are killed for these reasons.
Figure 2: Sea Life's euthanasia policy clearly
lists "surplus to requirements" or "too large for
tank" as a reason that healthy animals might
be killed. Staff denied this to the CAPS
researcher.
“Sea Life claims to be opposed
to whales and dolphins in
captivity. Yet whales perform
circus-style tricks three times
a day in the company’s
Shanghai centre.”
Figure 1: The permanent home of an octopus
at a Sea Life centre. Can any animal "flourish"
in this tiny glass box?.
Taken from the ocean
and put into a fish tank
Whilst most zoos have moved away from taking
animals from the wild to stock their cages, and
most members of the public assume that animals
held in zoos will have been bred in captivity, for
aquariums, this is certainly not the case. In 2004,
it was found that a huge 79% of animals held in
public aquariums had been taken directly from
their ocean home to live in tanks and the current
study found little evidence to suggest that things
have changed. What has changed however,
perhaps as a result of the public backlash as it
was revealed that aquariums were removing
animals from the wild, is that Sea Life staff are
noticeably reluctant to share the truth about the
animals’ origin with visitors. When asked outright
how many animals came from the wild, some
staff refused to answer and others claimed they
did not know. One member of staff informed our
investigator that it was company policy never to take
an animal from the wild. This is simply not true.
At five of the 12 centres, when asked, staff
denied that any animals were taken from the wild.
At the remaining seven, it was admitted that some
animals were wild-caught with the implication
that this was only the case on rare occasions. This
reluctance to be honest about the source of the
animals mirrors the response of one of Sea Life’s
most senior managers, who refused to answer the
same question when asked during a meeting with
CAPS’ director during 2013 and, instead, promised
to provide an answer in writing. The answer was
never provided and the true figure remains
unknown today.
At least one member of staff was honest about the
reason for withholding the information. He told the
CAPS investigator to contact head office for Sea
Life’s policy on wild capture as it was a “sensitive
subject” and “some people get quite irate about
it”. There appears to be a clear consensus, from the
most senior management to the staff interacting
daily with visitors, that the taking of animals from
the wild to stock Sea Life aquariums should
be played down as much as possible, or even
denied outright.
Despite denials, the CAPS investigator was able
to confirm that sharks, fish, crabs, octopuses and
turtles, amongst others, had been taken from their
wild home to live in Sea Life tanks.
Commercial trade in
wildlife dressed up in
claims of “rescue”
Whilst the origin of many animals that end up in
Sea Life tanks is a secret kept closely guarded by
the company, the arrival of others from their ocean
home are subject to a great deal of publicity;
particularly those that can be seen to bolster Sea
Life’s reputation for wildlife rescue.
Sea Life claims that its work has a strong focus on
the rescue of animals. Indeed, the Sea Life brand
owns two seal sanctuaries in Gweek (Cornwall) and
Oban (Scotland) which do carry out valuable rescue
projects. Conversely, many of the highly publicised
“rescues” carried out by the company have, in fact,
4
Figure 3: Some Sea Life staff insisted
that no animals were taken from
the wild. This is simply not true.
Figure 4: CAPS 2004 research showed almost
80% of animals in aquariums originated from
the wild. It seems that little has changed.
5
transpired to be commercial transactions where
animals appear to have been purchased by Sea Life
in order for them to spend their lives in a tank.
For example, in March 2013, a nine-foot Japanese
spider crab was, according to Sea Life, “rescued
from being on Japanese dinner plates”
i
. In fact,
Sea Life had purchased the animal from a fisherman.
The purchase of the male crab appeared to be
particularly well-timed as, at that time, the
aquarium also held a female of the same species
that required a male to fertilise her eggs.
This follows a similar transaction in 2012, when
three Tasmanian king crabs were “rescued from
fisherman” off the coast of Tasmania. Sea Life
“saved them from death” by buying them from the
fishermen for £3,000
ii
. It appears that the practice
of buying animals from those people removing them
from their natural habitat and then characterising
that transaction as a rescue is a way in which Sea
Life generates positive publicity about its work.
A similar situation occurred when 20 turtles were
reportedly “rescued” from a turtle farm in the
Cayman Islands; one of whom is likely to be ‘Ernie’,
the Green sea turtle at Manchester Sea Life. At the
time the proposal to acquire the turtles was made,
it was met with opposition by leading conservation
organisations who maintained that the move
would contravene rules on the trade in endangered
species
iii
. It appears that despite this strong opposition,
Sea Life went ahead and imported the 20 turtles
from the Cayman Islands farm with permission
from UK authorities. No published information
is available to confirm whether or not money
changed hands in the transaction but given that
the turtle farm is a for-profit business, it seems
reasonable to assume that this was a commercial
transaction.
According to both national media and Sea Life
staff, the removal of ‘Ernie’ from the farm for
exhibit was another “rescue”
iv.
However, as in the
case of Sea Life’s acquisition of the giant crabs, the
acquisition of the turtles from a company which
breeds them for sale can hardly be characterised as
a rescue. Furthermore, these types of practices
unarguably fuels the trade in wildlife, as demand is
met by those willing to supply animals to those
seeking them out.
Finally, some of the other turtles in Sea Life centres
have reportedly been rescued by the company after
being injured by speedboats. Whilst caring for
injured wildlife appears to offer legitimate cause for
rescue, the CAPS investigator was informed that
the turtles had been flown in from Florida in order
©
D
a
l
l
a
s
K
r
e
n
t
z
e
l
(
C
C
L
i
c
e
n
c
e
)
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
c
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
o
n
s
.
o
r
g
/
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
s
b
y
4
.
0
Figure 5: Giant crabs were bought
from fishermen and sent to live in
tanks in UK aquariums.
Figure 6: Turtles were imported from a farm on
the Cayman Islands to Sea Life centres in the
UK, despite allegations by leading conserva-
tionists that the import was illegal.
©
A
n
i
m
a
l
s
A
s
i
a
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
6
to live in Sea Life tanks in the UK. Given the known
threats to animal health and welfare during travel,
transporting injured wildlife over 4,000 miles
suggests that the “rescue” of these animals was not
carried out with the individuals’ welfare in mind.
Furthermore, included in the list of charitable
organisations that Sea Life claims to support is
“Florida Sea Turtle Rescue”. An internet search
showed no organisation currently operating under
this name but its inclusion in Sea Life’s list of
beneficiaries suggests that the aquarium chain has
or has had active links with an organisation focused
upon turtle rescue in the very place from which
they originate. This raises further concerns over the
company’s decision to transport the allegedly
injured animals to the UK.
“Saving animals from the
dinner plate” ... and serving
others to visitors
Many people associate zoos and aquariums with
the protection of species and believe that their
ultimate aim is to release animals back to the wild.
Whilst release to the wild very rarely happens in
zoos and, indeed, it has been shown that aquariums
are still taking animals from the sea to stock their
tanks, CAPS’ investigator was told that there are
some release programmes in operation at Sea Life
centres. In particular the lobsters, it was stated by
a member of staff at the Hunstanton centre, are
part of a release programme with 20-30 being
freed every few months. However when questioned
further, it was confirmed that the animals were
released as part of a “sustainable fishery”. In other
words, they were released with a view to end up as
food. Sea Life state that this “helps both lobster
conservation and the food industry”.
On the one hand, Sea Life tells its visitors that it
has saved some animals, such as giant crabs, from
death on people’s dinner plates, whilst knowingly
sending others to suffer the same fate. This can
hardly fail to present a confusing and contradictory
message to visitors.
This confused messaging involving claims of saving
animals from being eaten whilst sending other
animals to be eaten is further compounded by the
serving of fish in the aquarium restaurants. Fish
available at Sea Life events includes cod; a species
which, until recently, was recommended by experts
for inclusion on the endangered species list.
Perhaps more importantly, from an ethical perspective,
it is difficult to encourage visitors, and particularly
young people, to develop empathy and respect for
animals that they are seeing in aquariums if those
same animals are later presented to them as food.
The overriding message is not that oceans and
marine life should be conserved because the lives
of those animals and the habitats in which they
live are valuable in their own right, but that
conservation of these species is necessary in order
to ensure an endless supply of food for people.
In truth, marine animal species and habitats are
suffering catastrophic degradation as the result
of fishing for human consumption. The most
important message that Sea Life could pass on to
its visitors is to refrain from eating fish, and thus
supporting destructive industries (either directly or
indirectly) altogether. Of course, whilst Sea Life
buys animals from fishermen, takes animals from
the wild itself, and serves fish up to visitors in its
restaurants, delivering this simple conservation
message becomes impossible without condemning
its own practices.
Conservation claims that do
not stand up to scrutiny
In addition to other claims, Sea Life asserts that
marine conservation is at the heart of its work.
Whilst it is accepted that effective conservation
cannot be measured in monetary terms, the
amount of money that conservation organisations
donate to worthy projects has long been used as a
benchmark to establish who the main contributors
are. Given that Sea Life advertises itself as the world’s
largest aquarium brand and has over 10 million
visitors per year, one might expect the conservation
contribution of the organisation to be significant.
Merlin, the parent organisation of Sea Life, reported
revenue of over £1 billion (£1,074,000,000) in
2012
v
. Despite this, when questioned specifically on
monetary contribution to conservation efforts, a
senior manager from Sea Life was only able to offer
concrete evidence of £250,000 donated to a turtle
sanctuary in Greece. This amounts to just 0.02% of
Merlin’s total revenue and less than three pence
per person being able to be traced directly to in
situ conservation. It was noticed by the CAPS
investigator that there were donation collection
points asking for money from Sea Life visitors for
the turtle sanctuary in each of its centres. As such,
it is not clear whether or not Sea Life donates any
of its own takings to the initiative or simply the
money that its customers give over and above their
entrance fee (currently around £65 per family
group, dependent on location).
According to signage at Brighton Sea Life centre,
almost £1,000 has been raised for the charity,
Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), and
£10,000 for the Greek turtle sanctuary. It is unclear
whether this £10,000 is part of, or in addition to,
the £250,000 already disclosed.
Amongst its conservation claims, the company cites
sea horse breeding as one of its major activities.
Most zoos claim that breeding of animals is carried
out in order to provide a “safety net” population
for eventual reintroduction to the wild and Sea Life
does state that if sea horses become extinct, the
Figure 7: Fish on the menu at Sea Life while
other animals have been "rescued from dinner
plates". Confusing messaging for visitors.
7
animals bred in their aquariums could be released.
The company is, however, honest in admitting that
the foremost purpose of breeding sea horses is to
stock its own tanks which, it is stated, reduces the
need to take animals from the sea. Of course most
conservation organisations do not, themselves, pose
a direct threat to wild species and so to claim that
not removing animals from their natural habitat is
active conservation work is somewhat misleading.
Notwithstanding the capture of animals from the
wild, the vast majority of species held by Sea Life
centres belong to species either not threatened in
the wild, or species that have not been assessed for
conservation purposes. Just 2.5% of exhibits house
species which are classed as endangered.
According to a member of staff at the Hunstanton
centre “Sea Life has standard stock ... they are all
key creatures that people want to see”. These
animals include clown fish and regal tangs which
were made famous by the film, Finding Nemo.
Choosing species based on the popularity of
characters in animated movies suggests that
conservation is not a primary consideration
for which animals might be held captive in
Sea Life aquariums.
If Sea Life is not offering significant support to in
situ conservation (despite its huge income) nor
caring for many endangered species, there seems
to be little meaningful conservation contribution
being made by the business. Of course, while Sea
Life continues to take animals from the wild, rather
than making a positive impact on conservation,
Sea Life rather appears to be part of the problem.
Animal welfare worries
It was once thought that fish lacked intelligence
and sentience but, for a number of years, it has
been recognised that this is not the case. The myth
that fish have three-second memories has long
been dispelled by clear scientific evidence, and yet
fish are still treated as little more than ornaments
rather than the sentient animals that they are. Fish
and other aquatic animals have physical, social,
behavioural and environmental needs which must
be met in order for them to experience a good
quality of life. Sea Life makes the claim that it
only keeps animals that “flourish” in an aquarium
environment, but in many cases this claim does
not appear to be borne out in evidence.
The CAPS investigator found evidence of stress-
related disease, high mortality and repetitive
Figures 8 & 9: Staff told the CAPS investigator
that animals are kept at Sea Life based on
which species visitors wanted to see, rather
than for conservation purposes.
8
behaviours indicative of an inability to cope with
captive situations in the centres visited.
A clear case of neglect was described by a member
of Sea Life staff during the investigation. At Oban
Sea Life, an apparently knowledgeable member
of staff allegedly voiced concerns to senior
management regarding signs that the Shore
crabs were infected with a dangerous parasite
(Sacculina carcini). The CAPS investigator was told
that concerns were ignored for several weeks by
the Animal Care team and eventually the crabs
were deemed too sick to be on display and were
killed. The animals were allegedly killed by a senior
member of staff by placing them into a box filled
with an (unknown) toxic substance. The animals
apparently took 30 minutes to die.
In 2007, Sea Life staff negligence was responsible
for the deaths of three Blacktip reef sharks who
were being transported 70 miles between Great
Yarmouth Sea Life and a refurbished tank at
Hunstanton. It was reported that the three died
because their water was too cold
vi
. According to a
news report, the company confirmed that, due to a
mistake made by a staff member, the water was
two degrees centigrade below the minimum
required for sharks.
When specifically asked about how the welfare of
the animals was monitored and assessed, answers
from staff were vague. One member of staff said
that the welfare of the turtles was decided based
on whether they were “feeding and swimming”
along with “a general sort of looking over the
body”. The Animal Care member of staff added
“I mean if he’s swimming around he’s pretty happy
then that’s probably a good indicator” and “if they
stop eating they are not happy”.
Staff at Great Yarmouth Sea Life informed the CAPS
investigator that successful breeding is a positive
indicator of welfare. Yet it has been demonstrated
that breeding when considered as a stand-alone
criterion cannot be considered a viable indicator of
good welfare
vii
. Even if it were, Sea Life itself admits
that many of the species in its care are not breeding
in their centres. Indeed, the fact that marine fish
do not breed well in captivity is the very reason
that these animals are taken from the sea. By the
company’s own welfare indicators, therefore, it
seems that the needs of many of the animals are
unlikely to be being met in full.
Welfare concerns with regard to provision of a
suitable environment included lack of an appropriate
substrate (particularly for fish and other animals
that spend time buried in the sea bed), lack of
space to leave the water (in the case of turtles
and alligators), lack of space to swim (in the case
of alligators), no access to outdoors whatsoever
(in the case of penguins and reptiles), lack of
environmental enrichment (for many species), lack
of space to retreat from view (for many species),
lack of space to retreat from other animals (for
many species) and nocturnal and diurnal species
being housed together and thus being subjected
to each others’ light cycle, amongst other things.
Staff at Scarborough Sea Life admitted: “White
spot [a parasite] is quite common, especially in
blue [Regal] tangs as they get a bit stressed with
a lack of space” and that the animals may “feel
claustrophobic” in their tanks. Staff at Sea Life
aquariums mentioned white spot as if it was intrinsic
with aquariums but it is, in fact, as confirmed by
staff at the Scarborough centre, “very easy to
treat”. Despite this, at Blackpool it was admitted
that “obviously we get white spot from time-to-
time, which has meant high mortality in those tanks”.
As white spot can, by the company’s own
admission, be treated, it is unclear how high
mortality in tanks in Blackpool was allowed to occur.
Some large fish were housed in cylindrical tanks
which were barely longer than their own body
length. One large arowana was unable to swim
more than one body length. Other large fish that
are naturally social and construct nests in the wild
were housed alone in barren tanks not much larger
than their own body length. These tanks also
lacked enrichment which meant the fish were
Figure 10: Three blacktip reef sharks
died in 2007 when being moved
between aquariums.
Figure 11: This huge crab is
forced to live in a tiny tank.
9
denied the ability to carry out even the bare
minimum of their natural behaviours.
Abnormal behaviour such as pacing and surface
breaking behaviour (SBB) was documented in
various sites but was often dismissed by staff.
Staff at different centres gave differing reasons for
surface breaking behaviour in ray species, including
that the rays were greedy (and thus constantly
looking for food), that they were “dancing”,
“excited”, “friendly”, “coming up for oxygen” or
that they were trying to “read visitor’s heartbeats”.
Perhaps the most bizarre suggestion was that
that the persistent surface breaking behaviour
demonstrated by a dog fish was the fish coming
to the surface to “smell the air”. These responses
either show a serious lack of understanding on
the part of the staff entrusted with educating
aquarium visitors or deliberate attempts to cover
up undesirable behaviours in the animals, which
are likely caused by captivity related stress.
Naturally migratory sharks live in small pools in
Sea Life centres. At the Manchester centre, visitors
can pay to enter the tanks with them as part of
the company’s “Sea Trek” experience. This close
encounter experience is offered despite a shark dying
from a haemorrhage thought to have been caused
by stress when a person entered the tank at Brighton
Sea Life in 2003. Staff at the time were quoted in
press as saying that an unfamiliar person swimming
around would have caused a lot of stress
viii
.
Other “close encounters” were offered to visitors
where they could stroke a starfish or pick up a
crab. Starfish were kept in tubs of water, not much
larger than their own bodies, in shallow rock pool
exhibits. When asked why the animals were kept in
tubs, a member of staff told the CAPS investigator
that it was so they could be easily removed for
people to be able to touch them. The starfish were
rotated on a two hourly basis.
Crabs were taken directly out of the pool and
shown to visitors. One member of staff turned one
crab upside down in order to make the animal
Figure 13: Two large fish live in a
tank where they can swim little
more than one body length.
Figure 12: This crocodile lives with no natural
light, enough water to submerge but no space
to swim. Nowhere to hide from the gaze and
flash photography of visitors.
10
“play dead” whilst explaining that the crab was
tame, like a cat or a dog. This “playing dead” was,
in fact, likely a stress or fear response by the animal
to being removed abruptly from the water. Some
crab species feign death when disturbed by a
predator. Deliberately eliciting this response for
entertainment of visitors is, at best, irresponsible
and, at worst, cruel. One staff put the situation
quite bluntly, stating: “to be fair, with the crabs,
their job is to be picked up and poked in the head”.
Sea Life’s cetacean hypocrisy
Sea Life states on its website: “Sea Life believes it
is wrong to keep whales and dolphins in captivity.
No matter how spacious, no captive facility can ever
provide such far-ranging, highly social and highly
intelligent animals with the stimulation they need
for a good quality of life.”
Sea Life’s apparent concern over cetacean captivity
led to its public opposition to a permit application
made by a consortium of US-based aquariums to
import beluga whales from the wild in order to
populate their attractions. Sea Life joined whale
and dolphin conservation groups in a call to the
US Federal Government to refuse the application.
On 6th August 2013, the application was denied
and the move was celebrated as a victory amongst
animal protection advocates.
At the same time that the application was being
considered by the US government, three beluga
whales were performing tricks for audiences
alongside sea lions in the Chang Feng Ocean World
aquarium in Shanghai. The beluga whale show was
reportedly part of a new programme developed for
2013 and an investigator confirmed that the whale
show was ongoing in early 2014. The Chang Feng
aquarium is owned by Merlin Entertainments and
operates under the Sea Life brand.
The site was bought in 2012 by Merlin and an
interview with a senior manager in press in October
2012 queried the company’s stance on captive
cetaceans; specifically drawing attention to the
stated policy against keeping whales and dolphins
which appeared to conflict with the keeping of
beluga whales in Shanghai.
The spokesperson suggested that the policy in
practice was more flexible than the firm statements
on the company’s website might suggest, saying:
“we understand that [opposition to keeping
cetaceans in captivity] is not the view in all cultures,
Figure 14: People are encouraged
to touch the animals.
Figure 15: This turtle, in a tiny tank,
was demonstrating stereotypic
behaviour (ITB).
11
and given Merlin’s fast growth, we have at times
acquired businesses which historically have included
shows or displays which involve these creatures.
This has never been a reason not to take on a
good business”
ix
.
He went on to say that: “In the short term, we will
for example completely cease or review ‘shows’
involving such creatures”. However, almost two
years after Merlin purchased the Shanghai aquarium,
the whales continue to perform daily, with no sign
that the company has attempted to bring the
spectacle to an end. Beluga whale toys fill the gift
shop and even the Shanghai Sea Life centre’s logo
is a Beluga whale. In addition, sea lions perform at
the aquarium in the type of circus-style show that
will be banned in the UK in the coming years. There
is no mention whatsoever of the Beluga whales on
any Merlin or Sea Life websites and a weblink
included on the Merlin website under the Chang
Feng Ocean World name links to another aquarium’s
website; one which is not owned by Merlin.
The Shanghai aquarium is not the first Merlin
business to house captive cetaceans as, in
November 2006, Merlin announced its acquisition
of the Italian theme park 'Gardaland' which operated
one of Europe’s largest captive dolphin shows and
housed six dolphins at the time: Nau, Ted, Betty,
Robin, Tango and Mia. Betty and Robin had been
captured from the wild in the 1980s. Tango died in
2008, whilst under Merlin’s care.
Upon discovery of the acquisition of this first park,
UK based charity, Marine Connection, working for
the protection and welfare of dolphins and whales
worldwide, immediately raised concerns. Merlin
responded stating that the welfare of dolphins at
Gardaland would be the “overriding consideration
governing all decisions on their behalf”
x
.
Following the acquisition of Gardaland, in 2007
Merlin Entertainments went on to acquire the
Tussauds Group whose facilities include Heide Park
in Germany; another park which featured a dolphin
pool with at least one dolphin housed there at
the time of acquisition.
In response to criticism over its apparently
contradictory stance on cetacean captivity,
Merlin released a statement in 2012 claiming
that the company was planning to create a
sanctuary for the Gardaland and Heide Park
dolphins
xi
. However the Heide Park dolphins had
already been transferred to Nuremberg Zoo by
Merlin in 2008 and the Gardaland dolphins were
sent to Genoa Aquarium in 2013. It is unclear
whether or not Merlin retain ownership of the
animals. At present, all continue to be on public
display (including ongoing dolphin shows at
Nuremberg) and no evidence of a sanctuary
being developed is available in the public domain
in March 2014. This is in spite of repeated
references to the sanctuary plans made in press
statements by Merlin. CAPS contacted Merlin in
March 2014 to request information on the
progress of the proposed sanctuary but no
response was received.
Additionally, a major stakeholder in Merlin
Entertainments is the Blackstone Group, which also
holds a 25% share in the notorious Sea World marine
parks. Sea World has come under increasing criticism
for its use of performing Orcas. This criticism
reached new levels with the 2013 release of the
damning documentary, Blackfish, which highlighted
the serious welfare and safety concerns surrounding
the capture of cetaceans from the wild as well as
their wellbeing in captivity.
Clearly, while whales continue to perform tricks
daily in the Shanghai Sea Life centre, and
dolphins previously under Merlin’s care are simply
sent to another location where they continue to
be used for entertainment, any claims that the
company is opposed to cetacean captivity is
demonstrably false. This means that visitors to
Sea Life centres in the UK and the rest of Europe
may be unwittingly supporting the exploitation
of these animals.
12
Conclusion
The Sea Life brand is part of a huge and ever-expanding commercial
business with an increasing influence around the world. This study strongly
suggests that Sea Life aquariums are not benign institutions with the best
interests of animals in mind but businesses adept at attracting positive
publicity from sometimes questionable activities, whilst actively avoiding
areas of controversy. The pursuit of positive publicity continues even if it
means being somewhat economical with the truth. In some cases, simple
questions to staff are met with outright lies when it was deemed the true
answer might not be one which Sea Life visitors might expect to hear.
Given the evidence of removing animals from the wild, welfare concerns, poor education
and contradictory messaging to its visitors, the prospect of Sea Life’s increasing global
influence should not just be a concern for animal protection advocates, but for all of us.
Healthy oceans are vital for a healthy planet and Sea Life, whose mission appears to be
focused not upon the protection of such habitats, but upon the furtherance of its own
business brand and expanding empire, should not, in our opinion, be trusted as a reliable
ambassador of these precious and threatened environments.
The ethical and animal welfare concerns surrounding the zoo industry are being
brought under increasing scrutiny worldwide but fish and other marine animals are
often overlooked. This is perhaps because it is easier for us to empathise with the plight
of mammals, who are more like us and share so many of our own traits. Since Suffering
Deep Down was published by CAPS in 2004, many myths surrounding aquatic animals
have been dispelled. Fish have lives of their own. They suffer and experience pain. They
learn and choose to avoid situations which put them under threat of harm. It is time that
we gave fish and other aquatic animals our full consideration; and that can begin by
bringing an end to support for their lifelong confinement in public aquariums.
Figures 16: Sea Life centre in
Shanghai advertises daily
whale shows, despite Sea
Life's proclaimed opposition
to cetacean captivity.
PO Box 540, Salford, M5 0DS, UK
Phone: +44 (0)845 330 3911 (local-call rate)
or +44 (0)161 869 0020
E-mail: [email protected]
Websites: www.sea-lies.org.uk
www.captiveanimals.org
The Captive Animals' Protection Society is a
registered charity in England and Wales No.1124436
CAPS
Captive Animals’ Protection Society
References
i
www.metro.co.uk/2013/03/20/giant-japanese-spider-
crab-big-daddy-arrives-at-blackpool-sea-life-centre-
3550751 [Accessed 20.3.2014]
ii
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137356/Monster-
Tasmanian-King-Crabs-saved-pot-shipped-Britain-
aquarium-display.html [Accessed 20.3.2014]
iii
www.conserveturtles.org/caymanislandturtles.php
[Accessed 20.3.2014]
iv
www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2013/may/
30/ernie-the-sprout-eating-turtle-manchester-sealife
[Accessed 20.3.2014]
v
www.merlinentertainments.biz/results-and-presentations
[Accessed 20.3.2014]
vi
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?
sid=1196 [Accessed 20.3.2014]
vii
Broom, D. and Johnson K. G. (1993) Stress and
Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall/Kluwer
viii
www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/
q2984936.stm [Accessed 20.3.2014]
ix
www.blooloop.com/features/aquariums-rob-hicks-
director-of-displays-develop/452#.Uv41O84QOPY
[Accessed 20.3.2014]
x
www.marineconnection.org/campaigns/Merlin_
statement_17.11.06.htm [Accessed 20.3.2014]
xi
www.marineconnection.org/campaigns/
slcgardaland.htm [Accessed 20.3.2014]
Design: www.designsolutions.me.uk
doc_898623267.pdf