Cetacean Sanctuaries: Do They Guarantee Better Welfare?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An excellent and objective representation of a topic that is extremely important in the world of marine mammals and other charismatic species. The authors did a thorough job of presenting the available evidence and interpreting it objectively with a clear call for the need to collect, evaluate, and utilize empirical evidence to assess the idea and potential effectiveness of sanctuaries as an alternative to marine mammals in facilities. As this case study suggests, there are many considerations that may in fact decrease the welfare of marine mammals residing in sanctuaries and these concerns must be assessed with evidence-based studies before decisions and policies are made.

Only some minor edits -

Line 63 - remove project to improve clarity of reading

Line 70 - replace they are with the facility is (if appropriate & keeps meaning)

in Table - Dic could be replaced with Dec for "English" version of December.

Figures are appropriate and reasonable contributions to the paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and positive comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the importance of this topic and your acknowledgment of our objective approach to presenting and interpreting the available evidence. Your encouragement reinforces our commitment to furthering this critical discussion on marine mammal welfare and sanctuary effectiveness.

We are pleased that you found the figures appropriate and reasonable contributions to the paper.

Comment 1: Line 63 - remove project to improve clarity of reading

Response 1: We agree with your suggestion and have removed "project" as recommended to improve the sentence's flow and clarity.

Comment 2: Line 70 - replace they are with the facility is (if appropriate & keeps meaning)

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the text to replace "they are" with "the facility is," as it maintains the intended meaning while improving precision and readability.

Comment 3: in Table - Dic could be replaced with Dec for "English" version of December.

Response 3: We appreciate your attention to detail and have replaced "Dic" with "Dec" in the table to align with English conventions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Cetacean Sanctuaries: Do They Guarantee Better Welfare?”

The authors presents a description of the rehabilitation process of two belugas at the SEA LIFE Trust Beluga Whale Sanctuary and discusses the potential issues related with cetacean sanctuaries. The manuscript is clear, well-written, and presents a particular case to support the claim that sanctuaries may not represent a perfect solution for captive cetaceans. Such study is necessary to highlight the fact that not all decisions taken to improve an animal's welfare are actually effective and that these decisions should be based on scientific facts instead of emotional or anthropogenic points of view.

Specific comments:

The introduction provides all the information necessary to understand the context of the study. I would maybe add that many animals are actually sent to other captive facilities in other countries like was the case in France where animals were recently sent to Japan. Sanctuaries are therefore the third option (release / send to another park / send to a sanctuary).

L94: I suggest adding information about the origin of the two belugas, were they captured in the wild or born in captivity?

Something that should be noticed is the apparent absence of choice opportunity for the belugas, which is very important for welfare.

I think you can combine figure 2 and 3 since they provide similar information. Maybe you can add the percentages on figure 2?

In the discussion, the authors focused on the lack of anticipation of the potential issues that have arisen. While I agree with this point of view, I would suggest potential solutions regarding how to better prepare. Or solutions other than sanctuaries. Maybe focusing on welfare instead of focusing on “natural/free lives” since these two aspects are not always linked (see the work of Heather Browning).

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough and encouraging review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your positive assessment of our work and your acknowledgment of its relevance in addressing critical issues related to cetacean sanctuaries. Your constructive feedback and insightful suggestions have provided valuable guidance to further improve our manuscript. Below, we address each of your specific comments in detail:

Comment 1: The introduction provides all the information necessary to understand the context of the study. I would maybe add that many animals are actually sent to other captive facilities in other countries like was the case in France where animals were recently sent to Japan. Sanctuaries are therefore the third option (release / send to another park / send to a sanctuary).

Response 1: We have revised the introduction to include information about the common practice of transferring animals to other captive facilities internationally as an alternative to release and sanctuaries.

Comment 2: L94: I suggest adding information about the origin of the two belugas, were they captured in the wild or born in captivity?

Response 2: We have incorporated several sentences into the manuscript to provide a comprehensive background on the origins of the two belugas, Little Grey and Little White. Specifically, we have detailed that they were captured from the wild in Russian Arctic waters when they were approximately two to three years old.

Comment 3: Something that should be noticed is the apparent absence of choice opportunity for the belugas, which is very important for welfare.

Response 3: Incorporating the referee's suggestion, we have added the following sentence to the discussion section: "Furthermore, the sanctuary environment appears to limit the belugas' opportunities for autonomous decision-making, a factor crucial to their overall well-being."

Comment 4: I think you can combine figure 2 and 3 since they provide similar information. Maybe you can add the percentages on figure 2?

Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. While we acknowledge that Figures 2 and 3 present related information, we believe both figures serve distinct and complementary purposes. Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of the percentages of time the belugas have spent in the different areas, while Figure 2 highlights how these periods were distributed over time and the transitions between areas. Additionally, Figure 2 more clearly illustrates that the "Halo" was never utilized. For these reasons, we believe retaining both figures separately enhances the manuscript’s clarity and comprehensiveness.

Comment 5: In the discussion, the authors focused on the lack of anticipation of the potential issues that have arisen. While I agree with this point of view, I would suggest potential solutions regarding how to better prepare. Or solutions other than sanctuaries. Maybe focusing on welfare instead of focusing on “natural/free lives” since these two aspects are not always linked (see the work of Heather Browning).

Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the following paragraph at the end of the discussion:  While this review emphasizes the challenges in adapting cetaceans to sanctuaries, it also raises the need to reconsider how welfare improvements are pursued. Rather than focusing solely on transitioning animals to natural or semi-natural environments, future efforts could prioritize tailored welfare programs that address the specific needs of the animals in any setting. By focusing on measurable welfare outcomes such as health, behavioral repertoires, choice opportunities, and reduced stress, facilities could achieve meaningful improvements without the inherent risks and challenges associated with sanctuaries. This approach encourages a shift from emphasizing 'natural lives' to centering on practical and evidence-based welfare strategies.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a good job of prompting dialogue about an important topic (cetacean sanctuaries) with the available information. This paper may prompt more open discussion about the needs of cetaceans and how/whether cetacean welfare benefits in settings that are called sanctuaries, regardless of the actual structure of the facility.

 

The authors generally are balanced in their presentation of the information. Some prose could be worded more neutrally or alternate hypotheses could be presented. Most of the following are questions rather than rigid expectations required for publication.

·      Line 24: is this opposition that should be described as in the popular literature?

·      Line 31: ….anticaptivity optimism based on philosophical perspectives?

·      Line 36 and elsewhere: would distress (negative state that the animal is experiencing) be  more accurate than stress (referring to the general stress response)

·      Line 38: removal from conventional aquaria rather the less neutral term “liberation”?

·      Line 48 OR elsewhere: mention of morbidity and mortality under free-ranging conditions due to food shortage or predation?

·      Line 54: ….philosophically opposed?

·      Line 56: what is meant by sterile? Is this concept needed? Would something like “conventional enclosure” be more appropriate?

·      Line 102: is a reference needed here?

·      Line 105: would it be more clear that the measure provided refers to the surface area of the water?

·      Line 110: is the duration (hours) of journey and number of specialized staff known and  worth presenting?

·      Line 121: is a reference needed here?

·      Line 123: Is there a way of presenting the statement in italics or other strategy to clearly indicate that this is a long quote?

·      Line 141: is a reference needed here?

·      Line 147: “it would be reasonable to assume”? Some might not feel that this is reasonable. Consider stating something like the most parsimonious explanation or rigorous hypothesis as an effort to be more dispassionate.

·      Line 162: Reference Table 1?

·      Table 1: if it is legal, consider providing all of the content in an Appendix as a more permanent documentation and easy reference to readers

·      Line 269: consider more neutral term than grandiose rhetoric

·      Line 271: consider clarifying what and epic narrative is so that there is a universal understanding of the intent, even if it takes another sentence to explain.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review and constructive suggestions for improving our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the importance of this topic and your acknowledgment of the balanced approach we have taken in presenting the available information. Your comments and questions have provided valuable insights, and we have carefully addressed each point below:

Comment 1:   Line 24: is this opposition that should be described as in the popular literature?

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the text to specify that the opposition described is often highlighted in popular literature and public discourse.

Comment 2: Line 31: ….anticaptivity optimism based on philosophical perspectives?

Response 2:  We appreciate this recommendation and have rephrased the sentence to incorporate “anticaptivity optimism based on philosophical perspectives,” as it provides a more accurate description.

Comment 3: Line 36 and elsewhere: would distress (negative state that the animal is experiencing) be  more accurate than stress (referring to the general stress response)

Response 3: We agree that “distress” is more precise in this context. We have replaced “stress” with “distress” throughout the manuscript where appropriate.

Comment 4: Line 38: removal from conventional aquaria rather the less neutral term “liberation”?

Response 4: Thank you for this observation. We have replaced “liberation” with the more neutral term “removal from conventional aquaria.”

Comment 5: Line 48 OR elsewhere: mention of morbidity and mortality under free-ranging conditions due to food shortage or predation?

Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion. After careful consideration, we decided not to include this mention, as we find it challenging to relate morbidity and mortality in fully free-ranging conditions—such as those caused by food shortages or predation—to the sanctuary setting, where food is provided, and predators are absent. We felt that introducing this comparison might create confusion rather than clarity in the context of this discussion.

Comment 6: Line 54: ….philosophically opposed?

Response 6: We have revised the text to use “philosophically opposed” for improved clarity.

Comment 7: Line 56: what is meant by sterile? Is this concept needed? Would something like “conventional enclosure” be more appropriate?

Response 7: Thank you for this suggestion. After careful consideration, we have decided to retain the term "sterile" as it reflects the language often used in popular literature to describe such enclosures. This choice allows for a more direct comparison with the terms commonly used in public discourse.

Comment 8: Line 102: is a reference needed here?

Response 8: After review, we agree that a reference would strengthen this point. We have added the relevant citation.

Comment 9: Line 105: would it be more clear that the measure provided refers to the surface area of the water?

Response 9: Thank you for this observation. We have clarified that the measurement refers to the water’s surface area.

 

Comment 10: Line 110: is the duration (hours) of journey and number of specialized staff known and  worth presenting?

Response 10: Unfortunately, this information is not publicly available. We have noted this limitation in the text.

 

Comment 11: Line 121: is a reference needed here?

Response 11: We agree that a reference is necessary and have included the appropriate citation.

 

Comment 12: Line 123: Is there a way of presenting the statement in italics or other strategy to clearly indicate that this is a long quote?

Response 12: Thank you for this suggestion. We will notify the editorial board and follow their guidelines to ensure the long quote is formatted appropriately, whether through italics or another strategy, to enhance readability and clarity.

 

Comment 13:  Line 141: is a reference needed here?

Response 13: Thank you for this observation. While there have been several personal communications related to this point, the authors prefer not to disclose the identities of the individuals involved due to their non-disclosure agreements. To maintain confidentiality, we have opted not to include a reference in this instance.

Comment 14:    Line 147: “it would be reasonable to assume”? Some might not feel that this is reasonable. Consider stating something like the most parsimonious explanation or rigorous hypothesis as an effort to be more dispassionate.

Response 14: We agree that a more neutral phrasing is appropriate and have revised the text to read “the most parsimonious explanation.”

Comment 15:  Line 162: Reference Table 1?

Response 15: We have added a reference to Table 1 in the text for clarity.

Comment 16: Table 1: if it is legal, consider providing all of the content in an Appendix as a more permanent documentation and easy reference to readers

Response 16: We agree that this would improve accessibility for readers. We will consider with the editors if the original content published in instagram can be added as an Appendix.

Comment 17: Line 269: consider more neutral term than grandiose rhetoric

Response 17: We have revised “grandiose rhetoric” to “exaggerated claims” for a more neutral tone.

Comment 18: Line 271: consider clarifying what and epic narrative is so that there is a universal understanding of the intent, even if it takes another sentence to explain.

Response 18: We have revised the manuscript to include a brief explanation of the term "epic narrative," ensuring that all readers can fully grasp its meaning within the context of our discussion.

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper describes the operations of the Beluga Sanctuary based on public information through Instagram. I commend the authors for taking the time to outline the chain of events, as well as highlight the shift in the type of language being used on the account as the welfare of the whales notably changed over the course of the sanctuary venture. While it would be beneficial to have direct data regarding the welfare of the whales, the lack of publications from the sanctuary in the past five years make such an assessment impossible, hence the use of the publicly available posts being the only reasonable metric. Highlighting that no literature has been produced out of the sanctuary in the five years of operation with regards to the welfare is an important aspect of this paper that the authors rightly emphasize.

A minor grammatical mistake in Table 1 (Dic-2023 instead of Dec).

Line 68-69 reads as though it is currently 2029; perhaps changing it to say "more than a decade since the original proclamation..."

Line 76-77 Marine Mammal Parks does not need to be capitalized

Line 221-222 "the halo" has already been defined in a few sentences above, so this reads a little repetitive (unless that is the goal in describing the account's language, in which case quotation marks would be helpful)

 

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your positive evaluation of our work and your acknowledgment of the importance of addressing the lack of publicly available data from the SEA LIFE Trust Beluga Whale Sanctuary. Your comments have provided valuable insights, and we are pleased to address each of your suggestions as follows:

 

Comment 1: A minor grammatical mistake in Table 1 (Dic-2023 instead of Dec).

Response 1: Thank you for catching this error. We have replaced "Dic-2023" with "Dec-2023" in Table 1 as suggested.

 

Comment 2: Line 68-69 reads as though it is currently 2029; perhaps changing it to say "more than a decade since the original proclamation..."

Response 2: We agree that this revision improves clarity and have updated the text to read "more than a decade since the original proclamation."

 

Comment 3: Line 76-77 Marine Mammal Parks does not need to be capitalized

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the text by changing "Marine Mammal Parks" to lowercase.

 

Comment 4: Line 221-222 "the halo" has already been defined in a few sentences above, so this reads a little repetitive (unless that is the goal in describing the account's language, in which case quotation marks would be helpful)

Response 4: We appreciate this observation. To avoid redundancy, we have revised the sentence to streamline the text and removed the quotation marks.