Moana explains to the audience how is his life at Marineland with his pod and then her mother tells him a little surprise.
A bit (much) anthropomorphism but cute too.
Wonderful documentary about KSW orcas, with nice footage and video of Ran´s birth that I hadn´t seen before. It´s a bit old (Earth was around one year old) but it still fine.
This letter is an opinion about Bubas´s Project of a friend that studied Biology with me and now she´s studying cetaceans in Norway (orcas included). She´s Argentinian and know well Kshamenk.
I think that it´s a very interesting read. Orginal text is in Spanish, I translated by Google translator for lenght, but I believe that it understand well.
Why I am opposed to “Project Kshamenk”
First of all …
- As far as I know, do not work for Mundo Marino and Sea World, I have not had any relationship with them.
- We agree that Kshamenk was captured and should not be there, neither he nor any other orca or dolphin or porpoise, etc etc etc. And I say to heart, having participated in educational campaigns against the captivity, and being friends with people who have worked very closely and hard for this. On the occasion that I have, I express the scientific reasons why keeping animals in captivity is wrong, beyond my feelings for animals, are facts, and I refer to them, because besides being realities are much more important than my personal sentimental concerns and priorities.
- My question regarding the release of Kshamenk is based solely on the project submitted Bubas, these 3 pages. I 100% disagree on what happened before the submission of the project, during and after it has been declared unworkable, but it seems irrelevant.
- I do not participate or participated in any way in the evaluation of this project and I’m not part of any NGO in Argentina. Working in Norway with sperm whales, killer whales and humpback whales wild. - No personally know almost none of those who participated in the evaluation but I know the history of almost all and know Bubas path. And again, in both cases, it seems irrelevant because I have made my own evaluation.
This is my opinion as cetacean researcher about “Project Kshamenk” regardless of what others have said …
The project Bubas presented, and that is what is evaluated (Bastida did a scientific assessment as such, but to provide facts and issue a personal opinion and order), is what I question. What was evaluated, is the project’s viability. And that often need to clarify because it’s what I’m talking about. The project presented Bubas, 3 pages, have nothing to do with the cause, which is already a subjective matter. That I do not question. But a good cause is NOT sufficient.
To be honest, if I had delivered to me the project, as presented it (because so far there has been no other version) I would have thought that I was making a joke and I would have returned. If I had done an evaluation would have been harder than most, and my report would not have had some pages, but possibly exceed twenty. Honestly, if I had the time required would, but now I am finishing my master thesis, writing a scientific paper and preparing my PhD project.
In ANY scientific project, there must be some information: introduction, methodology, expected results, time it is to do that job (chronology: ex. Previous work, how long it will take each thing, and time for contingencies that may arise), budget and professional personnel involved.
The introduction should be RELEVANT information to put in situation to the person who will read this, and tell you what is building to say that your project will be viable (in principle no interest orca exploit economically, but also would have to explain how the idea and successful project development help future generations who want to do the same, following step-TUS). That information must be based on scientific articles, published and contrasted, and personal communication with experts in the field. Bubas The draft does not meet ANY of those requirements. The information provided is not based on science but on beliefs, is NOT relevant for carrying out the project, and does not explain how the release of Kshamenk improve the situation that is now (the idea that would be better at sea, is an IDEA). No information on current health status Kshamenk of the risks for him and for the biodiversity of the area. This part of the project, should be at least 6 or 7 pages, with detailed and organized properly. I repeat, NONE of them an introduction of a scientific project are covered by Bubas. Therefore, to begin with, there is insufficient information to make a thorough assessment, and which can provide additional information relevant to improve the project. Thus, we begin with that there is NOTHING … perhaps you can think of, is that what sets there, is what gave him the idea to release Kshamenk, but again, with that, we do NOTHING.
The action plan is not only to say what one wants to do (idea), must describe HOW we will do (plan), who will provide the materials, what kind of materials were used (wood? Plastic?), The size and location of the site, the cost, time (detailed) that will do it, the people needed to do this, the engineer / architect who will design, site characteristics (location, depth, tides, water temperature, existing biodiversity, possibilities human access to provide what it takes …), what are the necessary infrastructure itself apart from the enclosure (eg electricity to have a freezer to store food, medicines, access roads, caretakers residence, etc). All this has been done previously in other cetaceans release projects therefore has references on which to build. None of this, again, is covered by the plan. This part of the project could reach other 10 pages, with figures included. This part determines whether the location is suitable for the animal and monitoring conditions. Important to the success of the project. Again, no details more than a dot on a map. Besides, in a project of such proportions, one proposed site is not enough, and in any case, there must be information showing why that and not another site, is the best. Again, NOTHING.
Budget: The budget for a multi-year project should come detailed in a separate table, including every expense separately (eg monthly salaries, work material, clothes, etc-, transport of personnel, materials, equipment (crawler ?), etc etc etc … just thought that even the cost of sun hats must be included in this budget. thinking they are 5 years at least and that each stage is different and needs different things, we are talking about the least 2 or 3 pages of budget (obviously considering inflation in Argentina). On previous projects, I estimate it would take at least 50 MILLION dollars. The money is to be used must be secured, that is, who Whether esponsoree this project, you must submit a document stating that they will take care of all expenses. Imagine that money just to get Kshamenk just water …
The rehabilitation plan Kshamenk: 1 line?!?! This is the MOST important part of the project, which should detail the most of the steps, the staff (by name) that will work on it, the steps to take if something goes wrong at any stage. This part has to be AT LEAST another 6 or 7 pages of information, references, etc etc etc.
Finally, all the literature cited and / or consulted should be included in the report, so that other people can read the same thing and come to the same conclusion that Bubas. Normally we are talking about 200 references (for example, for my master thesis, I include at least 100, because it is a work of only 3 months). Again, NOTHING.
Additionally, the project must have the CV of the main participants, especially the author. A CV is not a page describing the motivations and stuff he has done, has to include work experience, if you have purchased any scholarships or financial aid to explain the amount of money that was given and under that project, and for how long. The most important thing is to include publications (ie, the knowledge gained through the project’s long-term observation of orcas and shared with the rest of the planet). Again, 4 or 5 pages is the minimum that should be included. Unfortunately, there is NONE of that to you.
The 3 pages and your CV reflects the inability and ignorance that has Mr Bubas to lead this project … not to mention the viability. It does not refer to specific individuals who can lead the project and can help during the whole time necessary.
Conclusion, the project is NOT a project, an idea from which to start building a project.
On the report of Bastida, rather like what I had, but for me my personal opinion would have avoided over what looks like the project, and would have focused on scientific criticism (as I have done so far) . As for his personal opinion on how Bubas handled this issue has come up short, there would be many more explanations to give, to prove that Mr Bubas has jumped all standards and for having the scientific and jumped norms of social behavior basic, bringing thousands of people to believe that the project was viable, when it was just wishful thinking. E insulting and belittling to internationally renowned scientists unexplained causes for the scientific community. But again, this seems irrelevant.
Economically, we are talking about spending $ 50 million (at least) to free orca A, which may not contribute anything to the population of natural killer whales. With that same money can fund 500 doctoral students to conduct studies of all wild populations of orcas known for at least four years. We could help conservation projects other cetacean species in dozens of countries. We could make a massive educational campaign in several countries (like the movie Blackfish, and even recover the money invested for more educational activities). To give a concrete example, my PhD project (for which I am seeking funding) aims to protect a population of about 8,000 humpback whales, over the course of five years. Do not take more than $ 100,000 …
To summarize: Kshamenk life is so important, individually, as any other orca or living being. However, the project presented Bubas feature lacks any scientific project, therefore it is not. It’s an idea from which to develop something. And NOT in the evaluators, but stakeholders, to develop the project. The priorities of each, are the priorities of each.
My biggest regret is how it turned out, because thousands of people like you, have dedicated time and are filled with hope on an idea that can not be performed.
For the release of Kshamenk may be a fact, would have to start over, find the right place for release (ADECUADO!), write the draft 30-40 pages in great detail, leaving nothing to the imagination, get international expert support, money … and forth!
In my case I prefer to use my effort, time and money, to wild populations who suffer the consequences of human activities, directly or indirectly. But this also is irrelevant when you have done my analysis Bubas project ….
Some think I’m talking to discredit Bubas. If discredit the facts, not my fault. I have said nothing that is not true … and remember, if the truth hurts, it’s because you’ve been fooling.
http://weforg.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/proyectokshamenk2003.pdf (Khamenk´s project presented by Bubas)
Note: $ 50 million is an estimate that I made based on my knowledge of previous projects, taking into account everything that should be built in the area in which Bubas would free the orca, considering that Argentina is a country with inflation, and expensive … and taking into account that many people from abroad would have to go back and forth, as in other projects. Maybe my esteem is high … but I wonder, that somehow affects everything else I said?
Las orcas, cómo todos los cetáceos, son unos animales muy táctiles y disfrutan que les acaricien y les rasquen, ya sea con las manos u otros utensilios, y una manguera echando agua a presión también ayuda!
Morgan disfrutando de un “hidromasaje” jeje
Grabado el 22/03/12
Comentarios histéricos antis en 3, 2, 1 … XDDD
R.I.P beautiful boy. You was a great whale
Pictures taken here (not mine): http://www.orcahome.de/oscar.htm
La llegada al zoo de Barcelona de la orca Ulises. Que pequeñito estaba
Ulises arrived at Barcelona zoo in 1983