Interviews - John Hall | A Whale Of A Business | FRONTLINE (2024)

The costs of these dolphin reintroduction projects--at least the onesI've been involved with...is that these projects, even on a shoestring, areextremely expensive. Whether they work or not. In the case of Keiko --that'sgoing to be orders of magnitude more expensive. If he is not ultimately acandidate for release, if he's got to be maintained in a sea pen for the restof his life, the--the costs there are just going to be to my mind astronomical.So, because none of these animals are endangered or threatened or depleted,and no one has proposed bringing to my knowledge any of the three highlyendangered small cetaceans into captivity to - develop a reproductive program and to create enough, so that if at somepoint in the future there is suitable habitat for them, they can bereintroduced, I--as a conservation biologist-I've got to ask myself, "Why arewe doing this?" It clearly is a feel-good endpoint for the dolphin maniastuff.

And, you know, dolphins are fabulous critters. I just think they'rewonderful. I've been extremely privileged to be able to work one on one withdolphins in the ocean, and --people get to go to St. Ignacio Lagoon, and touchthe grey whales. But working with an animal offshore every day, diving withit, it's very different. I mean, I feel very special and very privileged tohave done that. But as a conservation biologist, I've got to ask myself, "Whatin the heck are we doing here?" I'm not opposed to it, especially if it's private money. But I do have toask myself, "Could this money not be spent where there is an endangered or athreatened or a depleted animal at stake? Or perhaps the habitat that's goingaway that's being destroyed, and may lead to endangered status?

Q: Where do you see the need most urgent?

Specifically with regard just to small cetaceans because we just don'thave the facilities and probably won't ever, to do anything with big cetaceans.With--regard to small cetaceans, our neighbors to the South, Mexico, has thelittle Gulf of California harbor porpoise. We're talking a few 100 at mostleft. No one has proposed helping them out by bringing a few of theminto captivity, developing a reproductive pool of those animals, studyingthem, understanding what their habitat needs are. The same is true ofGangjes River dolphin, and the same is true of the white flag dolphin of theYangzi River. In all three cases, almost gone, and I see no seriousproposals to work with them to develop either captive reproductive programsand/or habitat conservations and reintroduction programs. From a ceetaceanstandpoint, those are three obvious candidates. But on the other hand, they'renot large. They're not dynamic. They're not charismatic. They're small,cryptic, obscure species, and they aren't going to bring people in, eitherfinancially or emotionally, the way killer whales do.

Q: So, what does all this activism say about who we care about?

I don't know. I have given a couple of talks in the last couple threemonths, and the point I have been trying to make is that all thesereintroduction projects--as few or as many of them as there are or will be--thebig question is: Are we going to reintroduce these animals into habitat that'ssuitable for them? That question seems to fall on deaf ears. Nobody wants totalkabout the status of the habitat. Especially in the marine world, there'san assumption that it's out there, and it's okay. And I'm not sure that's thecase at all.

Q: So, maybe we're really worried about the wrong thing.

I certainly don't disagree with people being concerned about individualorganisms. I have no problem with that. But in the bigger scheme of things,as a conservation biologist, I am much more concerned with the house for theanimal than a specific individual animal.

Q: Like Keiko?

Like Keiko. Or like Lolita. Or like Bogey. Or like Bacall. It's easyto identify with an individual animal. It's-- much more obtuse and abstractto identify with productive habitat for a whole group of animals. But for methat's much more important. I will close by telling you with the Bogey andBacall thing, I was really concerned about two-thirds of the way through theproject--when I learned that boat traffic in the Indian River Lagoon wassupposed to increase by fourfold in the next ten years. And not just for themanatees that get all sliced up from propellers, but underwater sounds frompropellers--especially outboard motors. They're very loud, extremely broadband in frequency, and when you're talking about increasing from 700,000 tripsa year to 3 or 4 million trips a year, it's just a continuous cacophony ofsound. And these animals make their living by sound. I had to ask myself--andI asked the staff--"Are we really sure we know what we're doing here?" To sayto Bogey and Bacall, "You've demonstrated you can feed yourselves. We've gotmarks on you. Good luck. We're going to, you know--have a good life." I'mnot sure we were doing the right thing. I'm not convinced myself, not knowingwhat their habitat was projected to be like in ten years. You know, what's theother end of the pipeline?

Getting them out of a concrete tank, wherever they might currently be,putting them into a pipeline, that's one thing. But what's at the other end ofthe Underground Railroad? You know, if the Railroad ends and dumps right into asmelter, are they better off?