Does it work?
Is there a danger?
What's wrong with DAT?
Copyright © Tiggerlily1999
Dolphin
Assisted Therapy (DAT) is now an unregulated and
unchecked business that is more about money than
science. There is very little evidence to support
the so-called medical benefits of DAT and there
is more evidence that supports the claim that
DAT is nothing more than another medical miracle
sham with possible dangerous consequences.
Dolphin
Assisted Therapy (DAT) has seemingly become the
latest fad in alternative medicine. It most commonly
takes place at marine parks and dolphinariums
where people pay hundreds of dollars for a few
hours to swim with dolphins. Some facilities have
week long programs that cost thousands of dollars.
Most people come looking for a magical connection
and a once-in-a-lifetime swim with dolphins, but
some come looking for a miracle cure for whatever
ailes them. Autistic children, children with down-syndrome,
people with cronic pain, cancer paitents, and
countless others flock to facilities offering
DAT in hopes that dolphins will offer them a miracle.
People of all ages and sizes come to swim with
dolphins thinking that they will be medically
cured... However, the evidence seems to suggest
that DAT is nothing more than false pretense.
What's more, dolphin assisted therapy can not
only be dangerous, but one day, it could be deadly.
Does
DAT work? What does it do?
For
quite a few years now, there have been stories of
people with diseases and illnesses that went swimming
with dolphins and were "cured." Is this
proof or false hope? It wasn't until recently that
actual studies were done on the effects of swimming
with dolphins.
One
of the groups that is most dedicated to proving
DAT as a medical treatment is the AquaThought Foundation.
They have used brainwave monitering systems to record
the effects of swimming with dolphins. The data
that they have collected has shown that after swimming
with dolphins, the human brain is very relaxed.
However, they have admitted that this effect is
similar, if not identical, to interaction with domestic
animals, such as dogs or cats, or simply taking
a warm bath. That brings up the question of "why
would anyone pay thousands of dollars to get the
effect of a warm bath?" The simple answer -
people are looking for a miracle cure and others
are looking to profit from them.
Some
of the most remarkable stories come from parents
of children with down-syndrome or autism who took
their child to swim with dolphins and he or she
was miracally cured of their disability. However,
statistics have shown that only approximatly 30%
of child DAT patients actually show any improvement,
whether it was mild or dramatic and very seldom
did the effects last longer than a few days. Even
more dramatic studies have shown that human interaction
programs and positive reinforcement methods are
far more successful, with as much as a 65% success
rate. So why would parents choose a week long program
for thousands of dollars over other programs with
better success rates? Because the parents are victims
of false pretense (or false promises).
Often,
people with no medical or scientific backgrounds
will promote a "healing swim with dolphins."
These same people will often aggressively defend
their practice. They will send out glossy brochures
that offer "hope for the hopeless" and
yet, fail to provide evidence for their claims.
One of the most well known facilities with swim-with-the-dolphin
and DAT programs, as well as one of the most notorious
reputations for "stretching the truth"
is the Dolphin Reasearch Center in south Florida.
The DRC has a self-proclaimed "doctor"
(with no medical history) who offers week-long DAT
programs to ill people for $2,500. Anyone with an
illness, from a headache to cancer, can participate
in this program. Several complaints have been filed
to the USDA by families who took out mortgages on
their homes in hopes that they or a family member
would be cured, only to find out that there is no
guarantee or refunds available for DAT.
There
have been some who have seen progress in children
with disabilities and people with cronic pain, but
there is no evidence to show that swimming with
dolphins actually caused their incredible recovery.
Further, there is more evidence to show that other
programs could have been far more successful, or
in some cases, the cause of their recovery.
Is
DAT offering hope to the hopeless?
In my opinion, yes, but it is only false hope.
Could
DAT be dangerous, even deadly?
Most
people envision dolphins as the cute, friendly and
lovable "Flipper" who rescues drowning
people, plays happily in the vast ocean and is everybody's
best friend. However, the reality is that dolphins
are large, powerful and often very agressive animals,
just as capable of inflicting harm on humans as
a lion.
Since
the first dolphins were captured by P.T. Barnum
in the late 1800's, dolphins in captivity have almost
regularly attacked people resulting in countless
injuries and even death. Thankfully, so far none
of the public has been killed by a dolphin. However,
with the increasing popularity of swim-with-the-dolphin
and DAT programs, this statistic is not likely to
stay that way for long.
Dolphins
in the wild are naturally aggressive. Dolphins have
been recorded commiting homicide, infanticide and
gangs of male dolphins have been recorded attacking
and "raping" females. The bottlenosed
dolphin pod off Scotland known as the Moray Firth
frequently murder smaller harbor porpoises and even
infant dolphins. Evey year, approximatly 15 harbor
porpoises and 5 infant bottlenosed dolphins wash
up dead. This behaviour is not limited to this area
alone. Dolphins kill dolphins all the time and scientists
now accept this as normal behaviour. What happens
when humans interact with dolphins, especially forced
interactions such as the ones that take place in
captivity? People get hurt.
Here
are some injury reports from swim-with-the-dolphin
and DAT programs in the US:
Dolphin
Quest, dated March 8, 1993:
The report was written from the point of view that
the swimmer's apparent nervousness excused a tooth
rake inflicted by the dolphin. However, it was the
responsibility of the facility personnel to ensure
swimmer safety. The staff observed this young man's
inappropriate behavior and body movements ("fidgeting")
and yet they allowed him to participate in the session.
In my opinion, this was an inappropriate response
on the part of the personnel.
Theater
of the Sea, dated November 17, 1992:
The
report describes the swimmer receiving a bruised
sternum in an interaction that facility personnel
did not witness completely (the injurious contact
occurred underwater). According to press stories,
the injury was more severe (a cracked sternum).
The swimmer insisted he did nothing to encourage
the dolphin's action (butting him with its snout).
The facility claimed he grabbed the dolphin's dorsal
fin inappropriately. The swimmer filed a legal action
against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Dolphins
Plus, Inc., dated March 1 and 9, 1992:
There
appears to be considerable confusion as to what
actually happened here; there is an unacceptable
lack of correspondence amongst the varying reports
from various facility personnel and the swimmer.
While underwater, a dolphin impacted the swimmer's
face, resulting in a shattered face mask which caused
facial lacerations and a bruised nose. In general,
it must be pointed out that in order to break the
glass on a face mask, considerable force had to
have been involved. Yet the report described it
as "some sort of bump." If in fact a collision
with the dolphin was responsible, especially a head-on
collision, then it was almost certainly intentional.
It is extremely improbable that a dolphin could
collide head-on with a person, with sufficient force
to break glass, accidentally. It must be kept in
mind that dolphins are very precise in their perceptions
and accurate in their movements when underwater.
The
second incident also resulted in a broken face mask.
The report states that the staff could not have
anticipated such an event. However, the "group
swim" during which the incident occurred, as
described (several swimmers swimming together to
create a pressure wave that the dolphins swim in),
is a high-energy activity; any animal involved in
such an activity could easily become inappropriately
excited (imagine running at high-speed alongside
a large dog).
Dolphin
Quest, dated February 16, 1992:
Again,
the injured swimmer verbally expressed nervousness
prior to the incident. This swimmer should have
been counseled not to continue. The injury was a
minor laceration, but the point here is that these
animals DO sense nervousness and may become agitated
or aggressive in the presence of a nervous swimmer.
It is also of note that the swimmer expressed a
sense of responsibility for the incident, which
was reported as if that excused the injurious contact
(i.e. the participant was to blame so the facility
was exonerated). Another interpretation could be
that the program misled her to believe that any
negative interaction must be the swimmer's fault.
Swimmers in these programs want desperately to believe
that the dolphins are gentle and kind; they do not
want to believe that the animals could purposefully
harm them. It is not surprising that they assume
the blame for any negative interaction, but it is
disturbing that the facility personnel may encourage
them in this misapprehension. In addition, a lack
of control over swimmer conduct is in general a
fundamental flaw in the safety design of these programs.
Dolphin
Research Center, dated March 5, 1990:
This
incident is the most troublesome of all. In my expert
opinion, this was not an accidental contact. The
dolphin was reported as swimming between two swimmers,
twisting to avoid the sudden movements made by both
swimmers (again, the implication being that the
swimmers were at fault for making such movements
so close to the dolphin), and "accidentally"
bumping into them hard enough to break one swimmer's
arm and the other's rib. It is completely unlikely
that a dolphin could fracture a rib and break an
arm by accident. Again, it would be unlikely for
a dolphin to accidentally "bump into"
people in the first place; to do so with sufficient
force to break bones would almost certainly have
to be deliberate.
The
swimmers refused immediate medical treatment and
indicated that treatment in fact was not necessary
at all. This almost certainly indicates SHOCK. They
were, after all, suffering from broken bones! It
is extremely disturbing that the facility staff
did not examine the victims sufficiently to determine
this on site and insist on immediate transport to
a hospital. Presumably the staff are trained in
first aid. Only after the swim was complete did
facility personnel insist on taking the swimmers
to the hospital, where the broken bones were diagnosed.
Finally,
the staff person responsible for writing a summary
of the incident showed a disturbing lack of understanding
of dolphin behavior and "psychology."
The dolphin was described as immediately breaking
off the contact and looking "sheepish,"
which the staffer reported as indicating the contact
was not "intentional." On the contrary,
the dolphin would INDEED have looked "sheepish"
and not returned to the victims if the contact had
been deliberate. The reason: The dolphin would hardly
have expected the degree of negative reaction it
received from its actions (victims crying out, doubling
over, etc.); it would have been expecting a dolphin's
response, which would have been negligible (dolphins
having thicker skin and a blubber layer to protect
them from the "minor" blows of a companion,
which are exchanged frequently under normal circumstances).
These
are relatively old records and these were some of
the few incidents where reports were filed. The
safety of swim-with-the-dolphin and DAT programs
is very unsure. Although most facilities take as
many precautions as possible to ensure the safty
of their visitors, injury is still common and some
measures do not go far enough.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) first
approved facilities for the use of dolphins for
public interactions (swim-with-the-dolphin) in 1985.
Since then, the NMFS no longer has authority over
captive dolphin facilities and swim-with-the-dolphin
programs. That authority was handed over to the
over burdened portion of the USDA called the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Recently,
in April 1999, authority over swim-with-the-dolphin
programs was completely taken away. Now, there is
nothing regulating human/dolphin interaction, which
will likely lead to more injuries.
Here
is the APHIS press release over swim-with-the-dolphin
programs:
USDA
SUSPENDS ENFORCEMENT OF SWIM-WITH-THE-DOLPHIN REGULATIONS
WASHINGTON, April 1, 1999--The U.S. Department
of Agriculture is suspending the enforcement of
Animal Welfare Act regulations pertaining to swim-with-the-dolphin
programs.
"Last
year, USDA adopted new regulations regarding swim-with-the-dolphin
programs," said W. Ron DeHaven, deputy administrator
for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's
animal care program, a part of USDA's marketing
and regulatory programs mission area. "It has
come to our attention that the language in the new
regulations may be confusing to some. Therefore,
we are suspending enforcement of the regulations
in order to take a closer look at the language and
make it more understandable."
In
addition to suspending enforcement of the regulations,
USDA seeks public comment on all aspects of the
regulations and on all human/marine mammal interactive
programs.
For
more information, contact Barbara Kohn, senior staff
veterinarian, AC, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 84,
Riverdale, Md. 20737-1236; (301) 734-7833.
Notice
of this action is scheduled to appear in the April
2 Federal Register and becomes effective upon publication.
Consideration
will be given to comments received on or before
June 1. Please send an original and three copies
to Docket No. 93-076-13, Regulatory Analysis and
Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3CO3, 4700 River
Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, Md. 20737-1238.
Comments
may be reviewed at USDA, Room 1141, South Building,
14th Street and Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington
D.C., between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to review
comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817
to facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
With the elimination of authority over dolphin interaction
programs, the problem will likely only get worse.
DAT has become the newest concern for public safety
representatives who believe that human/dolphin interaction
programs pose a real danger. Their conern is shared
by many, including me.
Are dolphins potentially dangerous? Yes. Can dolphins
harm humans? Yes. Could a dolphin kill a human?
Yes. How long will it be before a human involved
in a DAT program is fatally injured by a dolphin?
Only time will tell.
Summary
Dolphin
Assisted Therapy (DAT) is now an unregulated and
unchecked business that is more about money than
science. There is very little evidence to support
the so-called medical benefits of DAT and there
is more evidence that supports the claim that DAT
is nothing more than another medical miracle sham
with possible dangerous consequences.
As
with any alternative medical therapy, especially
DAT, a very simple phrase should be kept in mind...
Let the Buyer Beware.
REFERENCES
Constantine, R. and Baker, C.S. 1995.
Monitoring of commercial swim-with-dolphin
operations in the Bay of Island, New
Zealand. Page 24 in Abstracts, Tenth
Biennial Conference on the Biology of
Marine Mammals, Orlando, Florida.
December, 1995.
Defran,
R. H. and Pryor, K. 1980. The
behaviour and training of cetaceans in
captivity. Pages 319-364 in L. Herrnan, ed.
Cetacean Behaviour: Mechanisms and
Functions.
Frohoff,
T.G. 1993. Behaviour of Captive
Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and Humans
During controlled In-Water Interactions.
M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX.
Frohoff,
T.G. and J.M. Packard. 1995.
Human interactions with free-ranging and
captive bottlenose dolphins. Anthrozoös
8(1):44-54.
This article is Copyright © Tiggerlily1999
- all rights reserved; and lefts too. =)