Springer (killer Whale) - Public Debate

Public Debate

The question of what to do about this wayward whale was hotly debated. Some feared that Springer might be removed to a captive-display facility—even though a Stipulation of Dismissal in the 1976 lawsuit of Washington v. Don Goldsberry, SeaWorld, et al made the removal of wild killer whales from Puget Sound by marine parks illegal. Some argued passionately that federal authorities should not intervene to rescue the young orca, even if the animal were to die as scientists warned alone in one of the most congested, contaminated waterways in North America.

"It's going to be heart-breaking if we see the worst thing happen, which is to see her die," activist Donna Sandstrom of Orca Alliance Sandstrom explained on KING 5 News (NBC Seattle), "but we would rather bear that heartbreak than to know she's enduring it alone in a concrete tank.".

Other activists like Howard Garrett of the Whidbey Island, Washington-based Orca Network also argued against a rescue of Springer, calling instead that the federal government authorize a "Social Approach," the introduction of regular human companionship for the orca, to put divers in the water with her to address the orca's social needs until such time as she leaves Puget Sound.

Meanwhile, the Oregon Coast Aquarium (OCA) in Newport, Oregon, home of Keiko the orca prior to his translocation to Iceland, offered its facilities to rehabilitate Springer for a period of at least one year, after which a scientific panel would then recommend whether or not she was fit for a trip back to Johnstone Strait, BC. But media reports soon revealed that OCA was deep in debt—but worse, bound to an agreement made with the Free Willy-Keiko Foundation (FWKF) that Keiko's former tank, built by FWKF, could never again house a wild killer whale. Furthermore, gathering scientific opinion was that a rehabilitation of Springer in a concrete tank would further acclimate the orca to humans and likely result in permanent captivity. OCA withdrew its offer.

In these first critical weeks of the Springer debate, Seattle-based non-profit Orca Conservancy, which would later emerge as the lead U.S. non-government organization in a similar, highly publicized effort to rescue and repatriate another displaced resident killer whale, L98, or Luna, hit the local airwaves, repeatedly calling upon authorities to act immediately to rescue Springer and return her to her family in Johnstone Strait. As reported on KING 5 News (NBC Seattle), the group initially proposed a "Namu Shuttle," a scientifically peer-reviewed proposal to lure the orca into a hydrodynamic floating seapen and tow it north—a plan employed successfully in 1965 by Ted Griffin to translocate Namu the orca over 400 miles from British Columbia to Seattle.

Another option was presented to the National Marine Fisheries Service was to transport the orca home aboard a high-speed hovercraft the Canadian Consulate believed it could source from its Coast Guard. The overriding component of all these rescue options was to minimize human contact and keep the whale in the water as much as possible, provide medical treatment and draw blood samples in situ (in the water), expedite medical tests and clearances with Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and target a speedy translocation and reintroduction in Johnstone Strait in July, when Springer's family historically returns to its summer habitat.

As the weeks unfolded, NMFS officials chose not to intervene. The agency said it didn't have the available funds, or the confidence that a rescue, translocation and reunion would be achievable, as it had never been tried before. No whale had ever previously been re-integrated into a wild pod after human intervention. Another killer whale, Keiko, had been released into the wild in 2002 after spending most of his life in captivity, but lived alone until his death in Norway in 2003. Scientists considered the possibility that Springer had been rejected by her pod (although resident killer whales had never been known to do this). If she was rejected, Springer's pod might respond to her reappearance by physically attacking her. Some felt she was too "urbanized," that her increasing habituation to people and boats could jeopardize her chances of returning to a truly wild life. In another scenario, Springer could endanger humans by getting too close to boats and have to be recaptured.

Springer's uncertain health also complicated matters; Canadian officials refused to accept a whale with any communicable diseases. Returning Springer to her home waters would require the political, scientific, logistical and financial cooperation of federally agencies and multiple organizations in two countries, as well as the consent of the First Nations. The process of capturing a whale, even for a brief move, carried the risk of further stress and injury.

Local media continued to cover the crisis intensively, with advocates demanding immediate government action to save the whale. Public sentiment in the region and around the country began turning strongly in favor of the rescue, as Springer's health deteriorated, even as her dangerous attraction to boats and people (and people to Springer) increased. The prospect of federally protected young orca washing up dead on one of Seattle's most-visited beaches grew every day.