Killing Keiko (52 page)

In each case Keiko eventually gave up and left the vicinity. He never spent more than
two hours at the side of the tertiary boat. In contrast, the walk-boat held a much
greater power over the whale. July 8, 2002, the walk-boat was drifting idle more than
two nautical miles from Keiko’s location. The whale had been away from the formation
for more than a day. When they started the engines, Keiko headed directly for their
position. The prolonged attempt to disregard his presence was fruitless. Keiko remained
determinedly close to the boat for nearly two and a half days.

On one ominous occasion in August of 2002, the crew and Keiko had been at sea for
an extended period, rehearsing the determined volley between the walk-boat and wild
killer whales. Commonplace by this time, Keiko was escorted to a wild pod, the walk-boat
initially remained on the periphery, then slowly dropped away from Keiko and the pod.
As he had done many times that season, Keiko lingered close to the wild pod, until
eventually he and the wild ones were visually lost to the crew of the
Daniel
. They expected Keiko to drift away from the pod after some hours as he always did.

As they waited, an uninvited guest changed the seascape and demanded a shift in their
well-worn routine. In the distance, a wall of white water formed along the horizon
appearing as if cotton decoration. The torrent of curling waves became apparent contrasted
against the backdrop of an ill-omened black sky. The storm would be upon them in a
matter of minutes. The crew and the formation, rigged for running, made a beeline
for the harbor in Heimaey, almost sixty nautical miles away. They did not have time
to find Keiko, and even if they did, they could not afford the crawling three- to
five-knot pace he would require.

As fortune would have it, the sailboat
Vamos
was part of the configuration that day.
Vamos
was a third-party sailboat Michael
had contracted to provide long-distance tracking. She boasted the experience of seasoned
hands that could endure through almost any conditions at sea. Her captain and his
seaworthy crew would remain, weather the storm and keep track of Keiko.

Over more than ninety nautical miles, the crew of the
Vamos
tracked the intermittent signal from Keiko’s sat-tag. For some time the signal seemed
to indicate Keiko was following the wild pod, though no visual confirmation was possible
from the low deck of the
Vamos
. Ultimately, they lost contact approximately 150 nautical miles north northeast of
Iceland, in the direction of the Faroe Islands, still some 200 or more nautical miles
in the distance. Whether Keiko was with the whales or not was impossible to know,
but regardless, he was clearly outpacing the
Vamos
, limited by her need to beat back and forth across and into the wind in pursuit.

Back on dry land in the small town of Heimaey, Michael kept track of the reports emanating
from the tracking vessel
Vamos
. But those updates did not last long; very quickly Michael had no more than the once-a-day
satellite data to rely upon. Day in and day out, he pinned the waypoints on a marine
chart spanning the northernmost extents of the North Atlantic, bordering on the Norwegian
Sea and North Sea.

Depicted on the pinned chart, Keiko’s movements made the North Atlantic look like
a pond, so small it seemed in relation to the distances traveled. But unlike the scattered
nondirectional waypoints of the past seasons in company with the walk formation, these
new data points sent down from the Argus satellite followed a pattern. Keiko’s path
actually led north of the Faroe Islands and onward toward the west coast of Norway.
Though the path fell short of a straight line, it was nonetheless a steady easterly
heading.

On two separate occasions, the tracking effort was supported by aerial survey, a small
fixed-wing aircraft flown at low altitude. Once the sat-tag download was received
and the waypoints were evaluated, the tracking crew flew to the most recent Argus
coordinates
in an effort to confirm Keiko’s position and status. Regrettably, downloading data
only once every twenty-four hours meant that current data was at least three hours
old before the tracking team could physically reach the designated coordinates. On
both occasions, wild whales were spotted, but only with some measure of searching
as they were not at the exact latitude and longitude recorded by the sat-tag. Further,
no sighting of Keiko could be confirmed. As conducive as the plane was to covering
the distances, it was not the ideal platform for detailed observation. Even the bright
yellow of the sat-tag mounted on Keiko’s dorsal fin evaded their inspection. Keiko
effectively vanished; evidence of his condition could only be extrapolated from pins
on a chart.

Lost in translation, HSUS openly promoted Keiko’s extended absence as a successful
release. Behind the scenes, well removed from the mystery unfolding on the high seas
of the North Atlantic, others knew innately that Keiko’s advancing absence placed
him in severe jeopardy. In fact, the very circumstance at hand had been prophesied
by the original release team. Across varied time zones, the original cast watched
with growing apprehension as news of Keiko’s departure spread.

Well aware of the inner workings of the downsized and defunct release effort, they
fretted that HSUS’ refusal to acknowledge the broken release, carried out under the
worsening conditions of isolation, would push Keiko too far. The insulting fanfare
taking stage in the vast abyss of real-time media coverage was enough to stir them
to take action. In a diplomatic effort, a sizeable faction of the original release
team appealed directly to U.S. authorities. They hoped that knowledge of Keiko’s recent
history might lead to enforcement of the release permit itself, which, specifically,
called for immediate intervention.

TO: Dr. Robert Matlin

Marine Mammal Commission

4340 East-West Highway, Suite 905

Bethesda, MS 20814

VIA FACSIMILE: 301-504-0099

FROM: Jeff Foster, Stephen Claussen, Jim Horton, Tracy Karmuza, Brian O’Neill, Greg
Schorr, Jennifer Schorr, Steve Sinelli

DATE: August 31, 2002

RE: Concerns related to status of Keiko Project

We are writing to raise some questions and concerns related to the current status
of the killer whale Keiko and the continuing reintroduction effort by Ocean Futures
Society and the Humane Society of the United States. Each of us worked for several
years on the Keiko Project, including managing animal care during the first two seasons
of reintroduction efforts. We are intimately familiar with the past behavior of the
animal; the entire reintroduction history; behavior of free-ranging animals in the
area; and environmental conditions of the North Atlantic. We are expressing our concerns
at this time solely with the goal of ensuring the short and long-term welfare of Keiko.
We fully support continued reintroduction efforts, with the caveat that the process
should be conducted in a responsible manner with the best interests of the animal
as the foremost concern
.

We must preface our comments with the statement that our information about the status
of the animal is limited, as we have been informed that current staff in Iceland has
been instructed by management not to provide any information to past staff members.
This has made obtaining current and accurate information difficult and raises concerns
that despite our extensive knowledge of the project we are lacking key information
about the actual current situation. We certainly hope that our concerns are unfounded
and the progress by Keiko towards reintroduction, recently described in media reports,
exceeds expectations and that he thrives independently. However, we feel that more
extensive documentation of his recent behavior is required in order to determine the
success of the project
.

It has recently been brought to or attention that Keiko has left the Vestmannaeyjar
area and Icelandic waters and has traveled more that 300 miles towards the Faroe Islands,
where he is currently somewhere
offshore. He is being tracked via the satellite tag and attempts are being make to
locate him using the VHF tag. Apparently the VHF signal has been located aerially
but no visual observations have been conducted, and no other free-ranging killer whales
were sighted in the area of the signal. The distance from Vestmannaeyjar and potential
solitude of the animal represents a serious concern for the ongoing reintroduction
effort and the long-term safety of the animal, due to a variety of logistical challenges,
personnel issues, and potentially regulatory issues since the animal is no longer
in Icelandic waters. In our opinion, the ability to intervene using the “walk” boat
and return Keiko to the bay pen enclosure has been critical in the past. In order
to ensure the safety and well being of the animal, we feel it is necessary to closely
monitor his behavior and have the ability to intervene if necessary
.

Our primary concern is Keiko’s past failure to demonstrate an ability to forage independently
in the wild. Although he was trained to eat live fish in the bay prior to reintroduction
efforts, this behavior was conducted when humans provided live fish for him; there
was no evidence of Keiko foraging independently in the bay. During the 2000 and 2001
reintroduction seasons we saw no indications that Keiko was foraging while in open
water, either in conjunction with free-ranging killer whales or independently. This
includes periods of up to 10 days while he was independent from the “walk” boat and
not provided with food but was closely monitored using a helicopter and tracking vessel.
While it is possible that foraging occurred and was not observed, based on extensive
surface observations it is unlikely. In addition, diving data collected during 2000
and 2001 did not indicate diving at depths comparable to foraging free-ranging killer
whales. Keiko also lost weight during the reintroduction period as demonstrated by
body measurements in 2001. In short, as of the end of the 2001 reintroduction season
none of us felt that the animal was prepared to survive in dependently without supplemental
food
.

It is our understanding that earlier in the 2002 reintroduction season, stomach samples
were taken following extended periods of Keiko being on his own or in proximity to
other killer whales. These stomach samples apparently failed to demonstrate that he
was feeding on his own. In addition, to our knowledge he has not been observed or
documented via film foraging with other killer whales. We feel that due to the inability
to document independent foraging or foraging with free-ranging killer whales in the
past, it is critical to ensure that the animal is receiving adequate supplemental
food via intervention if necessary. In short, we believe that the precautionary principle
should be applied and if it cannot be proven without a doubt that Keiko is foraging
independently, then intervention to provide food should be conducted. We believe it
is very possible that the animal has already gone for an extended period without food
at this time, and that it is humane and necessary to ensure his caloric needs are
met. In addition, we do not believe that the fact he has traveled such a long distance
is a reliable indication that he is currently foraging. Killer whales captured in
Puget Sound in 1976 (Jeff Foster was involved in this project) were maintained in
excess of 60 days with no food intake, despite being offered fish on a regular basis,
and showed no outward signs of dehydration or starvation. It is our opinion that it
could be approximately another month before Keiko begins to show significant physical
and/or behavioral indications of food deprivation and that it is premature to claim
his current activity as confirmation that he is foraging independently
.

It is also our opinion that based on the experiences of the past two summers of reintroduction
efforts, “real time” tracking via the VHF tag is necessary to ensure the safety of
the animal. This was clearly demonstrated last August when Keiko was very close to
shore and had to be recovered using the large tracking vessel despite protocols to
the contrary in order to ensure his safety. Unfortunately, had we been relying solely
on the satellite locations at this time, due to the delay of the locations from processing,
the
animal could very well have ended up on the beach. Over the past two summers there
have been numerous instances when we have had to intervene and recover the animal
with the “walk” boat, frequently using a helicopter to assist with tracking
.

Another concern relates to Keiko’s behavior while solitary in open water. During the
past two summers, Keiko has failed to demonstrate the ability to navigate the waters
around Vestmannaeyjar at any significant distance from the bay pen. When removed from
the “walk” boat, Keiko frequently demonstrated milling or non-directional travel behavior
and occasionally appeared disoriented. However, on a few occasions in response to
interactions with conspecifics, he swam in one direction very rapidly for prolonged
periods, away from the other animals but in different directions each time. The helicopter
was used for tracking and the “walk” boat was used to intervene and gain behavioral
control during these situations, as the feeling was that this was not a positive step
towards reintroduction, but perhaps a stressful situation for the animal. Our concern
is that he may recently have had such a response to an interaction with conspecifics
and may now be disoriented
.

Another concern involves Keiko’s reaction to boats. On several occasions last summer
during the reintroduction effort, Keiko approached vessels other than the designated
“walk” vessel. These included other OFS vessels such as the Gandi (the large fishing
boat) as well as non-OFS vessels. Specific incidents included the animal approaching
and swimming in extremely close proximity to fishing vessels on July 12 and August
15 2001, causing concern that Keiko might become entangled in fishing net. During
the incident on August 15 the fishing boat was setting nets and we were unable to
contact the boat via VHF radio. On another occasion, Keiko broke off from swimming
independently and started following a cruise ship moving through the area. Although
Keiko’s presence at the boats during those periods was not usually prolonged, it sets
precedence for this behavior to approach unknown vessels. If this behavior continues
and he is in any way reinforced from vessels (either through primary reinforcement
by the public feeding him, or by secondary reinforcement via reaction or interaction
of people on the boat), it is quite likely that this problem will increase in magnitude
and duration. We especially believe this is a concern if he is not foraging independently
.