Killing Keiko

by Mark A. Simmons

  Throughout July, efforts to integrate Keiko with any available wild pod continued in haste. Following many of the encounters, the team sought to confirm that Keiko was eating something, anything … aside from the minor amounts of fish they supplemented.

  On two such occasions, they witnessed Keiko diving near a wild pod that appeared to be actively feeding. In the one instance, he was immediately surrounded by five of the larger whales. Keiko quickly swam away from the intimidation. Trained in voluntary gastric sampling, they tested Keiko in hopes that his stomach contents would reveal ingested fish. The results showed nothing.

  In early August, he had moved away from the known location where schools of herring occupied the trophic region near the water’s surface. Tracking information placed him on top of a biomass of blue whiting and squid. But both species remain deep during the day only to ascend within Keiko’s reach at nighttime. Dive data from the sat-tag showed that Keiko had not gone deep enough to reach either food source.

  Try as they might, every telltale sign that led to tentative optimism was dashed upon further investigation. Although Keiko was provided food from the release team, the sparse amounts were not nearly enough to sustain a whale of his size. They did not know when hunger would motivate Keiko to find his own sustenance. They also didn’t know how long a whale could go without food.

  During periods of prolonged absence from the walk-boat the team relied on a special-purpose tracking vessel to keep tabs on Keiko’s location. In July, Keiko repeatedly approached the tracking boat, at times remaining close to her side for hours. The crew was instructed to go below decks and ignore the solicitations. The instruction was meant to deter Keiko’s interest in the distantly familiar boat. In at least one instance, while the crew waited in the cabin for Keiko to leave, they could readily hear the sounds of his vocalizations as he pressed his head to the side of the hull.

  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.

  Beyond Faroe

  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.

  Empty Nest

  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 ye
ars 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.

  A related and more serious problem involves Keiko’s occasional “bumping” of boats. He contacted both “walk” boats and the Heppni Ein (while being used for transfers to and from the bay pen) many times during 2000 and 2001, very occasionally with some serious force. This included lifting the boat out of the water. On one occasion in 2001 Keiko approached a small
fishing boat and may have contacted the boat or nets on some manner, as following encounter he has new cracked teeth and missing skin on his back. There was also an incident reported last summer when Keiko apparently bumped a zodiac and/or exhibited solicitous behavior towards the zodiac while away from the “walk” boat. Another concern is that Keiko is habituated to OFS vessels that have jet drives or prop guards, and could potentially be injured by closely approaching a boat with a propeller. Finally, this type of behavior towards fishing vessels, either in Iceland or the Faroe Islands, may potentially endanger the animal through human actions if he is not closely monitored.

  A final concern is related to the longevity and experience of current animal care staff involved in the project. As of May 2002, every original American animal care staff member had left the project and a new staff was hired for the 2002 season. The majority of the authors of this letter took part in the rehabilitation of Keiko in Newport, the transport to Iceland, and two seasons of reintroduction. It is our understanding that at this time there is currently no animal care staff member with long-term experience with this animal and/or familiarity with all aspects of Keiko’s rehabilitation, history and behavior on site. We are concerned not with the qualifications of the current staff, simply with the lack of an experienced long-term perspective related to his behavior during previous reintroduction attempts and in comparison to the behavior of other killer whales. We are concerned that this may hamper the ability of the current animal care staff to provide accurate interpretations of his behavior and ability to continue to thrive in the wild.

  The goal of the project has always been to provide Keiko every opportunity for reintroduction while conducting the project in a responsible manner. As stated in the original Reintroduction Protocols submitted to NMFS and the Icelandic Government on May 19, 2000: