Blackfish

[sonnyjane]

I am not a biologist or animal behaviorist, but after doing research I don't personally feel comfortable paying money to a theme park that holds orcas in captivity (I understand that not everyone will agree and that it may be hypocritical of me - for example, due to their size, there are animal rights advocates that think elephants should not be in zoos and I don't boycott zoos with elephants). That is just my personal belief and how I will "vote" with my money. DH and I did the Trainer for a Day program at Discovery Cove on our honeymoon in 2007. While it was a wonderful experience and part of me would like to go to Discovery Cove again we won't be returning unless they are spun off as a separate company from SeaWorld or SeaWorld stops keeping orcas in captivity (so that probably means never again in our lifetime).

I am a biologist and an animal behaviorist. I struggle with the issue of "animals in captivity" but can reconcile most arguments. Orcas in captivity is one I can't reconcile. I worked on a whale-watching vessel in Washington watching the same pods where some of the whales in the film were snatched from. Prior to that, I wanted to work at Sea World. After that experience, there's no way I ever could so long as they continue to have orcas. I have also worked with dolphins in captivity. I would say that when housed appropriately and given access to other dolphins as to fulfill their social needs, I am not any more strongly opposed to that as I am any other captive animal I work with at the zoo, but I can not justify keeping orcas in captivity. Their sheer size renders it nearly impossible to do so properly.

Most animals in zoos live up to twice as long as their counterparts in the wild. Orcas, on the other hand, live one half to one third of the natural average in the wild. There must be a reason for that......

 

[KBF]

Animal kingdom holds animals in captivity too. But of course nobody on this board is gonna say anything about that.

And there are dolphins in captivity at EPCOT that people seem to turn a blind eye to as well.

It is ILLEGAL for any marine park to take a wild whale or dolphin from the ocean in today's time, unless it is for a rescue and rehabilitation purpose. Most dolphins or whales that are taken from the wild today are injured, treated and released back into the wild. The footage you will see in this movie is from the 1960s, and 1970s when the practice of capturing marine animals was legal. No it isn't pretty, but it happened and unfortunately it's a part of history now. I'm not in any way comparing the two but it would kind of be like seeing how horrible slavery was in the early days of American history and now in 2013 deciding not to visit the United States because slavery was legal 200 years ago.

In the movie you will see footage of past trainers speaking out against the park, and make it seem that they left on their own terms. Not true, do some research and find that most of the trainers in this movie were fired from the park for various reasons. Perhaps this movie is their way of getting revenge and getting 15 minutes of fame.

And think about this to, while Seaworld donates a percentage of their profits to animal rescue, the money that is made by this movie goes right into the pockets of the film maker and probably the trainers who were featured. You aren't doing anything for animals or conservation by watching this movie.

Everyone is so quick to put Seaworld down for keeping whales/dolphins in captivity. Consider that the good majority of the animals at Seaworld were born there. Seaworld is all they have ever known. How is it possible for the whales who have lived year at the park to be thrown in the Ocean to fend for themselves? Out of about 20 whales that Seaworld has, only four of them were taken from the wild and of those four, only ONE of the whales was taken by Seaworld. The other three were captured by other marine parks (In Canada and Spain in the 1980s) and sent to Seaworld by those other marine parks who could no longer care for them. Tilly the whale that is the main focus of this movie was captured by a park in Canada in the 1980s and was sent to Seaworld after he was involved in the death of a trainer in Canada. The park was on the verge of shutting down and was going to euthanize Tilly, but Seaworld took him instead.

Of all the good that Seaworld does, its a shame that people can be manipulated by a stupid movie that is clearly out to do nothing more than try and ruin a reputation of an establishment that does so much for conservation. It's funny as I mentioned before, that all these supporters of animal rights, PETA and the documentaries that are created by these extreme activists don't send a dime to conservation efforts. Instead the money goes to themselves and their own PR campaigns.

If you are considering seeing this movie, I encourage you to understand that this movie is an extreme misconception, full of lies and propaganda shoved down your throat by "Animal Lovers" that seem to have a personal agenda against Seaworld. The movie is extremely biased and one sided. Don't take my word for it, or the movies word for it. Go see Seaworld for yourself and make a judgement call then. Do the animals really seem that unhappy as the movie claims? Are the animals really forced to perform? Are the trainers really caring for and giving attention to each animal in their care? By supporting Seaworld or this movie, is my money going to a worthy organization dedicated to conservation? Open your eyes and don't be persuaded by a movie. See Seaworld for yourself and make your judgement call then.

 

[LisaR]

Putting Seaworld in a bad light is exactly what this was intended to do. You're right that it is just one side to the story. Seaworld does a lot of good in rescuing stranded animals and treating them so that they can be returned to the wild.

Many companies and people do really good things, but they don't get a pass on the negative things they do just because of the positive.

Animal kingdom holds animals in captivity too. But of course nobody on this board is gonna say anything about that.

Personally, I am not a fan of any animals being held in captivity unless it is for rehab or their own safety. I don't give Disney a pass, but I think there is a big difference between trying to replicate their habitat versus training them to do tricks.

 

[RockAndRollBallerina]

Personally, I am not a fan of any animals being held in captivity unless it is for rehab or their own safety. I don't give Disney a pass, but I think there is a big difference between trying to replicate their habitat versus training them to do tricks.

I've had the privilege to speak one on one with a Sea World trainer before. The trainer told me very much so, matter of fact, that they do not force an animal of any kind to do anything they do not want to do. If they don't want to do whats asked of them they're not going to do it, nor does Sea World punish them in any way.

 

[LisaR]

I've had the privilege to speak one on one with a Sea World trainer before. The trainer told me very much so, matter of fact, that they do not force an animal of any kind to do anything they do not want to do. If they don't want to do whats asked of them they're not going to do it, nor does Sea World punish them in any way.

A trainer isn't going to admit wrong doing. The animals at Sea World are wild animals who have been trained to perform. Even if there is zero abuse going on, I don't believe it is up to amusement parks or circuses to decide to hold animals captive and train them to entertain others so they can make a buck.

 

[CPT Tripss]

And there are dolphins in captivity at EPCOT that people seem to turn a blind eye to as well.

It is ILLEGAL for any marine park to take a wild whale or dolphin from the ocean in today's time, unless it is for a rescue and rehabilitation purpose. Most dolphins or whales that are taken from the wild today are injured, treated and released back into the wild. The footage you will see in this movie is from the 1960s, and 1970s when the practice of capturing marine animals was legal. No it isn't pretty, but it happened and unfortunately it's a part of history now. I'm not in any way comparing the two but it would kind of be like seeing how horrible slavery was in the early days of American history and now in 2013 deciding not to visit the United States because slavery was legal 200 years ago.

In the movie you will see footage of past trainers speaking out against the park, and make it seem that they left on their own terms. Not true, do some research and find that most of the trainers in this movie were fired from the park for various reasons. Perhaps this movie is their way of getting revenge and getting 15 minutes of fame.

And think about this to, while Seaworld donates a percentage of their profits to animal rescue, the money that is made by this movie goes right into the pockets of the film maker and probably the trainers who were featured. You aren't doing anything for animals or conservation by watching this movie.

Everyone is so quick to put Seaworld down for keeping whales/dolphins in captivity. Consider that the good majority of the animals at Seaworld were born there. Seaworld is all they have ever known. How is it possible for the whales who have lived year at the park to be thrown in the Ocean to fend for themselves? Out of about 20 whales that Seaworld has, only four of them were taken from the wild and of those four, only ONE of the whales was taken by Seaworld. The other three were captured by other marine parks (In Canada and Spain in the 1980s) and sent to Seaworld by those other marine parks who could no longer care for them. Tilly the whale that is the main focus of this movie was captured by a park in Canada in the 1980s and was sent to Seaworld after he was involved in the death of a trainer in Canada. The park was on the verge of shutting down and was going to euthanize Tilly, but Seaworld took him instead.

Of all the good that Seaworld does, its a shame that people can be manipulated by a stupid movie that is clearly out to do nothing more than try and ruin a reputation of an establishment that does so much for conservation. It's funny as I mentioned before, that all these supporters of animal rights, PETA and the documentaries that are created by these extreme activists don't send a dime to conservation efforts. Instead the money goes to themselves and their own PR campaigns.

If you are considering seeing this movie, I encourage you to understand that this movie is an extreme misconception, full of lies and propaganda shoved down your throat by "Animal Lovers" that seem to have a personal agenda against Seaworld. The movie is extremely biased and one sided. Don't take my word for it, or the movies word for it. Go see Seaworld for yourself and make a judgement call then. Do the animals really seem that unhappy as the movie claims? Are the animals really forced to perform? Are the trainers really caring for and giving attention to each animal in their care? By supporting Seaworld or this movie, is my money going to a worthy organization dedicated to conservation? Open your eyes and don't be persuaded by a movie. See Seaworld for yourself and make your judgement call then.

Really? A slavery comparison?

Sea world had corporate profits of $77 million in 2012. They gave about $400K to the SeaWorld Foundation, less than 1% of profits.

As for the trainers, publicity hounds? Doesn't look that way . . . and they didn't get paid.

First off, Ventre and Jett left SeaWorld in the mid-1990s. Ventre went on to become a doctor and Jett a professor of marine sciences. Lacinak and Simmons would have you think that they are embittered losers, who werent really very good trainers, who spend their time sitting around figuring out how to get their revenge on SeaWorld. If that was the case, they would have been on the ramparts against captivity, appearing semi-nude in PETA ads, long ago.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2010/07/23/more-on-killer-whales-tim-zimmermans-on-point-post

SeaWorld Unleashes 8 Assertions About 'Blackfish' and Filmmakers Respond

http://www.indiewire.com/article/se...rtions-about-blackfish-and-filmmakers-respond
Handles most of the PPs arguments.

 

[KBF]

Really? A slavery comparison?

Sea world had corporate profits of $77 million in 2012. They gave about $400K to the SeaWorld Foundation, less than 1% of profits.

As for the trainers, publicity hounds? Doesn't look that way . . . and they didn't get paid.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2010/07/23/more-on-killer-whales-tim-zimmermans-on-point-post


http://www.indiewire.com/article/se...rtions-about-blackfish-and-filmmakers-respond
Handles most of the PPs arguments.

Yep. A slavery comparison since animal rights people like to say that whales in captivity are slaves.

And that's $400,000 more than this movie, or any of the trainers featured in it will donate. That $400,000 doesn't include the cost of rescuing and rehabilitating injured wild animals or any other funds the park may donate to.

I don't believe anyone will ever know for sure how much money the movie is making or whether or not the trainers featured in the film are getting payed. But posting obviously biased articles especially ones from Tim Zimmerman doesn't prove anything.

 

[eliza61]

Really? A slavery comparison?

Sea world had corporate profits of $77 million in 2012. They gave about $400K to the SeaWorld Foundation, less than 1% of profits.

As for the trainers, publicity hounds? Doesn't look that way . . . and they didn't get paid.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2010/07/23/more-on-killer-whales-tim-zimmermans-on-point-post

http://www.indiewire.com/article/seaworld-unleashes-8-assertions-about-blackfish-and-filmmakers-respond
Handles most of the PPs arguments.

I can see the slavery comparison. Many people here try to justify or maybe rationalize is abetter word, slavery by saying, "some slaves were well treated" Bull!!. The state of being a slave is torture. Saying the whales are well treated is also bull. Almost all evidence conclusively states these animals suffer in captivity. A cage made out of gold is still a cage.
I am not a marine biologist but this came to light when Shamu became popular.
Personally, I compared it to climate change deniers. All the evidence points to one conclusion, yet we blindly and willfully ignore it to make a buck.

Interestingly enough, this is old news, you can scream it's biased until the cows came home but anyone with two fingers to type can find tons of evidence and real experts that will give you facts.

Lol, but you probably think some slaves were "ok" to.

full disclosure, We don't go to Sea world for this very reason. Nor do I Plan to see the movie, I've read tons of research articles when Shamu was in the news,

 

[mnrose]

Everyone has to study this issue for themselves and make their own decision. Personally, I am VERY uncomfortable with whales (orcas) and dolphins in captivity. They are both creatures of enormous intelligence, and but for the fact that they live in the water, are very similar to us in that respect. I just think it is wrong to keep them for our own amusement in conditions that do not replicate their natural environment....it would be like keeping us in a small 2x3 room for our whole lives. Sure, we fit. Sure, we'd have food, water, etc, but it would drive us INSANE in short order. I don't think we are adequately accounting for the importance of SPACE in their care.

Anyway, for that reason, my dollars are not, and never will be, spent at SeaWorld. I don't care to support them in any way. And, I am very picky about the zoos that I will go see. The Minnesota Zoo has FINALLY acknowledged that they cannot keep dolphins in captivity (they die at an astounding rate)....thank goodness.

 

[CaliBear]

I opened this thread because I thought it was about Game of Thrones, but after googling this movie, it looks really interesting. I would be very interested to see it

You're not the only one! And I agree. I am interested in seeing it.

 

[sonnyjane]

It is ILLEGAL for any marine park to take a wild whale or dolphin from the ocean in today's time, unless it is for a rescue and rehabilitation purpose. Most dolphins or whales that are taken from the wild today are injured, treated and released back into the wild...

And think about this to, while Seaworld donates a percentage of their profits to animal rescue...

Everyone is so quick to put Seaworld down for keeping whales/dolphins in captivity. Consider that the good majority of the animals at Seaworld were born there. Seaworld is all they have ever known. How is it possible for the whales who have lived year at the park to be thrown in the Ocean to fend for themselves?

Of all the good that Seaworld does, its a shame that people can be manipulated by a stupid movie that is clearly out to do nothing more than try and ruin a reputation of an establishment that does so much for conservation.

You make some really good points. I completely agree that most of the "whales" (orcas are actually dolphins but I think most people refer to them as whales) at Sea World were born in captivity and can't be released safely without a great deal of acclimatization. What I would propose is that SW stop breeding them and phase out that aspect of their parks. Find larger holding and retire them.

Another thing I want to point out is that, exactly as you said, Sea World puts A PERCENTAGE of their profits back toward conservation. Why not all? After you pay your employees and operating costs, why shouldn't ALL of your profits go toward facility improvements, research, and rehabilitation? The problem is that SW is a weird hybrid. They aren't a conservation institution nor are they purely an amusement park. In interviews they routinely deflect any accusations of wrong-doing by saying "but look at all the good we're doing?". It's like when Exxon spills their oil but then helps to clean it up. I understand that they have to make money and draw in visitors in order to continue to do those good works, but unfortunately it does come at a cost to the well-being of one particular species. I'm not saying they should be shut down! It would be hypocritical of me, doing what I do, to say that animals can't live in captivity, but SOME animals shouldn't be there.

I want to add that I have many friends that work at Sea World. They have had several briefings about how to handle questions regarding this film and they have been encouraged by management to see it so that they can form their own opinions.

 

[luvsJack]

Ya'll do realize the circle this discussion goes in, right?

Someone says SW donates money for animals, so someone wants to know "why not all"--a percentage isn't good enough, even though the other side is giving none, simply because they do not want to see it that way.

Someone relates what a trainer of SW tells them and someone else asks "why would I believe an employee of SW" simply because they do not want to dare say that maybe SW isn't the devil that they see them as.

No matter what someone says they do right, someone else is going to counter it with how that's not possible or not good enough or whatever.

 

[TinkerBelled]

Basically, I'm not a huge fan of for-profit institutions making their money off of wild animal captivity. When non-profit research organizations, like larger zoos or aquariums, collect money, it all goes towards animal upkeep, research, and the larger mission of animal care. It's not perfect, but the bottom line is conservation and education.

Sea World is not like a zoo, Sea World is like a circus. They may put some money towards conservation and education, but it's not their raison d'être. Their bottom line is entertainment and profit.

Study after study has shown that the living conditions of orcas in captivity are inappropriate and harmful. From muscle problems to short lives to abnormal aggression, it's clear that these predatory, highly intelligent animals with complex socialization don't do well in the setup provided.

I understand why people love SeaWorld--I also love marine life. But it's really, really not good for the animals. I don't know if this documentary is going to change anyone's mind, but it's still better to be thoughtful than thoughtless.

 

[sonnyjane]

Basically, I'm not a huge fan of for-profit institutions making their money off of wild animal captivity. When non-profit research organizations, like larger zoos or aquariums, collect money, it all goes towards animal upkeep, research, and the larger mission of animal care. It's not perfect, but the bottom line is conservation and education.

Sea World is not like a zoo, Sea World is like a circus. They may put some money towards conservation and education, but it's not their raison d'être. Their bottom line is entertainment and profit.

Study after study has shown that the living conditions of orcas in captivity are inappropriate and harmful. From muscle problems to short lives to abnormal aggression, it's clear that these predatory, highly intelligent animals with complex socialization don't do well in the setup provided.

I understand why people love SeaWorld--I also love marine life. But it's really, really not good for the animals. I don't know if this documentary is going to change anyone's mind, but it's still better to be thoughtful than thoughtless.

Thumbs up to all

 

[CPT Tripss]

I can see the slavery comparison. Many people here try to justify or maybe rationalize is abetter word, slavery by saying, "some slaves were well treated" Bull!!. The state of being a slave is torture. Saying the whales are well treated is also bull. Almost all evidence conclusively states these animals suffer in captivity. A cage made out of gold is still a cage.
I am not a marine biologist but this came to light when Shamu became popular.
Personally, I compared it to climate change deniers. All the evidence points to one conclusion, yet we blindly and willfully ignore it to make a buck.

Interestingly enough, this is old news, you can scream it's biased until the cows came home but anyone with two fingers to type can find tons of evidence and real experts that will give you facts.

Lol, but you probably think some slaves were "ok" to.

full disclosure, We don't go to Sea world for this very reason. Nor do I Plan to see the movie, I've read tons of research articles when Shamu was in the news,

You are quoting me here. Just who do you mean by "you?"

 

[CPT Tripss]

Yep. A slavery comparison since animal rights people like to say that whales in captivity are slaves.

And that's $400,000 more than this movie, or any of the trainers featured in it will donate. That $400,000 doesn't include the cost of rescuing and rehabilitating injured wild animals or any other funds the park may donate to.

I don't believe anyone will ever know for sure how much money the movie is making or whether or not the trainers featured in the film are getting payed. But posting obviously biased articles especially ones from Tim Zimmerman doesn't prove anything.

I don't see that sentiment expressed in this thread, yet . . . Just waiting for the trolls.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I think some people missed the original point on the slavery comment. It had nothing to do with slavery. It was a point made about a past practice that no longer exists. And it was brought into the discussion because of the very specific point that Sea World does not capture uninjured animals from the wild, nor have they for several decades.

The point was not to condemn someone today for something they no longer do.

The rest is obviously fair game, should it happen to bother you.

 

[Squidgyness]

I'm conflicted on the issue, and I don't think it's as black and white as some people seem to desire to present it. On the one hand, yes conditions are far from ideal and may even be what some would say intolerable. The whales and other animals perform for audiences in relatively small spaces.

However, what do these people want? Should we dump whales back into the ocean that were taken as youngsters, or some who were born into captivity? Where do we release them, would they survive? Why just the whales? Why just seaworld?

It's a slippery slope. First we release the whales. Fine, but do they all know how to survive and hunt? Will they form their own pod, or will they need a new one? Will the new pod accept them? Then we have animals like the sea lions at Clyde and Seymour show, they are social animals in the wild, should we release them into a colony? Do the sea lions at seaworld have the tools and skills to fit into a seal colony? Would the seals accept them? Same goes for the walrus. The list goes on. These animals are, for better or for worse, acclimatised to humans and at least partially "tamed" for want of a better word in most cases.

If we start targeting seaworld, then surely the bird show at animal kingdom will have to go. Look at the bats, monkeys and other animals on show there... What is their existence compared to wild animals? Then we move onto zoos. Sure, they might not have to perform, but an anaconda shoved into a box of a room isn't exactly in its natural habitat, no matter how many plants we put in there or how much we donate to good causes.

I can't see why we should release just the whales or other animals at seaworld and yet leave other institutions alone. It seems a little hypocritical to me. Should someone be allowed to keep a rare animal in captivity just because they donate more than someone else?

It's a thorny issue. I have been to seaworld five times, for the sake of context. I don't like some aspects of their operations, but then again I don't like some aspects of certain zoos, animal kingdom or for that matter the countless other sealife attractions around the world.

 

[sonnyjane]

I'm conflicted on the issue, and I don't think it's as black and white as some people seem to desire to present it. On the one hand, yes conditions are far from ideal and may even be what some would say intolerable. The whales and other animals perform for audiences in relatively small spaces.

However, what do these people want? Should we dump whales back into the ocean that were taken as youngsters, or some who were born into captivity? Where do we release them, would they survive? Why just the whales? Why just seaworld?

It's a slippery slope. First we release the whales. Fine, but do they all know how to survive and hunt? Will they form their own pod, or will they need a new one? Will the new pod accept them? Then we have animals like the sea lions at Clyde and Seymour show, they are social animals in the wild, should we release them into a colony? Do the sea lions at seaworld have the tools and skills to fit into a seal colony? Would the seals accept them? Same goes for the walrus. The list goes on. These animals are, for better or for worse, acclimatised to humans and at least partially "tamed" for want of a better word in most cases.

If we start targeting seaworld, then surely the bird show at animal kingdom will have to go. Look at the bats, monkeys and other animals on show there... What is their existence compared to wild animals? Then we move onto zoos. Sure, they might not have to perform, but an anaconda shoved into a box of a room isn't exactly in its natural habitat, no matter how many plants we put in there or how much we donate to good causes.

I can't see why we should release just the whales or other animals at seaworld and yet leave other institutions alone. It seems a little hypocritical to me. Should someone be allowed to keep a rare animal in captivity just because they donate more than someone else?

It's a thorny issue. I have been to seaworld five times, for the sake of context. I don't like some aspects of their operations, but then again I don't like some aspects of certain zoos, animal kingdom or for that matter the countless other sealife attractions around the world.

It's definitely not just Sea World. Miami Seaquarium has animals living in much, much worse conditions and they protest about Lolita all the time.

I don't represent the film in any way so this is just my recommendation, but they should at least stop breeding them and putting more in that situation. Zoos have rhinos. Rhinos are big and need a lot of space. Zoos breed rhinos. Rhinos are incredibly endangered. Currently, orcas are not an endangered species, however some subspecies are. The difference is that zoos follow SSP (Species Survival Plan) protocol to reproduce animals in hopes of saving species with an end goal of releasing them back to the wild if their habitat is safe to do so. Sea World breeds orcas with no intentions to do that.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I think some people missed the original point on the slavery comment. It had nothing to do with slavery. It was a point made about a past practice that no longer exists. And it was brought into the discussion because of the very specific point that Sea World does not capture uninjured animals from the wild, nor have they for several decades.

The point was not to condemn someone today for something they no longer do.

The rest is obviously fair game, should it happen to bother you.

But, they SeaWorld continues to do "it."