Blackfish

[Gumbo4x4]

But, they SeaWorld continues to do "it."

That's not how I read it.

 

[CPT Tripss]

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.

SeaWorld and other exhibitors could, in addition to stopping their unnecessary breeding program, develop sanctuaries (for want of a better term) to house and attempt to rehabituate the orcas into the wild. Kind of likethe facilities now being used for former lab primates and zoo and circus elephants.

 

[CPT Tripss]

That's not how I read it.

What? They don't keep captive orcas? American slavery continued well after the slave trade ended, 50 years or so.. Really nothing more to say on this tangential aspect of the discussion.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

What? They don't keep captive orcas? American slavery continued well after the slave trade ended, 50 years or so.. Really nothing more to say on this tangential aspect of the discussion.

No, the "it" - as I have already pointed out - isn't the keeping of captive animals.

The "it" is capturing new animals from the wild. That is THE "it" that was used in the original slavery point. The point was if you're mad about them capturing live animals, you shouldn't be because they stopped doing it 30 years ago.

If you're mad about them keeping the animals they have, fine. But it's not the point PP was making.

 

[Squidgyness]

SeaWorld and other exhibitors could, in addition to stopping their unnecessary breeding program, develop sanctuaries (for want of a better term) to house and attempt to rehabituate the orcas into the wild. Kind of likethe facilities now being used for former lab primates and zoo and circus elephants.

I suppose you could try and rehabilitate them. But since seaworld in this scenario had most likely shut down, since with the release of their most important attractions if not all animals there they wouldn't really afford to run the park anymore, who would build the sanctuary? You could try and squeeze the money from the owners of seaworld, but I'm not sure there is a legal precedent for that kind of thing. The building costs would be astronomical without some form of subsidy since the facility would presumably need to be bigger than the current facilities at the park to handle the whales adequately before any potential release.

And unfortunately I just don't think some of those animals can be rehabilitated and released. An animal living on its own or in a very small group isn't really equipped to function in a herd or pod. Nor is an animal that has been fed fish by hand equipped to hunt sea lions and other swift mammals with the complex strategies used in the wild. Most are also familiar with humans, which isn't a good thing usually. Maybe I'm wrong, but if history has taught us anything its that animals not properly equipped to compete and succeed don't live or prosper in the wild.

I could certainly get behind a ban on breeding more whales though. I think that would be a sensible route to take. Or, legal procedures to get seaworld (and similar institutions for that matter) to improve their living conditions, perhaps limit the number of shows (forcing them to build a bigger arena and thus a bigger pool perhaps?). Or both. Unfortunately people want all or nothing, so I doubt there will be much support from either side for something like this. The park would resist spending the money or stopping the breeding and many of the activists would ridicule it as not enough and a way to weasel out of releasing them.

Sometimes the fanaticism of the activists can work against them unfortunately. One step at a time might work better in this case I think.

 

[sonnyjane]

Sometimes the fanaticism of the activists can work against them unfortunately. One step at a time might work better in this case I think.

Absolutely. It's "Business 101" that you should always come to the table with proposed alternatives. You can't simply criticize something without offering a reasonable solution which is unfortunately what the film does. The amount of time it would take to get them ready to be released is unfathomable, and some likely would never get there. Retiring them to large (LARGE) sea pens would be easier and cheaper I'd think as far as construction goes than building larger tanks in a park. They could bill it as a sanctuary, like those mentioned earlier for circus elephants and lab chimps. Sadly, though, he cost of food alone to feed them would bankrupt them in the first year if they aren't making money off of it.

 

[mrsclark]

Again, please note, all comments below are made with the disclaimer that I am not a biologist, animal behaviorist, vet or any other professional wildlife/animal specialist, just an animal lover that is especially interested in the topic of animal intelligence, cognition and social behavior.

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

I HAVE thought deeply about the role of zoos and places like Animal Kingdom in our modern world. As noted by pp sonnyjane, I think whether it is "ok" or not to keep an animal in captivity is determined by whether the species in general tends to thrive, survive, or do worse in captivity than in the wild.

I also think it is important to examine the institution holding the animal and judging what its care standards are - first, basics like cleanliness and providing food, water and medical care. Second, is providing adequate living space and proper social companions (where possible and appropriate). And third, one of the things I think is often overlooked, but ever more crucial as we learn more and more about animal intelligence and cognition, is proper outlets for natural behavior AND a varied and challenging enrichment program. A good book on the topic which I thoroughly enjoyed is A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future by David Hancocks. (Another book I own, but have not read yet, so I can make no recommendation about, that covers this topic is Zoo Story: Life in the Garden of Captives by Thomas French).

As an example, I was at the Toledo Zoo last year and was very impressed with the design and animal enrichment activities taking place at the new elephant space. And frankly, with as much poaching as there is going on in Africa right now for the ivory trade, I am happy that elephants are being well cared for and mentally stimulated here in responsible institutions.

And it is not just because SeaWorld rather than Disney is holding the orcas that I find it objectionable. I think each species should be evaluated on how well that species does in captivity and a personal judgement made from there. For me, orcas in capitivity do not meet requirements that I am number one: comfortable with and number two: going to pay for/support with my dollars.

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......

I agree that the issue of captivity is best broken down by species rather than in generalizations. I believe zoos and places like AK play a vital role in reconnecting or introducing a largely urban and suburban audience to nature - provoking awe is one way to get people to care about what is happening in the wild. I once visited a penguin at our local zoo that was swimming by me behind a plexiglass barrier - the penguin looked me right in the eye, whipped its tail at me, splashed water over the top of the barrier and right onto my head! Real connections between animals and people can make a world of difference when it comes to thinking about human trash, pollution, global warming, habitat destruction, etc and bring it down to a very real, individual level. Zoos can make the abstract and far away seem more real and important.

Responsible zoos also play a role in properly managing species breeding AND many have field projects to save animals in the wild. For example, the St. Louis Zoo has a program in place to breed Ozark hellbenders - not exactly the glamorous mega fauna like the killer whale, but an important conservation project. So I do think zoos have an important place in our world.

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.

I think another problem I have is I just don't believe SeaWorld is putting animal welfare ahead of everything else including profits. Case in point is Tilikum. Tilikum is a wild-caught orca (caught near Iceland in 1983) who was acquired by a now-defunct marine park and then later by SeaWorld. Tilikum has participated in/the cause of three human deaths. After the latest death in 2010, Tilikum was kept out of the shows at SeaWorld, but then was returned to the shows (to the best of my knowledge) as of spring 2011 - about one year after the death of the last trainer he killed. Tilikum is literally a wild animal and obviously dangerous. He has been in captivity for too long to safely or humanely return him to the wild, BUT is the best answer to this problem really putting him back on display in a show where orcas do the famous Shamu smile and are there to entertain a paying audience??? Is that the best SeaWorld could come up with?

Even though no trainers are allowed in the water with him at this time, when he killed the last trainer, no one was supposed to be in the water with him either - the trainer was pulled off the ledge she was on. Wouldn't it be best to retire him from the show and build a holding area or sea pen for him rather than putting him back on "exhibit?" There are no easy answers as to what to do with a wild-caught dangerous animal that that proves just how dangerous he is and perhaps no perfect solution, but I find it distasteful that he is still performing to crowds under the banner of Shamu-entertainment.

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.

My proposed solution:
First, I think breeding of orcas in captivity for the purpose of putting them in an entertainment setting such as shows at SeaWorld should stop.

Second, I do not believe that any of the orcas currently kept in captivity at SeaWorld should be returned to the wild - that would surely be a death sentence. BUT that does not mean that just because we cannot release them that we should just keep the status quo. As I mentioned above, I think animals like Tilikum should be retired from show business. I also believe that with all the animal lovers in the world and all the sanctuaries that have been created and continue to be supported for chimps, former pet parrots, and even some farm animals, etc. that an innovative and creative team of people could come up with a non-profit solution of where to house and keep Tilikum and others like him IF SeaWorld agreed to give them up (which I have no faith they would do because Shamu is a major profit center for them).

Third, just because orcas should not be kept in captivity does not mean no animals should ever be kept in captivity - see my first points at the top of the thread - each species needs to be judged on its own. For example, humpback whales are not kept in captivity and I am not sure there are many people that would argue they should be due to sheer size. Great white sharks are another species that tend to do poorly in captivity (for a great documentary look at a Great White kept temporarily in captivity, then released back to the wild and tracked to see what would happen afterwards see Nature on PBS - Episode Oceans In Glass: Behind The Scenes of the Monterey Bay Aquarium), but does that mean goldfish or starfish or pufferfish or clown fish shouldn't be kept in an aquarium - to me that argument just doesn't follow logically - again see my criteria at the top of the post.

Finally, if an animal species were alive ONLY in captivity (ie extinct in the wild) then it would be imperative to breed and keep said species while under the moral obligation to provide, care, socialization and mental enrichment. If orcas were extinct in the wild, I would still object to them being entertainment at a for-profit company because as a species they tend to do poorly in that environment, BUT I would have less objection to them being bred and kept at SeaWorld. HOWEVER, as we are not at the point where SeaWorld has the only living orcas on earth, this is moot.

 

[sonnyjane]

Mrsclark,


That was an exceptional post! Spot on.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Mrsclark,


That was an exceptional post! Spot on.

Ditto!

One thing that really troubles me about the future of captive orcas is that so many were sired by Tilikum.

 

[mnrose]

I also loved Mrsclarks post. Thoughtful, substantiated and well written. I feel exactly as she does, although I am not nearly as eloquent on the topic.

I was also fortunate enough to see that Great White while it was captive (briefly) at the Monterrey Bay Aquarium. It was fascinating, but everyone knew all along that it would not be anything other than temporary....and it had a research purpose to it, as opposed to pure entertainment. I don't care how SeaWorld dresses up their pig...it's still a pig. The point is to entertain people, and make money off their captives. In the case of orcas, I do not think it is defensible.

 

[abinormal]

Mrsclark and sunnyjane said exactly what I think. I'm not against animals in captivity in a blanket sense but there are some that just don't thrive there. I also am not big on animals doing tricks (aside from dogs who don't seem to mind it).

I'd love to check out Sea World's penguin attraction but I can't bring myself to give them money when I don't approve of their treatment of the orcas.

 

[Lanshark]

More bad publicity for SeaWorld

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/be.../29/exp-newday-turner-seaworldcontroversy.cnn

 

[JakeJenna]

More bad publicity for SeaWorld

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/be.../29/exp-newday-turner-seaworldcontroversy.cnn

For absolutely no reason, the whales do this to themselve, it's like a kid that refuses to eat. When they get hungry enough they will eat, when the whale needs to get back in the water it will.

 

[crayon3448]

I also loved Mrsclarks post. Thoughtful, substantiated and well written. I feel exactly as she does, although I am not nearly as eloquent on the topic.

ditto.

 

[ford family]

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.

Unbelievable!
The people "making a buck" are the ones in the global warming industry, the ones with the high priced "green alternatives" that make no actual difference whatsoever.

As for Seaworld, wasn't it them that rescued the stricken dolphin "Winter" and transported her to Clearwater? Such organisations do a tremendous amount of good and are extremely knowledgeable about marine conservation, usually far more than the animal rights "activists" who tend to be more sentimental than sensible.

ford family

 

[Kogo Shuko]

I think the biggest reason that this is such a big topic right now isn't that there are animals in captivity doing circus tricks.

It is no longer just animal rights activists clamouring for the rights of whales. Scientists are clamouring for these rights. Why? Because these same scientists are learning that we barely know anything about the whales, and what little we do know actually points to an extremely complicated social structure - and it's not just one species.

Orcas, while technically dolphins, are cetaceans, through and through.

So whether a "killer whale" is a "whale" or a "dolphin" isn't even the point. They are so similar that it is not surprising that social structures found in orca pods can also be found in sperm whale pods.

Whales are extremely intellilgent - that is what we're learning. In the Sperm whale research, it has been found that each pod has its own dialect when communicating with each other. And while each has its own dialect, the pods can still communicate.

In regards to orcas, there are different kinds], or sub-species. The two most notable are the transients (whales that do not have a specific territory and feed on small marine mammals) and residents (whales that stay in close-knit, family pods in a select area that feed more on fish). But physically, are they really any different? This suggests extreme cultural differences in the species, thus also suggesting an intelligence that we refuse to acknowledge as a people.

When the scientists that study the animals are demanding that the whales should be given "civil rights" it's time to listen to what they have to say.

At the same time, despite being a whale's rights supporter, I do not believe the whales in captivity should be put back in the wild. They simply won't survive. Have people seriously forgotten the tale of Keiko (most famously known as Willy). They tried to rehabilitate him, and he ended up refusing to interact with other orcas in the wild, and ended up in some harbour because he needed to be around people.

That poor whale would gather his toys up at night in one corner of his pool and sleep with them like they were pod members. I don't care how well they treated him otherwise. If he, as an adult whale, needed to imagine that his toys were his sisters and mother, than that's animal cruelty.

And then he couldn't even integrate back into the wild once he was released.

Freeing Willy really wasn't the amazing story the movies imagined it would be.

 

[mfd25wife]

Unbelievable!
The people "making a buck" are the ones in the global warming industry, the ones with the high priced "green alternatives" that make no actual difference whatsoever.

As for Seaworld, wasn't it them that rescued the stricken dolphin "Winter" and transported her to Clearwater? Such organisations do a tremendous amount of good and are extremely knowledgeable about marine conservation, usually far more than the animal rights "activists" who tend to be more sentimental than sensible.

ford family

Agree.

 

[sonnyjane]

Whales are extremely intellilgent - that is what we're learning. In the Sperm whale research, it has been found that each pod has its own dialect when communicating with each other. And while each has its own dialect, the pods can still communicate.

In regards to orcas, there are different kinds], or sub-species. The two most notable are the transients (whales that do not have a specific territory and feed on small marine mammals) and residents (whales that stay in close-knit, family pods in a select area that feed more on fish). But physically, are they really any different? This suggests extreme cultural differences in the species, thus also suggesting an intelligence that we refuse to acknowledge as a people.

Since you asked, I'll answer. Not only are residents different than transients, but residents are different from other residents. Southern Residents (coast of Washington/Canada) are different than Antarctic residents, etc. They are not just different in that they live in different regions and speak different "dialects", Yes, "physically", they really are different. The groups are morphologically distinct enough to be classified into different sub-species. Their fins have different shapes. Their saddle-patches and eye patches are in different locations. Their rostrums have different shapes as well. I'm not sure what that has to do with Blackfish but I wanted to point that out since you mentioned it in your post.

 

[ebtbmom]

Since you asked, I'll answer. Not only are residents different than transients, but residents are different from other residents. Southern Residents (coast of Washington/Canada) are different than Antarctic residents, etc. They are not just different in that they live in different regions and speak different "dialects", Yes, "physically", they really are different. The groups are morphologically distinct enough to be classified into different sub-species. Their fins have different shapes. Their saddle-patches and eye patches are in different locations. Their rostrums have different shapes as well. I'm not sure what that has to do with Blackfish but I wanted to point that out since you mentioned it in your post.

Sonny, you sound like you have a really interesting career. I've enjoyed your insight, animal behavior is fascinating.

 

[sonnyjane]

Sonny, you sound like you have a really interesting career. I've enjoyed your insight, animal behavior is fascinating.

Thanks I'm seeing the movie on Friday and will have a better insight then. I feel obligated to see it so that I can discuss it as it pertains to my field.

We had a lab discussion at work today about the correlation between an animal's home range in the wild and their development of detrimental behaviors in captivity (pacing, stress, aggression, etc.). One scientific paper examined more than 80 different species of carnivore at zoos around the country to monitor their behavior in captivity vs. their conditions in the wild. As you might expect, the larger an animal's natural range, the more trouble they have in captivity. While the paper only covered land mammals, orcas have really large ranges therefore you'd expect a lot of neurotic behavior, which we see (swimming in circles, swimming laps upside down) if they follow the trend, and in my opinion they do.

I'm not taking this subject lightly. I really love my job and know that the organization I work for does incredible things (we are a non-profit and all proceeds go to conservation and exhibit investments). However I'm having a hard time with this topic! I KNOW that we can't abolish zoos altogether without completely losing species. At the current rate of consumption, it's predicted that 50% of ALL species on earth (plant, animal, fungus, bacteria) will be extinct by 2113 (100 years from now). More sad is that there currently on earth does not exist enough resources to sustain the current population of HUMANS alone let alone to feed the animals. How sad it that? Even if we ate every weed, berry, insect, and rodent out there, there isn't enough to feed the human race let alone anything else. Makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't it? Without zoos those animals are gone forever and nobody in the future will know them. That said, if we are going to keep animals in captivity it does have to be for a greater purpose, I think, and not to exploit them. That greater purpose CAN be serving as ambassador animals. For example I do presentations with different animals in order to educate the public about the current issues going on in nature and why it's so important we recycle and reduce consumption. If I was just out there shilling, I'd be a hypocrite. What SW is doing is different. It just is. I don't think big screen monitors in giant stadiums and laser light shows are the way to inspire (or practice for that matter) conservation.