Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Blackfish's Green Lies About SeaWorld

Anti-SeaWorld doc distorts truth.

Millions go to SeaWorld to learn more about sea life and get closer to killer whales. But fewer go now because the documentary Blackfish exposed what one reporter called "the darker side" of SeaWorld. 

The movie, which CNN bought and ran over and over, tells how greedy businessmen take baby whales from their mothers and imprison them in small aquariums, where the frustrated animals are a threat to each other and their trainers.

"All whales in captivity have a bad life," says a biologist in the film. "They're all psychologically traumatized."

Blackfish is persuasive. Watching it made me agree with the protesters who shout, "SeaWorld is synonymous with cruelty!" 

SeaWorld wouldn't talk to CNN, but they did talk to me. I will be showing their responses on Fox News this weekend. 

I asked SeaWorld why they separate whales from their mothers. 

"We haven't done that in 35 years," says Kelly Flaherty Clark, SeaWorld head trainer. "We have no plans to do it again, and the film implies that we're doing it yesterday."

SeaWorld says much of Blackfish is deceitful. "The things they describe just didn't happen."

"Eighty percent of the whales that we care for were born right here," says head veterinarian Chris Dold. "The key difference between what our whales experience and what killer whales in the wild experience is the fact that ... our trainers work with them every day."

I was most disturbed by a Blackfish scene that plays the mournful cry of a mother whale whose baby was taken from her. But it turns out the "baby" was an adult with kids of her own. Blackfish faked the scene by adding "sound effects that aren't even appropriate to a killer whale." 

Blackfish also claims captive whales' droopy dorsal fins indicate that the whales are miserable. But whale expert Ingrid Visser says killer whales in the wild have collapsed dorsal fins, too. 

The director of Blackfish and others who appear in the film would not talk to me, but biologist Lori Marino, who'd said that "all whales in captivity have a bad life," did. 

I pointed out that life in the wild is rough, too—there's competition for food, sex, life itself. She answered, "these animals evolved over millions of years to be adapted to the challenges of the wild, not with living in a concrete tank... They need space... and a social life."

SeaWorld claims its whales are "happy." But as Blackfish points out, "we can't ask the whales." 

Dold replied, "While I may not know what my dog is thinking, I certainly know that he's happy and that we have a good relationship." 

There have been moments when that human-whale relationship wasn't good. One whale drowned a SeaWorld trainer. But Clark says there's no evidence that the whale's behavior meant that he was frustrated because he lives in a tank.

Finally, Blackfish claims that captive whales die young. But Dold points out, "We have a 50-year-old whale living at SeaWorld... Our whales' life parameters are the same as whales in the wild." Government research confirms this. 

It's romantic to fantasize about freeing whales so that they can frolic in the ocean. That probably wouldn't work out very well. After the movie Free Willy ran, the whale depicted in the film was set free. But wild whales wouldn't accept him in their pods. Willy kept returning to shore to be near people. He let children ride on his back. Willy died not long after he was set free. 

Photo Credit: SeaWorld

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    On topic, but slightly off, I've always wondered what other Libertarians think of Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd. I think there might be a diversity of viewpoints on them and their activities.

    Given my sympathy to some of those activities, should I expect a subpoena in the mail from NY?

  • ||

    For example, one could argue that Sea Shepherd are, intentionally or not, vigilantes for the taxpayer. The Japanese Government and Canadian Government both subsidize targets of Sea Shepherd's campaigns.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "For example, one could argue that Sea Shepherd are, intentionally or not, vigilantes for the taxpayer. "

    If one was a complete fucking moron.

  • DaveSs||

    Isn't it generally understood that pirates operating on the high seas are fair game?

  • Catatafish||

    I think Watson and Sea Shepherd are idiots on untold levels (I used to watch the show for the unintentional comedy) but a part of me does admire the fact that they are so committed to their principles that they are willing to engage in direct action. That stops when they start bitching about people's reactions to their direct action. They basically don't want to suffer the consequences.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    "I'M WILLING TO DIE FOR THE CAUSE!!!!"

    "HEY! THEY SQUIRTED ME WITH A HOSE. CALL THE UN!!!"

  • ||

    Is this the real Playa?

    If so, what's your favorite beer?

  • Swiss Servator, Nierezeit!||

    I think he is blinking S*O*S*!

  • Catatafish||

    When Watson put on that ballistic vest and then pretended to be shot I just lost it. He's a scumbag and a liar but he was so bumbling in his attempts I almost wanted to put down my beer and pat him on his fat head through the television. Almost.

  • Je suis Reason||

    "but a part of me does admire the fact that they are so committed to their principles that they are willing to engage in direct action."

    You know who else was so committed to their principles that they were willing to engage in direct action?

  • straffinrun||

    The Dread pir......nevermind.

  • X[redacted]s||

    Ross Ulbricht?

  • Swiss Servator, Nierezeit!||

    Action Directe?

  • R C Dean||

    the fact that they are so committed to their principles that they are willing to engage in direct action

    See, also, every terrorist and fanatic, ever.

  • Catatafish||

    John Brown?

  • R C Dean||

    I've always wondered what other Libertarians think of Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd.

    Technically, I believe they are pirates.

    They certainly go around damaging other people's property and business.

    I see no reason why any libertarian would support Sea Shepherd and their ilk.

  • Illocust||

    Eh, think slavery or the holocaust. If these people truly believe what they preach, I can believe they have taken the moral action. Doesn't mean I agree with them or believe they shouldn't have their asses tossed in jail, but I will say they are moral.

  • Catatafish||

    That's the interesting thought experiment. If these guys truly believe that whales are sentient creatures with all the agency of humans (but lacking the ability to fight back), then what they are doing is completely within their own moral framework. The problem I have with that is some dirt-worshiping jihadi justifies his own actions the same way. I don't know where that line is drawn.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    If whales are so intelligent, how could sailing ships, rowboats, and hand-thrown harpoons drive them near to extinction?

    Ditto for porpoises, dolphins, and other critters who beach themselves by the hundreds.

    For my money, anyone calling such critters intelligent has shown their own intelligence is equivalent to the critters they recognize as intelligent.

  • Jay Dubya||

    Moral agency is not solely based on intelligence. By your rationale, we would have less moral responsibilities to human beings with cognitive impairment (head injuries, dowms syndrome, etc) than to normal human beings. Most people would concede the opposite is true - that within the human club, intelligence and moral responsibilities have an inverse relationship. The notion that animals are not as smart as the average human being so murdering and torturing them is morally acceptable is not a position based on reason.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    ???

    The usual claim I hear is that whales, dolphins, and porpoises are intelligent animals, therefore deserving of human rights.

    I don't know what you thought you were answering, but you didn't.

  • Jay Dubya||

    My point was that moral agency is not clearly related to intelligence. If you agree with me, great.

    I think that the claim of animal intelligence comes from a long line of bad science & bad ethics that argued that animals lack some capacity, like language or tools or abstract reasoning, and as a result of that lack we dont need to bother with considering them as moral agents. See Immanuel Kant's On Moral Duties to Animals for an early and very influential example.

  • Jay Dubya||

    Another approach is the utilitarian approach proposed by Peter Singer - that animals are worthy of moral agency because they feel pain. Singer
    has been very influential among the animal rights crowd, and his approach is much closer to the mark of how most people feel about moral duties to animals. If you are interested in critiquing the ethical thinking that undergirds those involved in the animal rights movement I woild suggest reviewing the classical problems with utilitarianism.

  • ||

    That's like saying that if one believes men to be sentient and freewilly that one would then be obliged to burn down the cities, poison the crops, and drive everyone out to live naked in the desert, as though allowing them to conspire with one another to live an unnatural life is somehow an abominable crime if we admit that they have feelings and are able to make choices. It's perhaps slightly easier to admit that there may be something reprehensible in raising sentient, freewilly beings for food, but still not for certain. I only say it's maybe easier to admit since it seems like just about everyone else is able to see this; as for me, I don't see why it should be inherently wrong. I would most certainly rather eat people I know than strangers from some up-and-coming Midwestern Marquis de Sade's feedlots. And it seems sort of like it's hardwired into the system that we can never know the spiritual conditions of the other animals; why we bothering to go and pretend otherwise then? What a bunch of dopes!

  • Jay Dubya||

    Im not sure I see your point. Lets set aside the differences between the inner lives of people & animals for a moment. There is a clearly a distinction between the forced labor, incarceration and eventual slaughter that an animal in a farm undergoes and the relative free agency of a human being in even the most stiflingly unfree societies. One can for example, oppose slavery without opposing private markets (thats what libertarianism is all about after all).

    That being the case, if we were to say that vivisection was wrong why would it follow that voluntary medical experiments with consent would be wrong? In short: why does finding moral problems with the maltreatment of animals lead to being "obliged to burn down the cities, poison the crops, and drive everyone out to live naked in the desert"

  • R C Dean||

    If these people truly believe what they preach, I can believe they have taken the moral action.

    Morality is based on more than whether you follow your professed beliefs.

    It also takes into account whether those professed beliefs are themselves moral.

    Depending on the flavor or morality you subscribe to, it may also take into account the impact of your actions on others.

  • Pieceful human:Former Straffin||

    Nature is pure, humans are toxic. Quit working the land and altering the environment to meet your selfish needs. Submit to the glory of Gaia and, in time, that worthless cerebral cortex will shrivel and die.

  • Florida Man||

    I watched "Noah" last night. That was literally the message of the movie. Also: "oh my god it's Russell Crowe!"

  • GILMORE||

    " That was literally the message of the movie"

    Noah it wasnt

  • Swiss Servator, Nierezeit!||

    *narrows gaze*

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    *arks eyebrows*

  • ||

    If 'Noah' doesn't have a 'Sophie's Choice' hook where Crowe has to decide which calf he has to let go and drown, I'm not interested.

  • Florida Man||

    There was an infanticide choice.

  • MJGreen||

    Can we still gambol across the fields?

  • waffles||

    No.

    Does a virus gambol?

  • Critical Thinker||

    It seems to me that if there was even one lie or misrepresentation in the documentary Blackfish that SeaWorld would have sued. They have not. This leads me to believe that the information in the film is true.

  • GILMORE||

    Have you heard of the "Barbara Streisand effect"?

    And do you know how unbelievably awesome Barbara Streisand is?

  • Almanian [REDACTED]||

    Barbra is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbulous!

  • Jordan||

    Poe's Law is in full effect, especially given your username.

  • Almanian [REDACTED]||

    Yes, the derp is STRONG in this thread.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    I wanna see how this goes.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Dammit. Drive-by troll. Possibly the producer of Blackfish.

  • R C Dean||

    So, I guess Critical Thinker believes everything that doesn't result in a defamation or fraud lawsuit.

  • Jay Dubya||

    Critical Thinkers mom sucks cocks in hell. Note that I have not been sued.

  • GILMORE||

    "But then he called SeaWorld."

    AND HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

  • Judge Forrest's Clitdong||

    Anti-SeaWorld doc distorts truth.

    You could almost say that it runs the truth through a woodchipper.

  • straffinrun||

    Hey Buddy, wanna trade handles? I've built up zero cred with this one.

  • ||

    'Blackfish faked the scene'

    Hey, everyone does it. It's art. Until we want you to take it seriously. But then it's art again when you call us out on our trrompe d'oeuil. Works for NBC and Michael Moore.

    Also. Sea World should have a Moby Dick section where they show how whalers harpoon whales....Live.

  • Paul.||

    Was it art or was it porn?

  • GILMORE||

  • The Last American Hero||

    See also Stewart, John.

  • scareduck||

    Sorry, John, this is just apologist BS.

    Finally, Blackfish claims that captive whales die young. But Dold points out, "We have a 50-year-old whale living at SeaWorld... Our whales' life parameters are the same as whales in the wild." Government research confirms this.

    No, not even close. And just because you can find one example of a long-lived orca in captivity does not eliminate all the other deaths. And then there's dorsal fin folding and a host of other problems.

    This is why I really dislike Stossel. Cherry-picking and corporate apologia seems to be his thing, and it makes for easy dismissal.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Perhaps, but the accusation is that the filmmakers did similar cherry-picking.

    Even if Sea World is doing something wrong, it doesn't help to misrepresent the facts in your attack. Of course, they weren't much worried about credibility with an audience already predisposed to believe the opinions expressed in the film.

  • scareduck||

    The accusation is largely garbage. It's significant that neither Stossel nor Sea World pursue the meat of Blackfish's arguments. Complaining about an invented scene (or one that is misleading because it doesn't mention time frames) is a minor sin in the scheme of things; what they miss is their breeding program, which supposedly gets them off the hook for past sins of family separation, has at its center the multiply homicidal Tilikum. In other words, they decided that John Wayne Gacy would make a fine stud for their breeding program. Not exactly great decision making there, Skippy. And of course all the other problems Stossel ignores.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Complaining about an invented scene (or one that is misleading because it doesn't mention time frames)"

    Thirty-five years is one fuck of a timeframe. That's like leading people to believe that currently, Jimmy Carter is in the final year of his first term as president.

    Holy fuck what a fucking loser the scareduck is.

  • R C Dean||

    Complaining about an invented scene (or one that is misleading because it doesn't mention time frames) is a minor sin in the scheme of things;

    Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    "Complaining about an invented scene (or one that is misleading because it doesn't mention time frames) is a minor sin in the scheme of things;.."

    Fake but accurate.

  • The Last American Hero||

    So, let's say I can't find footage of polar bears trapped on icebergs and in danger of drowning, it' OK to make that up because it supports the narrative?

  • Alex N||

    "Perhaps, but the accusation is that the filmmakers did similar cherry-picking". Two wrongs don't make a right.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I dunno, who is the burden of proof on? I can make a movie, too, but if I cut corners to tell a better story, are you going to believe everything I say? I was perfectly willing to believe Sea World did (and does) things I don't care for, but I'm hardly going to base my opinions on a movie that isn't first worried about telling the truth.

  • Juice||

    So Stossel should not have cherry picked?

  • PacJac||

    Please read PacJac's comments near the end. They had to be presented in seven, separate boxes. However, it will only take several minutes to read. It will bring light to the subject.

  • Almanian [REDACTED]||

    Yeah, unlike CNN, who ran a totally even-handed review of Sea World that Stossel was....responding to.

    +1 derp for you

  • GILMORE||

    Is "apologist" the term you use to describe people who deviate from the spoonfed conventional wisdom handed out by enviro-propagandists?

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Yeah. Didn't you get the memo?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Keep in mind that scareduck is the same moron who thinks Net Neutrality is THE AWESOMEST!!!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Sorry, John, this is just apologist BS."

    Did you even bother to actually read more into the Wiki article you posted? Your source was a cherry-picking by an ARA nutjob writing for takepart, for fuck's sake.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why isn't there a Whitefish* documentary?!?

    *I'm guessing it would be about Jewish delis?

  • ||

    A lot of classic Jewish delis have passed on to Greeks here in Montreal. Has this phenomena happened elsewhere?

  • PM||

    Yeah, well, it's an easy transition. You just change the signs from "shawarma" to "gyros".

  • ||

    Shawarma is Arab grub.

  • PM||

    Technically yes, but it's popular in a lot of Jewish communities and in Israel. I had never heard about it until a Hebronic friend of mine in Toronto described it to me and I went "Isn't that just gyros?"

  • BuSab Agent||

    The end product looks similar when served, but the spices are different and the way the meat is prepared is different.

  • ||

    Ah. Jewish delis - in my experience anyway - don't sell it here though.

    And they're similar. True.

  • PM||

    Well I was really just being a wise ass anyway, I just didn't do a very good job.

  • Ska||

    I would buy a pastrami sandwich from Katz's, but not from Nick's.

    Living in NY, no, the Greeks have not taken over the Jewish delis. Jewish delis still exist, most of the other delis are run by Latinos, Koreans, or other southeast Asians (really dependent on neighborhood).

    The Greeks do all the diners.

  • The Last American Hero||

    You said that aloud? Wars have been fought in the holy land over Schawarma vs. Gyro arguments.

  • GILMORE||

    The third Crusade was in fact initiated by the Shawarma/Gyro schism.

  • ||

    One item on my bucket list is to eat myself silly at Russ & Daughters.

    All my bucket list items seem to be food-related.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Man, I would kill for some sable right now.

  • GILMORE||

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A lot of classic Jewish delis have passed on to Greeks here in Montreal

    I've never noticed that here, at least in NYC.

  • Raven Nation||

    Semi-related: when I was a kid, most of the fish & chip shops I went to (in Australia and sort of an equivalent to delis), were run by Greeks.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Most of the diners around here are run by Greeks and they generally do a great job. But Italian food prepared by a Greek is an abomination before gods and men, and is very nearly equivalent to Deep Dish Pizza.

  • ||

    THANK YOU. Finally someone has the balls to say it.

  • Swiss Servator, Nierezeit!||

    LEAVE DEEP DISH ALONE!!!

    *runs off sobbing*

  • BuSab Agent||

    Look either serve a damn lasagna or a damn pizza. Trying to combine the two into one dish is just wrong, horribly wrong.

  • MJGreen||

    I have a documentary about Russ & Daughters. Would that count?

  • Almanian [REDACTED]||

    There have been moments when that human-whale relationship wasn't good. One whale drowned a SeaWorld trainer. But Clark says there's no evidence that the whale's behavior meant that he was frustrated because he lives in a tank.

    I understand it was a mob hit - that the trainer owed money. The orca's comment was, "Bitch set me up", so - who knows what's real?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Orca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.

  • ||

    /borrows Swiss's narrow gaze.

  • Swiss Servator, Nierezeit!||

    *gladly lent*

  • Almanian [REDACTED]||

    I hope Sea World doesn't feel - threatened - by CNN's actions. Might bright down a big ole woodchipper of federal hurt on them if that were the case.

    I ain't sayin', I'm just sayin'....

  • Almanian [REDACTED]||

    Oh - one more thing:

    This shit never happened when Virginia Postrel was running Sea World.

  • waffles||

    Drink the sea!

  • ||

    I'm sensing a new meme here to go along with 7:01.

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    Am I the only one who thinks zoos and the like should all just be shut down? If you want to see wild animals, go where they fucking live you pussies.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I see no cause to shut down zoos - unless they're government run

  • waffles||

    You may be in the minority here. I recently visited the Monterey Bay Aquarium and really enjoyed the experience. Also modern zoological gardens are much better than their forebears. They will be more expensive but I think there is a value to their existence.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Except for the fact that without zoos, there probably wouldn't be any giant pandas left in the world.

  • UnCivilServant||

    And a stack of other "extinct in the wild" species.

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    Sucks to be a giant panda I guess.

  • BuSab Agent||

    The zoos are actively interfering with the pandas' ardent desire to go extinct. I'm mean they won't fuck, commit infanticide when they accidentally do get pregnant, and insist on being Vegan even though the can't actually digest bamboo very well. How much clearer do the pandas have to be?

  • UnCivilServant||

    That describes certain types of human behaviour patterns too...

  • BuSab Agent||

    If the shoe fits...

  • MarkLastname||

    I know right, the pandas know it's the only way to reduce their carbon footprint to zero.

  • PM||

    Except for the fact that without zoos, there probably wouldn't be any giant pandas left in the world.

    And nothing of value was lost

  • sarcasmic||

    Then don't go.

    I've been to several, and some are run better than others. This is the last one I went to. The animals seemed as happy as caged animals can be. Contrast that with the Denver Zoo where the animals looked like they would commit suicide if they could. One is privately run while the other is not. Can you guess which is which?

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    I don't go. I also think it would be nice if people didn't feel the need to grab some animal and toss it in a cage for entertainment. If you want to see what lions are like, go where the lions live.

  • ||

    I personally go to tease the animals and watch them get agitated.

  • UnCivilServant||

    It's cheaper to bring the lions to the masses than to have the masses traipse through the serengeti with deliterious effect on the plantlife that has knock-on effects for the rest of the chain.

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    I feel it's safe to say that absent the existence of zoos, millions of people would not be so interested in the lives of animals from the other side of the planet.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Balderdash! Are you saying people had no interest in traveling to exotic places before the Travel Channel?

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    Not at all, just that millions don't have the means to do so. There's nothing wrong with people who go on safari and bring along cameras and such so that others can see what wild animals are like. There's nothing wrong with being curious about the lives of wild animals. The problem is having someone cage a bunch of animals and bring them to the city so people can gawk at them in person rather than on a screen.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm not sure what the problem with caging (humanely, unless you're arguing that isn't possible) an elephant so the hoi polloi have a chance to see one in person. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of animals as entertainment for some reason. You'll have to explain your reasoning in more detail before I'll buy into the premise that raising animal species that exist in the wild for the purposes of entertainment is ipso facto wrong.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    absent the existence of zoos, millions of people would not be so interested in the lives of animals from the other side of the planet.

    The fact that zoos are so well-attended is a market indicator that millions of people are, in fact, interested.

  • sarcasmic||

    Many zoos have rescued and/or captive bred animals.

    This is why I would rather go to a zoo.

    What about places like this?

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    1 At least the chick had the balls to go there.

    2 Unfortunately she was a moron. She probably saw a lion at a zoo once and couldn't imagine that ones in the wild might be different.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Fun fact, if you go by population densities, the Tiger's habitat is now North American captivity, as more of them live here in zoos, wildlife sanctuaries and private collections than do in the wilds of asia. (Ostriches would fall into that category, but they're being farmed. It'd be like pointing out that there are more chickens than red junglefowl)

  • X[redacted]s||

    Isn't the red junglefowl extinct? Ditto the aurochs, the ancestor of domestic cattle?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Nope, there are still some Red Junglefowl left in SE Asia.

    Or a lot, if you believe the people who classed it as 'least concern'

  • UnCivilServant||

    *but you are correct about the aurochs.

  • mtrueman||

    "Fun fact, if you go by population densities, the Tiger's habitat"

    Those large cats are exceptions, breeding them in captivity is very easy compared to other species. More fun fact, William Blake's "Tyger tyger burning bright..." was inspired by Blake's first setting eyes on an actual living tyger in a 'zoo' in the Tower of London at the end of the 18th century.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    With respect, your argument is no different then saying, "If you want to drink milk, go out into the Great Plains, run after cattle, and attack yourself to a teat." It's perfectly acceptable to criticize the conditions some zoos might hold animals, but I don't buy this sort of aesthetic veganism that seeks to eliminate particular forms of animal husbandry deemed to be nekulturny.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *attach, though I suppose you could "attack" a teat if you're so inclined.

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    Is raising animals for food the same as caging them for entertainment? Do slaughterhouses have tours so people can see all the exotic cows?

    If the purpose of the zoo was to raise wild animals that are going to be turned into burgers, that might be a point.

  • PM||

    Is raising animals for food the same as caging them for entertainment?

    Depends on what your objection is. If you're against caging wild animals in principle, then the difference is negligible. If you're not against caging wild animals in principle, but only in zoos, then your position is a bit inconsistent.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Exactly. Though, I will note that the Night Safari in Chiang Mai does offer meals featuring exotic meats from animals raised on the preserve.

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    If I'm ok with abolishing cattle ranching, can I pay someone to catch a cow and turn it into steaks and burgers or do I have to do it myself?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying it's hypocritical to use a "middleman" if you want to see some animals?

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    No, I'm asking how back to nature I have to get if I want a burger. If I think it's fine to have cows run wild, do I have to kill one myself every time I want some beef or can I pay someone for that service?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You can do whatever you like. I admit that I'm at a loss as how this relates to your argument against zoos.

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    Someone said either I'm ok with animals being caged or not. Someone also said i'd need to chase down a cow if I wanted milk. For the sake of being consistent, I'd like to know what I'm on the hook for when I want to feel myself. I'm not the one who started the conversation down this path, but I'm interested how far it needs to go to maintain logical consistency.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, let me ask you. If I desire to drink camel milk do I have to travel to the Sahara or is it acceptable for it to be bottled and shipped overseas? All things being equal, what is the qualitative difference between consuming an animal product sourced from overseas and viewing an animal who was brought from overseas?

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    Getting an animal product doesn't necessitate caging it indefinitely to acquire said product.

  • The DerpRider||

    Is this a false flag thread to show people it's not just juvenile bluster around these parts?

  • PM||

    No, I'm asking how back to nature I have to get if I want a burger.

    That's really up to you, but for the sake of consistency in your principles, it should probably be about the same as how back to nature I have to get if I want to see a western lowlands gorilla. Bear in mind your original question was:

    Is raising animals for food the same as caging them for entertainment?

    The answer I gave pre-supposed commercial/factory farming, since that is presently the norm. In that case, I would say that raising caged animals for food is comparable to raising caged animals for entertainment. If you buy exclusively cage-free free-range meat then I suppose you could draw a distinction (although the only actual difference is the size of the cage).

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    I accept your point about commercial farming. I don’t think I'd have a problem with the elimination of ranches that raise animals for food. I'd be willing to pay someone to kill and prepare an animal for me since that should be acceptable.

  • Juice||

    I'm against caging wild animals in principle, but if attempting to preserve the species as a wild species requires caging some of them, then I'll make an exception.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    The aurochs is extinct, though...

  • MarkLastname||

    Ya mean, to Africa?

    By that logic we should also shut down all Indian restaurants because, like, if you wanna know what Indian food is like, go to India.

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    Yeah, exactly like that. Because the only way to get Indian food outside of India is to throw a bunch of Indians in a cage and have them prepare it.

    I'm not sure you should be lecturing people on logic.

  • Azathoth!!||

    White Indian? Is that you?

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    Watching the lion tamer act at Ringling Bros. circus made me sad for the lions. I was hoping for a reprise of Sigfreid's final act.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Glad I'm not the only one. I never liked the circus as a kid because I felt bad for the animals.
    I did like the little flashlights that you could hang from your neck though.

  • Don Mynack||

    Yes, you are the only one.

  • PM||

    I'd rather go on a safari than to a zoo, but I wouldn't shut them down. The Seattle zoo was really nice when I went. The San Diego Safari Park (NOT the zoo) is also a lot of fun. The San Diego zoo was the shittiest one I've ever been to. Somehow every direction is uphill, the habitats are small, and half of the shit was closed when I went.

  • Juice||

    When I went they were mostly opened but I was shocked at how small it was. I thought it was one of the best in the world. Maybe I was spoiled growing up in New Orleans and having the Audubon Zoo, which wipes the floor with the San Diego Zoo.

  • X[redacted]s||

    Yes. Yes you are.

  • X[redacted]s||

    And in a way that's dickish and offputting, though not outside the normal range of H&R dickish offputtingness.

  • Catatafish||

    I'm okay with game and wildlife preserves. Don't particularly care for zoos simply because even the well-run ones never provide enough habitat for the animals in order to properly simulate their natural environment. I don't think getting to see a live animal in a manner that is convenient is enough reason to keep them in cages. You don't have to go walkabout. Open a book or turn on Discovery Channel if you're interested.

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    Thank you.

  • EMD||

    I tend to agree, but as I understand it, fish have no long-term memories, so even putting them in a smaller aquarium is not trapping them or limiting their space, because every pass around the aquarium is like a new experience.

    I'm not 100% sure if this is true, or what the memories of other animals are like, whether or not the size of its habitat is directly conducive to its happiness or quality of life.

  • Catatafish||

    As a fish myself, I can confidently tell you that...

    ...what the fuck were we discussing?

    Oh look a castle!

  • Jay Dubya||

    EMD is correct that some fish have demonstrated incredibly short nemory spans (in the seconds). Im not sure how thats relevant to our discussion, though, because we are talking about whales. Whales are mammals, not fish, and there has been no research that Im aware of that shows whales having limited cognitive function (quite the opposite, really). That said I think EMD is trying to make a good point that an aquarium could avoid the moral blackhole that SeaWorld leapt into by not using aquatic mammals, large sharks, squid and a few other types of creatures.

  • waffles||

    OT: It was all fun and games when folks just speculated on whether or not some ambulance chaser had ever known a sheep.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Have I...

    Yeah, you know!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Somebody was talking shit above.

    Sort that out, son!

  • straffinrun||

    Yet kept him waiting 11 hours. I doubt your love.

  • ||

    No. I don't know.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    ...mentioned I like Canadians? (except for the war mongering one)

  • Puddin' Stick||

    The orcas just want to return home to the moon.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Willy died not long after he was set free

    No...noooooo!!!!

    *Realizes his childhood was a lie, resumes his sobbing from yesterday*

  • Letitride||

    One unavoidable fact is that there is no record of a human being attacked or killed by a killer whale in the wild. The only deaths have occurred at sea worlds and other parks like sea world. Yes a lot of these animals do live a cruel life so parents can take their children to see them, is that really a good lesson to teach kids? I'm not advocating the government should step in, however I do agree people in society who are beginning to look down on establishments like sea world and the circus. There is a difference between a "wild life sanctuary" and an amusement park. Sea world blurs these lines.

  • UnCivilServant||

    One unavoidable fact is that humans don't swim alongside killer whales in the wild. Without that precondition, it's a little hard for the orcas to go on a rampage.

  • PM||

  • Puddin' Stick||

    One unavoidable fact is that there is no record of a human being attacked or killed by a killer whale in the wild.

    Hans Kretschmer begs to differ.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    I don't know what I did to the link above...

    Surfer says whale bit him on the leg

  • Alex N||

    "The key difference between what our whales experience and what killer whales in the wild experience is the fact that ... our trainers work with them every day." Lets put you under house arrest. Then the key difference between you and the free people outside will be that your guards work with you every day. And, think about this - you won't have to compete for food and sex any more!

    Or this pearl: "but... whales in the wild have collapsed dorsal fins, too". And that means that it doesn't indicate issues? Aristotle just turned in his grave.

    Or this: "While I may not know what my dog is thinking, I certainly know that he's happy and that we have a good relationship." Dogs are domesticated, have been for thousand years. Notice the difference?

    I beg your pardon, but what a load of intellectually dishonest BS.

    "Millions go to SeaWorld to learn more about sea life". No. People go to SeaWorld for entertainment. That's what we people do - capture animals for entertainment. Love it or hate it, but don't try to make it look like it's in animals' best interest.

    "ticket sales pay for education and conservation efforts" - sure, that's why SeaWrold is a non-profit. Oh wait, no, it isn't. Instead, it has a PR department.

  • PM||

    Dogs are domesticated

    The only difference between a domesticated and non-domesticated animal is the amount of time humans have been keeping them in captivity, so I'm not sure that really bolsters your point.

  • Alex N||

    it's far from being the only difference. Domesticated animals have evolved living with humans, wild didn't. But even if it were true, the point would still be valid. You know that the dog is happy or not, because it's lived with humans for that long. Transferring that knowledge to whales doesn't work.

  • Juice||

    Not only that, but a dog and a whale are such different animals that any comparison is fucking stupid.

  • PM||

    Domesticated animals have evolved living with humans, wild didn't.

    Domesticated animals only "evolved living with humans" from the point when humans began capturing and breeding them. The first dogs domesticated by humans 10,000-15,000 years ago didn't come from nature with a friendly disposition ready to live in your apartment (they'd have had little utility to the humans who domesticated them if they did).

    You know that the dog is happy or not, because it's lived with humans for that long.

    I don't even know how to parse that. You're in Not even wrong territory here. Suffice to say, if you think the length of time that an animal has ancestrally been domesticated by humans determines its "happiness" (to the extent that such a thing is actually observable and not just an anthropomorphism by humans of our pets), then I'm guessing you've never spent any time around a horse.

  • Jay Dubya||

    "you think the length of time that an animal has ancestrally been domesticated by humans determines its "happiness""

    The point I took away was that human beings are more readily able to decipher the emotional states of domesticated animals than wild animals, not that domesticated animals are happier. While I am not sure of the role that domesticity plays in this, it is absurd to say that certain types of animals are not predisposed to a relationship with humans in a variety of ways. the presentation of readily anthropomorphized emotions is one factor that determines such a predisposition.

    It is not unreasonable to assert that many types of animals are unsuitable for domestication.

  • PM||

    Also, reality trigger warning but...

    Oh wait, no, it isn't. Instead, it has a PR department.

    Just about ever non-profit in the world has a PR department. The existence or non-existence of a PR department doesn't define a non-profit, what it does with revenue in excess of expenses does. PR is arguably more important in the non-profit world where fundraising is premised more on less tangible benefits to the donor.

    SeaWorld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund is SeaWorld's non-profit arm.

  • Alex N||

    nonprofits have PR departments, but they're still non profits. Sea World isn't. When they say "we've helped this many animals" it's not their goal - it's PR. That's the point I was making

  • ||

    nonprofits have PR departments, but they're still non profits.

    'Nonprofit' doesn't mean that employees of the organization do not 'profit' from it. Nonprofit only means that there are no shareholders who get dividends from their (capital) investments.

    While a sole proprietorship is a for-profit 'organization', the owner of it can have considerably less income than the (top) employee(s) of a nonprofit.

    So the sole motivation of an employee of a nonprofit can be that s/he personally 'profits' from the venture, even if s/he says that s/he 'helps animals or people'. And the owner(s) of a for-profit organization can 'help' animals or people, even if their admitted motivation is profit (including their personal compensations).

  • PM||

    When they say "we've helped this many animals" it's not their goal - it's PR. That's the point I was making

    I'm still not sure you understand the distinction between a for-profit and non-profit entity. It's only really got to do with accounting and distribution of retained earnings - not the purpose of the organization. It's entirely possible to have helped animals as a for-profit entity, and it's entirely possible to have never helped man nor beast as a non-profit entity. As I pointed out, "SeaWorld" is actually both - the for-profit SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment owns and operates the theme parks, the separate non-profit SeaWorld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund distributes donations (largely from SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment customers) for wildlife conservation and research.

    You're free to think that's a slimy arrangement, or opportunistic, or only done for appearances (not sure what difference it really makes what the motivation is so long as the result is the same), but they're not lying to you. The parks themselves don't exist for the purpose of conservation and research, but it's not inaccurate to say "ticket sales pay for education and conservation efforts" when they donate to a non-profit organization set up for research and conservation.

  • MarkLastname||

    "Love it or hate it, but don't try to make it look like it's in animals' best interest."
    But it is, genius. Like it or not, more people probably care about 'saving the whales' because of Sea World than because of peer-reviewed scientific literature or non-profit work. Exposure to people in zoos generates the publicity for animals that is often necessary for people to actually give a shit about them. A few caged lions in a zoo can in fact save thousands in the wild just by arousing the interest of people who otherwise wouldn't be the least bit interested in the status of lions in the wild.

    You can pretend otherwise, but it's the truth.

  • mtrueman||

    It's nice to see such healthy utilitarian arguments in a Libertarian forum. Have you read "Cannibals All!"? You'd certainly find it very persuasive. Available free at an internet near you.

  • R C Dean||

    No. People go to SeaWorld for entertainment.

    Every single person who goes to a zoo or aquarium does so purely for entertainment? You know this, how?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yeah, I'm sure there are dozens of zoos nationwide operating under the aegis of being educational institutions, and the state and local governments that support them, who'd be stunned to find out that Alex thinks they're for entertainment purposes only. Not to say that there are better ways to display them than sticking them in a cage, but that's a question of infrastructure, not mission.

  • Alex N||

    http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07

    "Hi, I'm Dick. I'm from the Internet. I misinterpret every comment.. make an absurd absolute.. and attack it like you're a moron".

    Sounds familiar?

  • R C Dean||

    You, sir, made the absolute (which is to say, unqualified) claim that people go to Sea World for entertainment, in a context that ruled out education (""Millions go to SeaWorld to learn more about sea life". No. People go to SeaWorld for entertainment. That's what we people do - capture animals for entertainment.").

    Exactly how am I misinterpreting your comment to make it absolute? It is an absolute comment, and is absurd without me saying anything.

    Now, someone arguing in good faith might say: "Fair enough. I can't divine the motivations of every person who goes to a zoo or aquarium. I think its mostly entertainment, though."

    And you know what? I'd agree with that.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You need a safe space and a blanky?

  • Raven Nation||

    Free Willy director's cut:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShBvrcAxlxY

  • straffinrun||

  • Raven Nation||

    Hah!

    The clip revealed yet another doofus sheriff.

  • Sandi||

    I took a shit at SeaWorld once.

  • Don Mynack||

    The Sea World in San Antonio used to have free beer. Do they still have that?

  • ||

    I hear they stopped that when people kept falling in the water and killed by whales.

  • ||

    I've now witnessed these type of protesters outside of the National Aquarium, twice. Carrying signs that say stuff like 'Free the Whales!' Free the Dolphins!'

    I wanted to go over and heckle them both times but the wife gets upset because 'they have a right to protest'. I explained that I am not questioning their right to protest, but I also have a right to heckle them. Then she said 'but it's not nice'. Sigh, this is why there are no female libertarians.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I think she's rather just get on with the day rather than sit around while you made an ass of yourself and possibly caused an incident.

  • Marshal||

    After the movie Free Willy ran, the whale depicted in the film was set free. But wild whales wouldn't accept him in their pods. Willy kept returning to shore to be near people. He let children ride on his back.

    Who the f allowed their kid to ride a killer whale? What a pack of fools.

  • ||

    It's got 'killer' right in the name. Seems like it's a lot of hullabaloo protesting the obvious.

  • mtrueman||

    "but marine parks and zoos are often the only way people learn about nature"

    You mean for those poor souls who are deprived of access to television.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    BEEP BOOP ENGAGE VIRTUAL NATURAL ENVIRONMENT VIEWING EXPERIENCE CLICK WHIRRR

  • jeannine||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.worktoday7.com

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I pointed out that life in the wild is rough, too—there's competition for food, sex, life itself.

    When asked why he was keeping people locked in his basement, Warty pointed out that people get murdered in the inner city all the time.

  • BuSab Agent||

    In an ironic twist of fate, when the Earth was ravaged by a gigantic meteor strike in the year 2017, the human race was saved from the mass extinction because a small breeding population of humans survived the destruction because they had been locked in Warty's basement. Unfortunately Warty also survived.

    This post is entirely hypothetical and for entertainment purposes only. I have no god-like or prophetic powers and am not threatening the Earth with a meteorite strike.

  • Jim Light||

    I was hoping for some balanced independent evaluation of both sides. I am disappointed.

    Stoessel twists Dr. Visser's research just like SeaWorld. Her response: "Speaking of the research paper in question, Visser ... noted that only one male orca in the New Zealand pod was recorded as suffering from a collapsed dorsal fin.” All male orcas at SeaWorld have collapsed dorsal fins.

    Despite claims to the contrary, SeaWorld mother/child colocations seem to be the exception not the rule. Many sites document these splits.

    The Free Willy story is just as deceptive. Keiko lived for a year and half after being released, swam 900 miles, and fed on live fish. He died of pneumonia. SeaWorld's orcas have died of pneumonia at ages far younger than Keiko. Most opponents advocate retiring the orcas to sea pens. If SeaWorld diverted the $300M it has committed to tank expansion, they could have the best and biggest sea pens on earth and have money leftover.

    Only three SeaWorld orcas have made it to the average lifespan of wild orcas. SeaWorld orca average age of death is in the teens.

    no human deaths are attributed to wild orcas. But there have been hundreds of aggressive actions by captive orcas and four human deaths.

    So again, I thought we'd get a fair and balanced assessment of both sides. Believing SeaWorld is like believing the tobacco industry research that concluded smoking had no impact on health.

  • bassjoe||

    So we have a film critical of SeaWorld which SeaWorld refused to appear in being criticized in a "news piece" (being run on a rival network) which the film's producers refused to appear in. Okay.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and accuse both sides of distorting the truth for their own ends.

  • analog2000||

    a mother whale whose baby was taken from her. But it turns out the "baby" was an adult with kids of her own.


    I agree that Blackfish was deceptive in that it only showed photos of the mother with the tiny baby whale. The whale was full grown when she was taken from her mom. But in the wild, whales (even males) are NEVER separated from their mothers. Literally, they live their entire lives in pods with all of their female relatives. In the wild the adult "baby" whale would have swum next to its mother 24 hours a day (with her own kids beside her) until one of them died.


    So it is quite possible that whales are distressed when removed from their mothers or children, regardless of their age.

  • jcaseykcsee||

    That is exactly what the problem is-SeaWorld uses the term "calf" as an infant, and that's how they try getting away with saying "we don't separate calves and moms" but a female killer whales calf, her CHILD, is ALWAYS her calf. A cow will be distraught when the animal she gave birth to, her CALF, is separated from her if her calf is 1 year,7 years,12 years, she will never forget her calf is her calf. Cows don't suddenly think "oh, my calf is 8 now, it's fine if we don't see each other again" No, a calf is a calf is a calf and it doesn't matter when the separation occurs, if a cow and their child/kid/young adult/adult CALF is taken away, it is emotionally distressing and not OK. Take ages of the offspring out of the equation. Mothers and the whales that they give birth to would never split from each other and not be close to each other in the wild. SeaWorld tries to trick people with semantics but at no point after a mom has a baby, even when the baby gets 10, 22 years old, would it be OK to put them in separate facilities. NO never ever should moms and babies part! Huge horrible awful flaw in a cruel as hell business model there, NOT ok. A calf is a calf is a calf.

  • jcaseykcsee||

    I was using the term "cow" meaning female killer whale in the above post. At no point was I referring to cows that moo and live on the farm, the entire post is referring to female killer whales (cows) and their children (calves). Their children (calves) that remain their children (calves) for as long as their children (calves) are alive.

  • jcaseykcsee||

    Do human kids stop being the children of their parents when the kid turns 4? When they turn 10? When an adult human turns 40, are they no longer the child of the two people who mated and created them? Now, think about this: killer whales are MORE emotionally complex and their families are probably MORE crucial to their lives, their well-being, their sense of self, than we as humans can even conceive of. That being the case, the pain a human mother would feel if her 12-year old was taken from her, without warning and without knowing where they are and without knowing if they will ever see their 12-year old again PALES in comparison to how a mother killer whale would feel when this happens. We as humans cannot even know the pain, even anyone reading this who is a mother. Because it is WORSE for a mother orca. How can any mothers out there even consider SeaWorld OK to visit, just knowing they knowingly separate moms and calves regularly?! 19+ times they have caused that pain.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netcash5.com

  • Fat Bennie||

    I usually agree w/Stossel but u missed the boat on this one. No doubt there was some level of exaggeration in Blackfish, and that Green Tyranny is increasing, but to defend and justify the captivity of these animals by asserting they are better off in a tank than in the wild is ludicrous. Zoos are relics. If you want to educate children and give them an opportunity to observe majestic creatures, then quit polluting their environment and destroying their habitat. They will magically appear in your backyard or on your beach if you do.

  • Maddog80||

    There are plenty of sources other than SeaWorld and Blackfish available to research questions about orca captivity. SeaWorld's assertions are quite dubious. Blackfish stitched some events together and created implications for emotional appeal. Blackfish's Pinocchio's are fewer than SeaWorld's. Stossel didn't do his homework, or he's just predisposed to SeaWorld's position. How about doing a neutral, informed look instead?

    The question is whether it's appropriate, even moral, to keep some of the most highly intelligent animals on Earth, in highly unnatural conditions, performing unnatural behaviors, for entertainment.

    I interacted for a time with some of the most dangerous orcas shown in Blackfish. They were gentle and friendly and quite careful to not cause harm. It was clear that they have very significant neurological processing power. It's just not evolved towards tool making. They are in a very different class from dogs or cows or tigers.

    The fact that they turned dangerous after a few years of unrelenting performances and being shipped from facility to facility, leaves me highly dubious that they are "happy" about life at SeaWorld.

  • jcaseykcsee||

    This whole "report" Stossell is doing is ridiculous. Ya don't put a whale in a bathtub. Do we really need him to do his fair and balanced research (and by "research" I mean interviewing SeaWorld vets and seaworld executives) to double-check and make sure that maybe...JUST maybe, captivity is cool and every non-SeaWorld marine mammal scientist, killer whale researcher, expert, and every other rational, thinking, breathing, logical human with an IQ above 12 is wrong? All you need are eyeballs, John. We (ie: all humans) are advanced enough at this stage of the game to be able to glance at Tilikum in a teeny tiny tub he can barely swim around in with his 100% flopped dorsal drooping over his side and say "ummm, no, not alright" without you spending one nano-second on a double checking fact mission. MOVE ON AND PHASE YOUR SHENANIGANS OUT, SEAWORLD.

  • Will Nonya||

    Right or wrong is a moral distinction. Is it right to fabricate "facts" to further your own moral preferences? Is it better if we return all of their animals to the wild for what will likely be early death?

    I can't see how it isn't wrong to intentionally try and destroy a business using lies and distortion.

  • Will Nonya||

    Activist distort the truth? When did that start?

  • Mickey Richard||

    "...marine parks and zoos are often the only way people learn about nature, and ticket sales pay for education and conservation efforts. SeaWorld alone has helped rescue 25,000 animals."

    There charter boats in hundreds of locations on all three coasts, Alaska and Hawaii, where you can view marine mammals in the wild -- many more locations than marine parks. Plus, you get to view their behavior in their natural environment, a much more effective way to retain knowledge than hearing the announcer at Sea World that what you're seeing is the behavior orcas exhibit in the wild.

    Arguably, you can learn more about orcas' behavior from a TV program that shows them in the wild, than at a marine park -- something that's essentially free.

    In many coastal locations, you can observe marine mammals by standing on a beach, cliff, dock, viewing platform, etc. I've observed dolphins (including orcas) from all those locations.

    Animals do not owe it to humans to make it easy to learn about them -- we do not have some inherent right to view animals up-close, in captivity.

    When I lived in San Diego I frequently visited Sea World, and learned about the behavior of orcas.

    When I moved to the San Juan Islands in Washington State, the first time I viewed orcas in the wild, I learned more about them than in all the visits to Sea World, and retained that knowledge: it had much more context than the abstract, faux reality that any marine park might conjure up.

  • PacJac||

    Unfortunately, I am forced to write my full comments in several groupings. Please be patient.

    I have done considerable research on what SeaWorld claims, what the film “Blackfish” and animal rights groups claim, and what the experts have to say. I found that “Blackfish” and animal rights groups are not being deceptive. For instance, in this article whale expert Ingrid Visser states that “ . . . killer whales in the wild have collapsed dorsal fins, too". According to my investigation, Dr. Astrid van Ginneken states that " . . . less than 1% of wild orcas have dorsal fin collapse". You can read her five reasons for captive fin collapse in the following article. Please ignore the spaces between the letters or numbers in each source. They would not let me list a "word" with more than 50 letters. (Source: https://oceanadvocatefl.wordpress.com
    /2013/04/16/orca-dorsal-fin-
    controvery-experts-vs-seaworld/).

    Also imbedded within this article is another that you can access that states " . . . out of 26 expert responses, 20 of them list captivity as the main reason for the flop. Other theories given were the fitness of the whales, injury, water pressure and temperature (both due to the lack of diving deep in captivity and heat breaking down collagen)".

  • PacJac||

    Second part:

    We already knew that SeaWorld no longer steals orcas (babies or adults) from the wild. However, they do continue to breed and they admit that right in this article. In its latest T.V. ad, SeaWorld talks about how it does not capture orcas in the wild, yet it keeps mating its captive orcas. That equals MORE CAPTIVE orcas which is just as heinous! And, in the following source, it talks about SeaWorld’s claim that it does not capture killer whales in the wild. The article maintains that “this point is fairly misleading given that the film ‘Blackfish’ never claims or even implies that SeaWorld is still capturing killer whales. The wild capture segment of the film opens with a clear date: 1970, and, in case the dated footage doesn’t indicate its age, narrators explicitly state that this was a past event. However, SeaWorld responds to the segment by saying that it has not captured killer whales in 35 years. SeaWorld describes their breeding program as a “groundbreaking success” in spite of the fact that it has produced several inbred and hybrid animals, a 50% infant mortality rate, and multiple instances of infant rejection.” How sad. This article will also explain other deceptive things that SeaWorld has stated in conjunction with the film “Blackfish”. It is an interesting read.
    (Source:
    https://cetaceaninspiration.wordpress.com
    /2013/12/20/seaworld-lies-
    in-response-to-blackfish/).

  • PacJac||

    Third part:

    And of course Kelly Clark says there’s no evidence that the whale’s behavior meant that he was frustrated because he lives in a tank. She works for SeaWorld; why would she say otherwise? Clearly because she's parroting what administrators want her to say. Kelly may know the truth; she may not. And what about the former employees that spoke out against SeaWorld in the film? Common sense tells you they would only do so if it were true.

    In this next article, and there are a number of them similar to this, it says that " . . . SeaWorld, which owns all but one of the captive orcas in the U.S., states that 'the average life expectancy of southern and northern resident killer whales is about 29 years for females and 17 years for males'. Whereas " . . . the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says that males live on average for 30 years, but can live as long as 50 to 60 years, while females live 50 years but can live as long as 100 years".
    (Source: https://www.thedodo.com/orca-
    lifespan-captivity-1102374453.html).

  • PacJac||

    Fourth part:

    The article then goes on to talk about the fact that wild whales would not accept Willy into their pods. This is because, by nature, orcas do not accept outsiders into their family units. Apparently, social mores are what thwart them from taking mates from outside of their group, which would generate an inbred populace.

    Mr. Stossel states that " . . . marine parks and zoos are often the only way people learn about nature, and ticket sales pay for education and conservation efforts". That is a common myth. There are many ways in which to learn about nature other than animal-based entertainment. There are sanctuaries; films; television; state-of-the-art, virtual reality; and animatronic exhibits that will educate as well as “wow” young people as well as adults. (continued in next part)

  • PacJac||

    Fifth part:

    (continued) Moving on to ticket sales paying for education and conservation efforts as Mr. Stossel claims: In reality, things such as government grants do that, not ticket sales. And, speaking of conservation efforts: SeaWorld spends less than one percent on conservation. Want proof? Keep reading.
    (Sources: https://cetaceaninspiration.wordpress.com/
    2011/11/18/seaworld-and-conservation/
    and
    http://www.onegreenplanet.org/.....e/seaworld
    -does-conservation-justify-captivity/).

    Also, in this article, Mr. Stossel only takes the word of SeaWorld's representatives for all questions asked. He has no sources cited for any information. He does not follow up on any data that SeaWorld has provided him. To post this article, in this form, was a gross lack of judgment on Mr. Stossel's part.

  • PacJac||

    Sixth part:

    Furthermore, not long ago, it had come to my attention that SeaWorld had applied for a permit to build new, artificial tanks. However, a bigger prison is still a prison. SeaWorld is simply desperate to bring back business when more and more people are finding out how captive orcas are made to suffer.

    The supplemental area and the “fast water current” that SeaWorld has in its plans are only admissions that orcas do need additional room and much more than just motionless water; however these two things do little to afford the orcas with the natural life that they so desperately need. As SeaWorld’s plans indicate, the tank expansion would only have a depth of 50 feet; however, orcas dive as deep as 1,000 feet in the wild. And, since the tank will only be 350 feet in length, the orcas will need to swim in length in excess of 1,500 times to come near to the 100 miles per day that they would travel in the ocean naturally. SeaWorld is without a doubt only making these new designs in order to win back the public, not to benefit the animals. SeaWorld persists in breeding orcas who are frustrated and aggressive, yet, as I previously mentioned, the marine park expends less than one percent of its revenue on rescue and conservation.

  • PacJac||

    Seventh part:

    SeaWorld is not a conservation society; it is an amusement park. If it was truly concerned about orcas, it would release the orcas to reputable, seaside sanctuaries and stop breeding them. As well, SeaWorld needs to devote funds to state-of-the-art, animal-free enticements. Moreover, studies have revealed that when animals are observed in captivity, it promotes disrespect from humans. Certainly you can understand that when patrons view animals held captive in barren concrete tanks it only teaches them that they are ours to dominate and treat them as we wish.

    It is my hope that you will look at the cites that I have listed and do further research of your own so that you will discover the truth, and not just take someone’s word as fact. It is time for critical thinking. Thank you for caring and your patience!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online