Keeping Orcas in captivity - Is it wrong?

[Gavin]

^They've never been kept for any great length of time in the UK. Clacton Pier was used as temporary housing for the bloke that was selling them on, if they didn't die first. The one at Windsor came from Clacton Pier.

Killer Whales have developed lines that are similar to the races we see in humans. Distinct features depending on geographical location.

Correct. Meaning that the captive groups are made of individuals from range of different wild groups. That's not creating any kind of new subspecies at all. That's taking indiviual animals from a range of "ethnicities", for want of a better word, and throwing them together.

You guys are severley over-estimating the ability of the average person. There are people who only know of Orcas because of SeaWorld.

Let's say for a moment that that's true on any really significant level - I don't know where you live, or the average intelligence of the people you're surrounded by - so what? So what if a few people wouldn't have heard of killer whales otherwise?

The interactions (shows) are part of the enrichment for the animals. Just like your dog gets excited when you tell him to sit, stay, roll over (or perform for you), the animals get excited when they get to display the behaviors.

You can't compare them to dogs. I'm sorry, but you just can't, and I think you know that. I've got no doubt that the interaction helps to stave off some of the boredom, of course it does, but that's so far beyond the point. They're there for our entertainment and Seaworld's profit. They wouldn't be there in the first place and need the stimulation otherwise. Being in captivity has nothing in it for either the individual animal or the species as a whole. Nothing.

The thing is they can't be released back into the wild, look at the Keiko story, he had no interest in socialising with other Orca's and constantly craved human interaction. A year later he beached himself.

Nobody is suggesting releasing them into the wild, at least nobody on here, and certainly not anyone with a basic knowledge beyond "they look sad in that tank." Personally, I'd like to see them stop breeding them, carry on as normal in the meantime, retire the older ones into the semi-wild pens where they can still be looked after, and as they die out just not to replace them.

they're perfectly healthy and happy so why not keep it that way?

Well, they're not though, are they? The captive animals, on average, still have a significantly shorter lifespan than their wild counterparts, some of them having died from diseases that are unheard of in wild animals. With the vast majority of captive animal species, the life expectancy is longer than that of those in the wild.

But I fully understand the argument about releasing them and stoping the breeding programme, but honestly, I enjoy watching them perform. I wouldn't want that to happen.

Thank you for the first actually honest response to wanting to keep them in captivity; I respect that a lot more than a lot of the excuses that are being given in this topic, which, incidentally, are the sorts of things that Seaworld say, but you're unlikely to hear from many other sources.

EDIT - Anyone interested in the topic should check out a recent documentary called Blackfish. It's about Seaworld's orcas specifically and has interviews with trainers, park owners, zoologists etc. Yes, it's very biased against the keeping of killer whales, and it's far from the only source of information out there - and should be treated as such - but as a counterpoint to Seaworld's rhetoric, it's an interesting watch.

Plus, if there were anything actually libelous or untrue in it, you know that Seaworld would have sued the **** out of them, and they haven't. In fact their response to it is this:

"Blackfish is billed as a documentary, but instead of a fair and balanced treatment of a complex subject, the film is inaccurate and misleading and, regrettably, exploits a tragedy that remains a source of deep pain for Dawn Brancheau's family, friends and colleagues. To promote its bias that killer whales should not be maintained in a zoological setting, the film paints a distorted picture that withholds from viewers key facts about SeaWorld -- among them, that SeaWorld is one of the world's most respected zoological institutions, that SeaWorld rescues, rehabilitates and returns to the wild hundreds of wild animals every year, and that SeaWorld commits millions of dollars annually to conservation and scientific research. Perhaps most important, the film fails to mention SeaWorld's commitment to the safety of its team members and guests and to the care and welfare of its animals, as demonstrated by the company's continual refinement and improvement to its killer whale facilities, equipment and procedures both before and after the death of Dawn Brancheau."

The only part about the killer whales they address is the "refinement of the facilities, equipment and procedures", rather than refuting some of the pretty damning information in the film. Instead they spout their usual "conservation, rehabilition" line, totally unconnected to the orcas, and try to paint the film makers as exploitative of a person's death, basically saying, "You're mean!"

Again, it's clearly very one sided, and I'm not suggesting for a second that it's the be all and end all source, but it's really worth a watch for anyone interested in the topic, whichever side of the fence you fall on.

 

[rtotheizzo17]

I have seen Blackfish. I learned a few things about how terrible people were in the "good ole days".

I also know several of the trainers who "testified" were fired from the company and a couple of them NEVER worked with Killer Whales while working for SeaWorld. This is not mentioned once. It is presented as people who "saw the light".

I bet if I made a documentary about your life, and interviewed only your ex-relationships the view on your life would be skewed.

If it doesn't matter whether people learn about animals through zoos, why bother even with the endagered ones? Eventually they will all be gone anyways, either through extiction or evolution (except roaches, they dont change).

 

[marc]

That's the thing at we were talking at home about this the other day.

White tigers for example. There was a big thing about them how they must be protected etc, then it turns out to be a gene problem and infact they should not be protected.

But elephants, Rino, tigers should be as we are killing them. Yes people say natural evolution and survival of the fittest. But what chance do they have against guns.

These animals need protecting and helping their numbers to put then back in the wild is helping.

Look at the size of the animal kingdom, the animals there have miles to run and live a near enough normal life, ok they don't hunt.

Whales cover more distance in their lives, not at Sea World or any other zoo.

The Dolphin that's in Epcot is even worse off, that does not even see day light from what I've read.

Yes gone way off topic sorry.

 

[Intricks]

^^ Yeah, the results are going to be skewed no matter what you do. The exs are more likely to paint things in a worse picture than what really happened out of spite or something.

Your argument is invalid and summed up as such:

You dont have to work in a kitchen in order to know how to make mac 'n' cheese

;3

 

[rtotheizzo17]

The purpose of a documentary is to inform or educate

1.factual movie or TV program: a movie or TV program presenting facts and information, especially about a political, historical, or social issue

SeaWorld (and zoos in general) are guilty of it too, but when you ignore facts, especially in a "documentary" you lose credability.

And about your cooking class, you don't have to work in a kitchen to know how to make mac n cheese, but I would follow a full time cooks recipe over yours.

 

[nealbie]

White tigers for example. There was a big thing about them how they must be protected etc, then it turns out to be a gene problem and infact they should not be protected.

That's not strictly true. Because of their differing genes, white tigers are larger than their orange equivalents, so it's a case of evolution keeping a small hold of the gene which makes them bigger. So, whilst not presently useful wholesale, it's not entirely obsolete. I think they're quite sharply on the up too, which suggests that their genetic reaction to humans hunting them could just be to be bigger as camouflage isn't working!

Anyway, back to Orcas with you all!

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Hang on hang on, I need to nip this tiger **** in the bud.

Marc is right, White tigers are not a sub species of tiger. They do not exist as a wild population. They do not need conserving.

The reason there are so many white tigers in captivity is that the first time one naturally occurred, humans went "OH WOW! How do we get more of THESE?" and bred that tiger with it's parents to get it to happen again.

The white colouration is caused by a recessive gene, the easiest way to get it to show up is through inbreeding. Inbreeding causes problems. It does happen naturally, but not to the extremes humans have forced. Typically these tigers have cross eyes and cleft pallets and bone disorders and other fun stuff.

But the story doesn't end there...

The gene pool of both captive tigers, both Bengal and Siberian, orange, white and other variations is so damaged by the obsessive desire to breed white tigers that it's it's pretty useless to tiger conservation.

Most captive Bengals have Siberian blood and inbred genes, and vice versa. This is because Siberian tigers are larger and fluffier and they wanted those traits in the white colouration, which originally occurred in a Bengal. White tigers are only larger BECAUSE of the cross breeding with Bengals.

Go look Chessington's tigers in the eye and you'll see their horrendously messed up bloodline stare right back.

In short, if Tigers go extinct in the wild, we can't bring them back with captive breeding programs because they've **** up the gene pool so much.

All "conservation" talk regarding tigers in captivity is 100% ****. As is most conservation full stop.

But here's the problem that goes back to Orcas...

Most people don't care about the natural world. But with the use of visually captivating species, shows, etc. you can make people care. A white tiger is a bigger sale point for a zoo than a "regular" Bengal. The SeaWorld shows are doing the same thing.

And this is why I'm torn.

I love animals, but it's selfish love. I want to make angry cat noises at Scarlet's cat and watch it freak out and run off. That's HILARIOUS and interesting. I want to make pigeons jump when they get too close and watch them topple over themselves as they scurry away. I care about animal welfare to a point, but I don't think it should ever interfere with human welfare. I feel like the benefits gained by some arguably "cruel" things we put some animals through is... Worth it, I guess.

There's no magical line to be drawn, there never is. But thousands of people flock to Seaworld and watch the Shamu show and are blown away who had never even thought about Orcas before. That's a good thing, surely?

Seaworld's intent is NOT conservation, but they DO aid conservation of Orcas as a by-product.

It's kinda like the whole trophy hunting issue in Africa. Photo tourism doesn't bring enough money in to make locals want to care about animals and spend money looking after them. A rhino is worth more dead than alive. That's a sad truth. But with trophy hunting, you make a rhino worth keeping alive into old age, breeding, until one incredibly wealthy man wants to come along, end it's life and put it's head on their wall.

However...

Seaworld has in the past and probably still does mistreat it's animals. And taking Orcas out of the wild, in this day and age, just seems plain wrong. But releasing animals who've been in captivity for 30 years is absurd. I can't believe they think that's a good idea. Animal rights groups often seem intent on freedom for freedom's sake, or conservation for conservation's sake, without actually thinking about the bigger picture.

 

[marc]

See I'm the opposite to you, the animals had the land first and we have taken it over.

The treatment of tigers in the wild is totally wrong.

But yes sorry this is about whales lol.

Whatever Sea World are doing is not working anyway as their visitor growth over the past few years had not been inline with the other Oralndo parks. They have tried putting in new rides which shows animals are not enough.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

See I'm the opposite to you, the animals had the land first and we have taken it over.

I hate this argument. We ARE animals, we've effected the earth just like every species that has ever existed has.

Millions of species have gone extinct, most long before we arrived on the scene, and all of them did so because they couldn't keep up with changes in their environment. Changes brought on not just by geography but by other species.

Many species have thrived and benefited from us. Others have not. That's nature in it's purist form.

 

[Darren B]

^^doesn't the problem stem from the Shamu show having to be altered now that trainers aren't allowed in the water anymore. I remembered the Orca/trainer interaction being the best parts of the show. Maybe guests aren't so thrilled with the idea of a weaker show?

SeaWorld are however in the process of designing a lifting floor for their tanks, thus allowing trainers back in the water, and in the event of one of the Orca's taking a trainer to the bottom, the floor can raise the trainer to safety in 30 seconds.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I suspect the issue is more that animal activists have done damaged (rightly so arguably) and that the other parks have simply built more exciting attractions of recent.

 

[Gavin]

I bet if I made a documentary about your life, and interviewed only your ex-relationships the view on your life would be skewed.

I already stated, very clearly, that it's a skewed film, told from one side. I said it twice in the same post, just to make sure. That doesn't mean that - away from the overly emotional heart tugging - when it comes to the actual facts they present that they're not true. As I said before, if there were any out-and-out lies in it, Sea World would've gone to town in court to protect their brand; they didn't. They didn't even try to refute any of it publicly.

Again, in case it wasn't clear enough the first two times I mentioned it (three including the opening of this post), I'm not advocating Blackfish as the go-to resource for the argument against keeping orcas in capitivity.

 

[marc]

I think it runs deeper than that Darren, the park was really run down.

Ride operations are a joke, keeping rides shut until more people are in the park etc. It's just so different to the other parks. I really don't think it's due to the show changes. There is just nothing new there and the new penguin ride has been slated by so many people.

Joey I just look at it that the world is big enough for everyone. We don't need to destroy forests where the animals live. We are meant to be the clever intelligent ones and we are selfish.

Would we kill another human to live in their house? Nope so why do we kill animals to have land that they have lived on for hundreds maybe thousands of years.

One day we will learn.

 

[marc]

I'm going to look for that tomorrow night and watch it Gavin, was not in the mood tonight.

 

[Gavin]

White tigers are not a sub species of tiger. They do not exist as a wild population. They do not need conserving.

This is all very off topic, but I find it interesting, so what the hell. Correct that they're not a subspecies; they're just a naturally-occurring colour variant of bengal tigers. However, the only reason that they no longer exist in the wild - the last one was shot in the '50s I think - is because people hunted them all. The fact that these animals were large adults shows that, despite the genetic variant, they were fully-functioning animals, capable of surviving in the wild. There's definitely a case for keeping them going. Personally, I don't think they should, but it's not as cut and dried as some people think.

The white colouration is caused by a recessive gene, the easiest way to get it to show up is through inbreeding. Inbreeding causes problems. It does happen naturally, but not to the extremes humans have forced. Typically these tigers have cross eyes and cleft pallets and bone disorders and other fun stuff.

Outdated and no longer strictly true. There are numerous outcrossing programs now, introducing unrelated orange tigers which are likely to have the recessive gene. Yes, it's still manipulating the nature behind it, and its goal is absolutely to produce attractive animals for the public to wow over. The genetic defects, while there, aren't as widespread and prevalent as people like to make out. The crossed eyes have been proven to be linked to the actual recessive gene, not any inbreeding of the animal. The life expectancy of white tigers in captivity is the same as their orange counterparts.

The gene pool of both captive tigers, both Bengal and Siberian, orange, white and other variations is so damaged by the obsessive desire to breed white tigers that it's it's pretty useless to tiger conservation.

Most captive Bengals have Siberian blood and inbred genes, and vice versa.

With the thousands of roadside tigers in the USA, for example, and plenty of other less scrupulous zoos around the world, yes. In reputable zoos with well-controlled breeding programs, no. They're constantly researching and updating the genetic sequences of their animals to prevent this. You won't find as many of these places breeding bengal or Siberian tigers at the moment as there's an over-surplus. Many of them are turning their attentions to Sumatran and South China tigers, which aren't as "impressive" as the Siberian subspecies. It's far from useless.

Seaworld's intent is NOT conservation, but they DO aid conservation of Orcas as a by-product.

Hmmmm, not really. Yes they throw a tiny percentage of their profits into marine conservation, but it's not strictly orca related. There's no evidence to suggest that orcas need specifically conserving.

Seaworld has in the past and probably still does mistreat it's animals. And taking Orcas out of the wild, in this day and age, just seems plain wrong. But releasing animals who've been in captivity for 30 years is absurd. I can't believe they think that's a good idea. Animal rights groups often seem intent on freedom for freedom's sake, or conservation for conservation's sake, without actually thinking about the bigger picture.

They "probably still mistreat their animals" has been pulled squarely from your arse Joey. Sorry, but it has. Ok, so you could call it mistreatment due to being in captivity at all, but as far as active cruelty? Yeah, no. Seaworld don't take animals from the wild anymore; they don't need to because of their program of artificial insemination. It's easier, cheaper, and less publicly objectionable. Nobody in this topic has suggested releasing the current captive orca population into the wild. Only the most misguided, extreme animal activists would think so. That or people who are incredibly stupid.

 

[marc]

Sea World in the news yet again, not a good thing. This is from July but its being used as evidence against them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -help.html

I did not know that they breed the whales at a much younger age than whales do in the wild. Honest the stuff that has been written by workers and ex workers is quite upsetting. They recon the fins are down due to stress and the whales not being happy.

Look at the picture at the bottom of this page and tell me if you think thats right. His story is rather sad and again upsetting. This whale had had a rather horrible life at the hands of various parks. There is no way he could be set free as he seems to be disturbed now. The most human thing they could do for him is a very large tank or put him to sleep. He's being used as a sperm bank and it's wrong.

http://www.seaworldofhurt.com/tilikum-captivity.aspx

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I'm sick of this **** saying Tilikum is "disturbed" or whatever.

Who is it specialising in wild orca psychology to know what's the norm?

There's a quote in the trailer for Blackfish that says "no one's been harmed by wild orcas". WELL NO **** **** PEOPLE DON'T EXACTLY LIVE IN THEIR HABITAT TO GET HARMED.

Do you really think the behaviour of Tilikum is unnatural? Have you SEEN how cetaceans play with their food and intentionally cause harm to other animals through play?

However, the only reason that they no longer exist in the wild - the last one was shot in the '50s I think - is because people hunted them all.

Not true. Only one was ever found in the wild.

Outdated and no longer strictly true.

Source?

They "probably still mistreat their animals" has been pulled squarely from your arse Joey.

All animal owners occasionally mistreat their animals.

 

[marc]

Joey I am only going on what has been said. I do find it strange that they want him returned to the wild but experts say he won't survive as he is "disturbed".

How do you know it's not? Years in a small pool hardly swimming is not going to do it any good.

It's the same with the polar bear at Sea World that sits there swaying its head from side to side and walking backwards and forwards.

Yes I can see what you mean when you say no one has died in the wild. But people have been in the water around them and they do come in close to the coast. Dolphins have killed more people in the wild than a killer whale.

 

[Darren B]

There's nothing particularly wrong with Tilikum, he's responsible for the deaths of 2 trainers and a member of the public yes, but he's not going out of his way to harm humans.

Incident 1:- Tilikum and another Orca threw a trainer between each other after she fell into their tank, he wasn't being malicious, he was playing, and remember he'd never had a human in his tank before this point. I believe this happened at Marineland Canada, before he was moved to SeaWorld.

Incident 2:- A member of the public stayed behind after closing, and went for a swim with Tilikum, reports suggest Tilikum took him in his mouth and drowned him. Again it was clear there was no intent for Tilikum to harm the male, he was just playing, and I'm pretty sure he had no idea humans can't breathe underwater. When they found the male he was resting dead on Tilikum's back, a clear indication that Tilikum knew the male was dead/dying and tried to save him. This was referenced in Free Willy that wales have the ability to know when someone is in danger.

Incident 3:- Dawn Brancheau. Tilikum dragged her into the water by her ponytail, drowning her in the process. An official report stated that there was no clear malice from the Orca but due to his sheer size he's unaware of his own strength, and this is why trainers have NEVER been in the water with him. If trainers have never been in the water with him it's clear he has no clue on how to handle them in such an event.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Go to youtube and watch videos of cetaceans hunting.

They play with their prey in the most torturous way.

To imply that those deaths were anything other than natural behaviour is just absurd. And as Darren has demonstrated, TWO OF THEM WERE 100% THE FAULT OF THE HUMAN.

Plenty of animals are kept in small areas and exhibit "stress" symptoms such as pacing or swaying or self harm. You think people are any different?

I have two pet cockatiels. When I open their cage, I have to FORCE THEM to exercise. I have to literally push them off their perches.

How many people have the desire to get up and go for a run or travel immense distances every day?

When they say Orcas travel huge distances, the part they're missing is that they do it FOR FOOD and other NATURAL desires.

No different to people living in captivity, yet we're more concerned for whales than ourselves.

How many fatties are sat complaining about the rights of an Orca to swim free?

Boggles my mind.