Blackfish

Hi
You say you are pro captivity? Can i ask your reasons for this??
I'm only trying to get both sides so i can make my own decision!
At the the moment i think it is pretty clear that i am against captivity for the reasons i have posted.But again i don't learn if i don't ask!! ( mum always said!!)
To make my stance clear!
My reasoning is, if the animal, be it a whale or a hamster is not endangered or being rescued for return to the wild, why then, should it be in captivity?
Personally i think the world has changed totally from even 10 years ago, where the only place to view animals was in zoos or aquariums, however travel these days is dirt cheap, exotic holidays are not the price they used to be and this thing called the internet has made everything available at the click of a mouse( not a joke!!!well maybe a little one).
I just do not see the reasoning for keeping large cetaceans in captivity and have yet to have anyone give me a reason doing so

 

There are lots of reasons for an animal to be kept in captivity, but the most common reason (apart from the two good reasons you stated) is for educational purposes. People can learn a lot of things from seeing an animal in the flesh that they wouldn't get from seeing them on TV. And this often has direct conservation benefits. Despite what you say above, travel is not dirt cheap, and the vast majority of people will never be able to afford an African safari or similar overseas wildlife experience. Other reasons include research, and other conservation related reasons - such as insurance populations for species that aren't endangered but may become so, e.g. lions.

Large cetaceans are not really kept in captivity, except occasional rescue animals. There is no point keeping such animals in captivity at the current time, as there is no way to house these animals appropriately. Orcas are kept by a few places, and generally not in large enough enclosures. I don't have a problem with these being kept in principle, but I definitely think they need larger enclosures than they are generally given. Smaller cetaceans, e.g. dolphins, porpoises and beluga, typically fare better in captivity, but there are many examples (particularly in developing countries) where these are housed inadequately. Again, in principle I see little reason why keeping small cetaceans is an issue, as long as their enclosures and other aspects of their husbandry maximise their welfare. As with almost every other animal.

From a NZ perspective, DOC has a policy against keeping marine mammals in captivity (including exotic species), which is partly why NZ zoos (specifically Auckland) only hold rescued native pinnipeds (with the exception of the two Californian Sea Lions, which are being phased out), and do not breed them, and don't hold any cetaceans.

Justifying captivity in general is not really what this thread is about, and has been discussed on other threads on ZooChat, especially the General Zoo Discussion forum, which would be a more appropriate place for this discussion.

 

Thanks again for your reply!! And i agree we are getting slightly off topic!
But i think we will agree to disagree on captivity!
rescue and release yes, conservation for endangered species yes, but just because you can!! no in my eyes.
And as you stated with Doc's policy on marine mammals in NZ, does that make it a worse zoo/aquarium not to have them?
I think the original question of mine was have you seen the film, and if so did it change your mind?
I'm just interested in other opinions than mine without resorting to name calling and mud slinging which happens on both sides of the fence( maybe the wrong word!!)

 

I am not a NZ'er, but will comment as NZ is really just a part of Australia and 20% of NZ'ers live in Australia anyway.

Where do you draw the line. If you dont think marine mammals should be in captivity, why not land mammals. As long as the species in in a suitably large enclosure and is treated well and has its requirements met, there is no reason not to keep them.

 

I personally don't think that any enclosure is large enough for a marine mammal!!
But again we are back to arguments about captivity and not the thoughts of people who have seen the film and what was their reaction.

 

Well, I've never been to the Sea World in Australia and so I can only speak from knowledge about the care and housing in the United States. I won't watch the movie Blackfish (I've seen parts of it) because I know the people involved in both sides and I've been quite involved with pro-captivity and anti-captivity. I think Blackfish is educational, to a point, but to people who've never been to Sea World they are taking the movie at face value and forming opinions about Sea World without ever having been there. Something to keep in mind, Sea World isn't responsible for the initial captures back in the late 60s/early 70s. Sea World San Diego opened originally as a restaurant with fish. If I remember correctly, it was supposed to be some sort of underwater-type restaurant where you could enjoy watching a variety of different species while you dined. It was already opened for a couple of years before the first whales were captured. Why they chose to move from a restaurant to a marine park, I don't know.

I agree with you about the breeding. I don't think they should keep breeding the dolphins and orca they have due to crowding problems all 3 Sea World parks have. I think they should let the current animals live out their lives and when they're gone, that's it. The problem with that, though, is that in the wild, orca have a lifespan similar to that of humans. There's been documented cases of a couple of individuals in the Southern Resident Pod (where Tokitae/Lolita from Miamiseaquarium is from) living 100+ years. I think one of them is still going strong. Nobody knows, yet, the lifespan of a captive orca as the two oldest, Corky2 in San Diego and Tokitae in Miami are about the same age and still going strong. I think overcrowding is a big problem. Even though Sea World houses their orca in pools that are larger than the standards required of them, it's still not big enough for the number of animals they have. I wish the captures had never happened. I've seen orca in the wild and Sea World is nothing in comparison.

I'm not saying people shouldn't watch Blackfish. I'm just saying to keep an open mind if you choose to watch it. Don't watch the movie and automatically think Sea World is a horrible place. The movie was made with the intent to shock it's viewers and make them see their side of things. PETA and Dr Paul Spong (whom I happen to think is a wonderful person) have been after Sea World for years to release its captive animals, but nobody seems to want to talk about what that would mean for the animals themselves. I am no longer pro-captivity for cetaceans, but I'm anti-release because it would kill the animals and that's not acceptable. To put them into sea pens isn't much better than keeping them in marine parks because they'd still be penned up and they'd also be in water with bacteria they don't have the immune system to fight off. They wouldn't be able to engage in any of their normal behavior in sea pens any more than what they can do in marine parks. I wish the show aspect of the parks would stop. It's turned into such a joke anyway with the costumed wetsuits the trainers wear and the dancing the trainers have to do. If they could figure out a way to turn the marine parks into more educational venues without the shows and without the constant breeding then I think that would be a good idea. Unfortunately, with the number of orca there are between the 3 parks and the amount of room, that's not really a viable option. Plus, the shows sell. New babies sell. Sea World would probably end up going bankrupt and then what would happen to the animals then?

I apologize if this has gotten off the track of the original discussion of the movie Blackfish. I just get very passionate on the subject as I've spent many years within Sea World and I know what goes on there and how the animals are cared for and I know the trainers and I just don't want people to get the wrong idea about the place based solely on the movie, which seems to be what is happening and what the movie wants to happen.

 

I dont see any need to apologize for something you believe in!! And to be honest that was the kind of answer i was looking for. If more people gave straight forward answers with valid points on why they think this, the world would be a much better place!!
I personally do try to educate myself on both sides of the argument before making my mind up, and yet as just a average joe who doesn't get to look behind the scenes, all i can go on is what is in the public record, which is mainly mud slinging and disinformation from both parties.
And these days im afraid to say the average public will always back the little guy and not a multi national corporation.
Will seaworld be able to survive this?? Especially now the celebrities are on the side of public who say no to captivity, ewan mcregor, stephan fry and others have tweeted their disgust at seaworld!!
If not, how will they adapt, if at all??
Is the Clearwater marine park the way forward, with aquariums focused on the rescue and return of mammals and not captivity.
As i have said all along i am no one special, with no specialist education on the matter, i can only go by what i am allowed to see, and from what i can see, i don't think that there is a place in this world for seaworld in its present incarnation.

 

In order to see why many of us Zoochatters believe captivity in a positive thing, I would suggest reading Life of Pi. The book brings up many points of why captive animals are better off staying where they are.

 

Sea World does a great deal of this. In fact, its the foundation of their conservation programs. Many dolphins, pilot whales, manatees, pinnipeds, and a few grey whales owe their lives to the work that Sea World has done.

 

Celvin,
Don't get excited about this type of movies. This is normal that a movie can present anything as very good or very bad just slightly altering arguments and pictures. Any filmmaker can do two films about killer whales - one showing Sea World as wonderful, and another as terrible. Or about any other topic. That is why so many people ignore this type of movies.

 

You say many people ignore these kind of movies, to which other movies would you be referring??
Blackfish has shown seaworld in the worst kind of light and i totally understand that it is one directors view on the subject,and another director will show the opposite.
But with cnn now showing it and having the highest ratings ever for a documentary i personally do not see how people can just ignore it.
Twitter is going ballistic over the film, and the film itself will win at the Oscars !!!
How can you just ignore a film that has so much public interest?
I don't think that this will just go away anytime soon.

 

Showing worst of SeaWorld (lying about facts, blaming the trainers for their accidents) doesn't necessarily show the affects captivity has on killer whales.

 

Sorry i don't understand what that the comment was meant to be for??
If you have watched the film and that is your opinion, fair enough, have you watched it??
But my questions have been, what the fall out from this film will be?
Your previous comment recommended a book for me to read which i have now got and will read!! But then your next comment made no sense.
As i have said i am here representing myself and trying to get both sides of the argument as just an average joe. I have made my stance on captivity for cetaceans quite clear and i know people feel different to me about this, but hey that is what makes the world go round.

 

You said Blackfish shows SeaWorld in the worst way possible (paraphrased). But really I didn't see anything wrong that SeaWorld did to affect the behavior of the whales. And yes, I did see the film... Online.

I'm not trying to judge you and to prove you wrong, just trying to understand how this film made you or how you grew more hate towards the place. I find you to be courageous as well since this is a site that contains a vast majority of people who believe in captivity for animals.

 

I'm watching Blackfish again on CNN currently and it is leaving me confused. The narrator says that the point of the film was to not rip on SeaWorld and iit's point was to show that whales do not belong in tanks. However, all it does is focus on the theme park and why it is time for people to realize that you should never pay a visit to a place like this.

They say watching a movie twice can be a good way to understand it entirely but this is doing no good for me and my opinion still stands.
(By the way celvin this is not a response directed to you)

 

What is the purpose of breeding transient and resident whales from both the Atlantic and Pacific, and now the southern hemisphere doing other than showcasing seaworld's desperation in ensuring its whale programs continue? Having visited seaworld several times, I have never once left a orca show with information on their natural ecology or threats in the wild.

@Moebelle, the film shines seaworld in a negative light because it details their action and blatant disregard of oath in light of incriminating evidence in the OSHA trial regarding Dawn.
And their tendency to, oh, I don't know, repetitiously separate calves from their mothers.
I don't know what other park you wanted them to focus on, as other than the Seaquarium, and Marineland canada (both of which only hold one animal), no other North American parks hold orca.

I firmly believe zoological institutions have a place in the modern world, and serve multiple purposes in ensuring the survival of an innumerable species, but orcas are not one of them.
You shouldn't even have to watch the film to conclude that this species (or multiple species based on recent taxonomy?) is ill-suited to the concrete and acrylic homes provided by seaworld.

 

That's another thing I don't understand. Why wasn't the film based on the worst place for an orca?

I'm not going to argue about the incident regarding the separation between the mother and baby because I do not know the real story behind that. One Zoochatter may have said that it was because the mother abandoned it's calf, and they were not separated due to it interrupting show. But what would they know?

I should note that I do not necessarily believe that these whales should stay in captivity as show animals. The only benefit that these shows bring to the people is the display of these whale's intelligence. To this day it seems that this is now common knowledge (the smarts of an orca) to everyday people, so there is no reason to keep continuing these shows. I still believe that it is acceptable to keep a killer whale in adequate tanks. So far there is no such tank that exists but I do believe that organizations around the world who hold orcas should discontinue their shows and make their tanks as much like their natural habitat as possible.

 

Seaworld says that these separations occurred due to rejections from the mother(s). This may be due to the fact though that females in the wild usually give birth at the age of 15 but in captivity they are usually 5 or 6. At this age, the mother may not be mature and prepared enough to handle a calf.

Blackfish Official Film Site

 

5 or 6? usually?

First birth age of captive born orca:
Kalina (f) b.1985 - first calf 1993 (8 years)
Taima (f) b.1989 - first calf 1998 (9 years)
Takara (f) b.1991 - first calf 2002 (11 years)
Kayla (f) b.1988 - first calf 2005 (17 years)
Kohana (f) b.2002 - first calf 2010 (8 years)
Lovey (f) b.1998 - first calf 2008 (10 years)

 

So the film creators have been proven wrong. My first statement was coming from that link.