Blackfish

Veterinary Science Graduate Programs from U. of I.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
gugoodoll said:
I'm curious, what is the other side to a pet shop owner's story? No ethical breeder would sell their puppies through a store; otherwise you're pretty much using puppy mills. I'm hard pressed to find any good coming from a store that sells puppies...
Click to expand...

And that's exactly what I am talking about. Automatically assuming than any breeder who sells to pet stores is unethical and automatically assuming we buy from puppy mills. I really don't want to hijack this thread, so I'm not going to go through my whole shpiel. If you are genuinely curious, you can PM me or start a new thread.

I was simply making a point through personal experience: a lot of people do not consider the entirety of both sides of the story. It happens to every part of the animal industry: meat producers, zoos, breeders for pretty much any animal, even veterinarians. Basing an opinion entirely on a single documentary isn't forming an informed opinion. SW was avoiding working with the producers of Blackfish probably because they would not have had a say in how they would be portrayed.
 
batsenecal said:
I've seen bits and pieces of Blackfish and the only thing I want to bring up is how SeaWorld refused to be involved in the making of the documentary. I completely understand why they wouldn't want to be. My family owns pet stores and my grandfather used to be fine with talking to reporters right in our stores while going through it, front to back, including all our isolation rooms and such. Then my grandpa did a three hour interview with a reporter, oh, twenty-five or so years ago. The entire thing was truncated to about fifteen minutes where the reporter made it sound as if my grandpa was admitting that we purposely abuse our animals. Since then, we will only respond to reporters in written letters with a note that says that if the letter is not printed or shown in it's entirety, we will go to the rival news station to show them the entire letter and allow them to do a story themselves. We know a lot of people who have experienced the same thing. The breeder where my boyfriend's mom got their new puppy won't let anyone onto her property until after meeting them in person at a different location. One time, a more extreme animal rights activist tried open all of her outdoor paddocks and releasing her dogs in the middle of nowhere Colorado. Thankfully none of the dogs went farther than the house, but still.

People on the "entertainment/profit" side of animals are getting super weary of things like Blackfish. Unless you're helping to edit the documentary too, you never know how things are going to be edited or used. SW understood what the purpose of the documentary was and didn't think it was "safe" to become involved in it.

Not saying that I don't entirely agree with most of you. I haven't seen enough of Blackfish in order to give a true opinion of the documentary as a whole, but I do feel that cetaceans as a whole are one of those groups of animals that are hard to care for, no matter what you do or why you're doing it. On the other hand, I agree that humans may get to the point where we can create exposures that are humane for these animals, considering how far we've gotten now. If I were to watch it, I would also retain my opinion until getting a closer look at the opposite side. As some one who comes from a pet store family, I understand what it feels like to not have people hear your side of the story.

Sorry for another long post on this thread. lol.
Click to expand...
The only thing I would say is that they shouldn't complain about how one-sided the documentary is then. They didn't want to contribute to potentially make it more well-rounded because they could have ended up being misrepresented - that's fine, that's their prerogative. But I don't think it's right to then blame the producers for not presenting their side of the story, when SeaWorld declined the opportunity to do so :shrug:
And I know there are people who will take Blackfish and use it as their sole source of information. But I hope (and I believe) there are also a lot of other people who would use it as a jumping off point to do more research on the subject. I do think it is a subject that needed to be brought up. Sure, it's biased, but it also provided an opportunity for people to think about something they may not have thought about before.
And I know there are a lot of people (like myself) who support zoos, captive breeding, etc who also believe that the way SeaWorld has handled their cetaceans has not been the best, and perhaps the benefits of their captivity (which are few compared to other species) do not adequately stack up to the detriments.
 
That is a good point. SeaWorld did make that bed, so they have to lay in it at this point. If anything, it would be a good opportunity to make their own personal documentary about their operation as a whole (I have no clue if they have plans to or not, seeing as Blackfish was only recently released; or if they have in the past). Combined with the California law that was brought up earlier, only time will tell if SeaWorld can come up with a game plan for the situation. This may be the stick that breaks the camel's back and forces them to update more, or bow out. Obviously if the law passes in California, the issue will become moot anyways.
 
WildZoo said:
The only thing I would say is that they shouldn't complain about how one-sided the documentary is then. They didn't want to contribute to potentially make it more well-rounded because they could have ended up being misrepresented - that's fine, that's their prerogative. But I don't think it's right to then blame the producers for not presenting their side of the story, when SeaWorld declined the opportunity to do so :shrug:
Click to expand...

At the same time though, what else would you expect them to do? From the moment it was conceived it was very obvious that Blackfish had an agenda. Not to mention that the producers were two disgruntled former employees with whom Seaworld had had major problems with in the past. That film was never going to be about presenting both sides, whether SW agreed to be involved or not. It was probably much less damaging for them to stay out of it rather than have their words turned around and used against them.

I do hope that Seaworld will release their own information, and I expect in time they will. Some of their trainers have come forward and released statements (can't be bothered to go digging for them now but they're out there if you want to go look) and while it does sound like there is some truth to Blackfish, based on what they've said there is also a lot of misconception.
 
A main concern of mine with the CA bill is what will they do to keep the orca's mentally stimulated? Training is part of that process. And it sounded like they wanted to limit human interaction beyond just the shows. Also, they mentioned that they would release the whales to sea pens IF THEY WERE AVAILABLE and I have a feeling there aren't that many.

Also, I think housing was brought up at some point in here. The USDA dictates that. I think this is the link for the current regulations but an older one was based on the size of the whale to determine the dimensions. This current one is based on the ability to perform natural behaviors, which I think is too vague and allows for too much variety. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/policy/Policy Manual 03-25-2011.pdf

And not really related to what anyone said currently, but I think someone earlier mentioned how many of the trainers have no background in animal behavior or marine biology. I really don't think that's entirely true. I have two friends from high school who really wanted to be trainers and have degrees in Marine Biology and worked really hard to get various internships/externships to expose themselves to the field. I actually really want to talk to them about this documentary at some point as I'd love to hear their perspective.
 
batsenecal said:
I do feel that cetaceans as a whole are one of those groups of animals that are hard to care for, no matter what you do or why you're doing it.
Click to expand...

Then (in my humble opinion) you shouldn't be keeping them in captivity.

I haven't seen Blackfish so I can't comment from that perspective, but I don't believe that something requiring so much in the way of space, enrichment and time should be kept in captivity. Just because we admit that we need to understand them better in order to provide them with a better life in captivity doesn't give us a free pass to keep housing them for entertainment purposes while we try and muddle through things.
 
that redhead said:
Then (in my humble opinion) you shouldn't be keeping them in captivity.

I haven't seen Blackfish so I can't comment from that perspective, but I don't believe that something requiring so much in the way of space, enrichment and time should be kept in captivity. Just because we admit that we need to understand them better in order to provide them with a better life in captivity doesn't give us a free pass to keep housing them for entertainment purposes while we try and muddle through things.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think they should be kept in captivity, but we are making a big step in admitting that we don't understand them well enough at this point. Also, what do we do with the ones currently in captivity while we attempt to muddle through things? Do we stop using them for entertainment completely? Do we just let them sit (erm, swim) around? Do we humanely euthanize them? What if we can find a suitable solution that would be good for housing them? We can't just ignore the fact that they are already captive and we have to address that. Stopping using them for entertainment purposes could be a good idea, but these animals need some form of enrichment and that is a big part of their enrichment currently. So then what? We have kind of already created the problem, now comes the part of fixing it. Not really a free pass for keeping them, but we don't have much of a choice other than euthanizing them.

I don't think we should keep breeding them or adding more to the captive population, but that is just my opinion and I admittedly don't know much about dolphins/whales/etc.
 
orca2011 said:
And not really related to what anyone said currently, but I think someone earlier mentioned how many of the trainers have no background in animal behavior or marine biology. I really don't think that's entirely true. I have two friends from high school who really wanted to be trainers and have degrees in Marine Biology and worked really hard to get various internships/externships to expose themselves to the field. I actually really want to talk to them about this documentary at some point as I'd love to hear their perspective.
Click to expand...

This. I have a friend who is training at Seaworld in Florida right now (not sure if it's an internship or if she's actually employed by them, she's been there a few years now). I haven't had a chance to talk to her since Blackfish came out, but when she first got the position we had chatted about it quite a bit. It is SUPER competitive. Let's face it, prior to Blackfish there were thousands of people out there who thought being a trainer at Seaworld would be the coolest job ever. You don't get to just wander in there with a high school diploma and an "I <3 Whales!" t-shirt. You had to have a degree in a relevant field to even apply for the position she was going for, and it sounded like many, if not most, of the other applicants had extensive backgrounds in various types of animal training. Her degree was Zoology with a minor in Animal Behavior.

Not saying that's necessarily the case for every position at Seaworld, as I don't know that for sure. But for a field with high prestige and an extremely limited number of available positions, it sounds pretty ridiculous to me that such a competitive job would be dominated by inexperienced trainers.
 
DVMDream said:
Also, what do we do with the ones currently in captivity while we attempt to muddle through things? Do we stop using them for entertainment completely? Do we just let them sit (erm, swim) around? Do we humanely euthanize them? What if we can find a suitable solution that would be good for housing them? We can't just ignore the fact that they are already captive and we have to address that. Stopping using them for entertainment purposes could be a good idea, but these animals need some form of enrichment and that is a big part of their enrichment currently. So then what? We have kind of already created the problem, now comes the part of fixing it. Not really a free pass for keeping them, but we don't have much of a choice other than euthanizing them.
Click to expand...

Ideally, I'd like to see those in captivity rehabilitated and prepared to be released back into the wild. I imagine the investment of time and resources into that kind of project would be enormous (and all at a financial loss to SeaWorld or other places that keep captive whales/dolphins) and that they wouldn't want to have to spend their own money to essentially send their profit workhorses out to sea. So I don't forsee that ever really happening.

A more practical solution might be to stop breeding and capturing more animals and let the current captive population die out (while still be used for entertainment). There would be little incentive to build them new, better housing and meet their needs (as it would probably be viewed as a money sink for SeaWorld) but at least there would be an end-point.
 
that redhead said:
Ideally, I'd like to see those in captivity rehabilitated and prepared to be released back into the wild. I imagine the investment of time and resources into that kind of project would be enormous (and all at a financial loss to SeaWorld or other places that keep captive whales/dolphins) and that they wouldn't want to have to spend their own money to essentially send their profit workhorses out to sea. So I don't forsee that ever really happening.

A more practical solution might be to stop breeding and capturing more animals and let the current captive population die out (while still be used for entertainment). There would be little incentive to build them new, better housing and meet their needs (as it would probably be viewed as a money sink for SeaWorld) but at least there would be an end-point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't really think these animals would be able to be released into the wild. Most of them were born in captivity and would have no idea how to survive. I don't know how possible that would be. It would be nice if it could be done, but I have high doubts that it can be.

The second is what would likely need to be done, plus add in some constraints that they need to make the animals a priority and keep on top of their needs.

I highly doubt we ever see an end to captive dolphins and whales though. And the research on the animals in captivity as well as research on them in the wild is necessary for conservation of these animals as well as rehabilitation of sick/injured animals.
 
DVMDream said:
Yeah, I don't really think these animals would be able to be released into the wild. Most of them were born in captivity and would have no idea how to survive. I don't know how possible that would be. It would be nice if it could be done, but I have high doubts that it can be.

The second is what would likely need to be done, plus add in some constraints that they need to make the animals a priority and keep on top of their needs.

I highly doubt we ever see an end to captive dolphins and whales though. And the research on the animals in captivity as well as research on them in the wild is necessary for conservation of these animals as well as rehabilitation of sick/injured animals.
Click to expand...
They did try with one whale, can't remember his name but he was the one who played Willy in Free Willy. I think he only survived a year, and if I'm remembering correctly he was wild-born. So yeah, I agree that rehab and release at this point is probably out of the question. Also agree that at this point they should stop breeding until improvements have been made. Continuing to breed them when the ones that exist aren't being given (in my opinion) the kind of living they need is irresponsible.

I do wonder about the research part though. Are orcas endangered? I just wonder if there are benefits to the species as a whole that I'm missing.
 
orca2011 said:
Per IUCN's Red List, they'e deemed data deficient since they think orcas might be split into subspecies.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Thanks! I do remember reading something about transient vs resident groups. Is that the kind of split they're referring to?
 
WildZoo said:
They did try with one whale, can't remember his name but he was the one who played Willy in Free Willy. I think he only survived a year, and if I'm remembering correctly he was wild-born. So yeah, I agree that rehab and release at this point is probably out of the question. Also agree that at this point they should stop breeding until improvements have been made. Continuing to breed them when the ones that exist aren't being given (in my opinion) the kind of living they need is irresponsible.

I do wonder about the research part though. Are orcas endangered? I just wonder if there are benefits to the species as a whole that I'm missing.
Click to expand...

Keiko was the whales name, and he lived a longer than a year in the wild, and a lot longer than he would've of he stayed in captivity. Keiko was brought from his aquarium in Mexico to a special made pen in Oregon where he battled sever fungal infections, malnourishment, and sever anemia. He wouldn't have loved much longer than months if he stayed in Mexico. Then three years after moving to Oregon, in 1999 he was officially moved to his sea pen where he was feed if need be and received round the clock observations, while adjusting to his new environment. He didn't die until 2003, suspected cause of death being pneumonia.

That was four years in the wild.. Seven years away from his death trap aquarium where he suffered from a small, shallow tank and malnourishment which almost killed him. I know that SeaWorld at least has better conditions that was the aquarium in Mexico had to offer, which just leads me to think that they actually have healthier whales who may do even better in a new environment. Some people think that it wouldn't be worth it try to let these whales free because they will just die.. But in my opinion, Keiko lived a lot longer in the wild than he would've in captivity.. I'd call his story a victory.
 
AND.. Sorry for the typos!! That's what happens when you reply to a thread on your phone!!
 
EdinBelle said:
Keiko was the whales name, and he lived a longer than a year in the wild, and a lot longer than he would've of he stayed in captivity. Keiko was brought from his aquarium in Mexico to a special made pen in Oregon where he battled sever fungal infections, malnourishment, and sever anemia. He wouldn't have loved much longer than months if he stayed in Mexico. Then three years after moving to Oregon, in 1999 he was officially moved to his sea pen where he was feed if need be and received round the clock observations, while adjusting to his new environment. He didn't die until 2003, suspected cause of death being pneumonia.

That was four years in the wild.. Seven years away from his death trap aquarium where he suffered from a small, shallow tank and malnourishment which almost killed him. I know that SeaWorld at least has better conditions that was the aquarium in Mexico had to offer, which just leads me to think that they actually have healthier whales who may do even better in a new environment. Some people think that it wouldn't be worth it try to let these whales free because they will just die.. But in my opinion, Keiko lived a lot longer in the wild than he would've in captivity.. I'd call his story a victory.
Click to expand...
Oh Ok, I must have misremembered? Or maybe I read something that was inaccurate, I thought he had been actually released, not living in a sea pen. Either way, that does sound a lot better than whatever it was that I read.
 
WildZoo said:
Oh Ok, I must have misremembered? Or maybe I read something that was inaccurate, I thought he had been actually released, not living in a sea pen. Either way, that does sound a lot better than whatever it was that I read.
Click to expand...

His sea pen was able to be opened up so that he could come and go as he pleased. So although it was a sea pen, once he began hunting and stuff on his own it would sometimes be days before he came back. I'm sorry I'm just one of those people who was interested in all of this before Blackfish. I get a little passionate about the topic.
 
EdinBelle said:
His sea pen was able to be opened up so that he could come and go as he pleased. So although it was a sea pen, once he began hunting and stuff on his own it would sometimes be days before he came back. I'm sorry I'm just one of those people who was interested in all of this before Blackfish. I get a little passionate about the topic.
Click to expand...
Oh no need to apologize! I appreciate learning more about it.
 
Another major problem with releasing captive whales into the wild is the fact that they may not be integrated into wild social groups. These are highly social animals who often live in tight-knit pods with complex hierarchies and stable matrilines (especially the ‘resident’ pods). While cetaceans in general seem to be more flexible in their social structures than, say, canines, if you were to drop an unrelated wolf into an established wolf pack, odds are that individual will either be driven out or torn to shreds. These close family groups may not accept the intrusion of an unrelated conspecific, especially one that is as “socially awkward” as I’m betting many of these poor, captive whales are. Since social behavior is such an important part of orca whale life—both in an emotional sense and a general survival sense—I cannot image a whale without some sort of stable relationship with other whales will thrive in the wild.
 
Cetaceans get top medical treatment(full body ultrasound once a year, full annual physical exam, quarterly blood, daily health checks, vet checks for each and every little scrape, mark, or spot that comes up, etc), restaurant-quality food, and daily training sessions that provide countless opportunities for enrichment. A single animal has an entire team of behaviorists, vets, trainers, etc who work full-time to make sure that the animal is healthy and stress-free. They get better food, more/quality attention, and more/quality medical treatment than most pets (consider a cat or dog who is left home all day while the owner is at work; or pocket pets who frequently live in a proportionally equivalent/smaller amount of space as a cetacean - i'm not saying that this is bad, i'm just saying you should look at what you find acceptable with other species and compare that to your views on cetaceans. if your idea of what's acceptable is different, consider why it's different), let alone farm animals. I personally, do not feel okay with keeping cetaceans in captivity. But considering that the capture and display of wild animals is no longer legal, and how well the current captive animals are cared for and how well they do in managed care, I think there are far more important animal welfare issues to concentrate on. If every cat, dog, cow, etc got the same quantity and quality of attention and treatment as captive cetaceans, then I'd worry about captive cetaceans. But right now cetaceans have a very high quality of life compared with other captive species. Additionally, because the public is SO concerned with cetaceans, SeaWorld and other managed care facilities are constantly under scrutiny. There is absolutely no way that a place like SeaWorld or any managed care facility could or would neglect the animals. They can't afford to do that. Also I should add I'm only talking about US policies/animals here. I'm not very familiar with practices in other countries.

Edinbelle - I cant remember now how long he was out on his own before he died, but I thought it was a few months to a year at best, not four years. I could be completely off with that, though; I never wrote it down in my notes.
 
Last edited:
I never said that Keiko thrived in the wild, I said that it was a far better situation than what he had at his aquarium in Mexico. And although he didn't live as long as everyone would have hoped, he lived a lot longer than he would have if he stayed in captivity. Because to be honest, without the "Save Free Willy" efforts than he would've never been moved to Oregon to a much larger tank where he could've recovered from his malnourishment and he would've died in 1996 (that's the year that the aquarium in Mexico have him up) instead of 2003. That's all I said.
 
WildZoo said:
Now the conflicting information is confusing me 😕
Click to expand...

WildZoo, if you'd like my source.. It's the book Death At SeaWorld. Specifically chapters 27 and 28. Keiko went into his seapen in Iceland in 1999. There they continued his training and started him on his sea walks. In 2002 (I believe, don't quote me on it though) the foundation which funded the project (the Keiko Project) ran out of money and it was turned over to HSUS. HSUS, under the supervision of a trained veterinarian, decided that Keiko needed a little bit of tough love and they allowed him to venture off without a research vessel. He was gone for about 60 days when (while being monitored with tracking devices) and then was found in a cove in Norway where people were interacting with him and feeding him. HSUS shortly after decided that it was best to bring him to a new seapen in a place called Taknes Bay. The hope was to do the sea walks until he could possibly hook up with the pod there, but the pods travel route changed.. Probably due to chasing prey. It was December 2003 when he passed away from pneumonia. He was not alone, he was not abandoned, and although yes he did spend a few months ON HIS OWN in the ocean, he was most certainly in the ocean for about 4 years.
 
grossly_incandescent said:
. I cant remember now how long he was out on his own before he died, but I thought it was a few months to a year at best, not four years. I could be completely off with that, though; I never wrote it down in my notes.
Click to expand...

It was 5 years
 
bbeventer said:
It was 5 years
Click to expand...

The video confirms he was released in 2002(at the 2:14 mark) and he died in 2003. So it was about a year that he had been released. He was kept in a sea pen for the first few years while the team prepared him for life in the wild. They just never had a chance to finish because the funding organization ran out of funds. I don't know if that info was publicized though, because it made the organization look pretty bad. Sorry for misrepresenting you earlier Edinbelle, I misunderstood you.
 
EdinBelle said:
It was December 2003 when he passed away from pneumonia. He was not alone, he was not abandoned, and although yes he did spend a few months ON HIS OWN in the ocean, he was most certainly in the ocean for about 4 years.
Click to expand...

We are discussing fully releasing the whales to live on their own without any human involvement or interaction. That did not happen with Keiko, even when he did leave for those few months he ended up being fed by fishermen and other people along the way. I just do not think it is possible to train an orca that was born in captivity to hunt, socialize properly and release it to the wild successfully. Keiko's "release" is not something I would consider successful. His move from Mexico to the sea pen was successful and that was a good move, but his attempted release to the wild failed.
 
DVMDream said:
We are discussing fully releasing the whales to live on their own without any human involvement or interaction. That did not happen with Keiko, even when he did leave for those few months he ended up being fed by fishermen and other people along the way. I just do not think it is possible to train an orca that was born in captivity to hunt, socialize properly and release it to the wild successfully. Keiko's "release" is not something I would consider successful. His move from Mexico to the sea pen was successful and that was a good move, but his attempted release to the wild failed.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it would have to be one extreme vs the other? Why wouldn't it work to give the captive whales more space and a better suited environment in a large controlled sea pen, given that the funding could work to support it?

For the record, I'm not opposed to keeping animals in captivity.. I'm just opposed to pointless captivity and breeding an animal into captivity for circus type entertainment. I support all rescue and rehabilitation efforts and do realize that sometimes an animal cannot be fully released back into the wild, I'm just 100% against breeding whales into a stressful and unrealistic environment to make billions of dollars to support deep pockets first, and a conservation effort second..
 
EdinBelle said:
Why do you think it would have to be one extreme vs the other? Why wouldn't it work to give the captive whales more space and a better suited environment in a large controlled sea pen, given that the funding could work to support it?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it had to be one extreme or the other. I am all for giving them larger pens that are more realistic to their natural environment. But don't call that "releasing" them to the wild. And don't consider that a success or a good previous release to the wild.

We were discussing releasing the whales back to the wild and someone mentioned it had already been tried with Keiko and he didn't live long. Then you contradicted that and said he lived for 4 years in the wild. He did not live 4 years in the wild. He lived in a large sea pen being fed and looked after for a number of years and was only on his "own" for about a year in the wild. (And even then he was being fed by fishermen).
 
DVMDream said:
I didn't say it had to be one extreme or the other. I am all for giving them larger pens that are more realistic to their natural environment. But don't call that "releasing" them to the wild. And don't consider that a success or a good previous release to the wild.

We were discussing releasing the whales back to the wild and someone mentioned it had already been tried with Keiko and he didn't live long. Then you contradicted that and said he lived for 4 years in the wild. He did not live 4 years in the wild. He lived in a large sea pen being fed and looked after for a number of years and was only on his "own" for about a year in the wild. (And even then he was being fed by fishermen).
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your definition of wild. When Keiko was released into Icelandic waters, he was free of the aquarium lifestyle, he was free to hunt on his own and he wasn't starved to the point where he would perform for crowds of people. He was living in a realistic environment for killer whales and was able to be as "free" as he potentially wanted to. He was no longer held captive, he just never integrated in with a pod and chose to be around people. (On a side note: there was rumor of the SeaWorld trainers who helped in his efforts potentially calling him back on his walks too soon and not allowing him to stray as far as he wanted, potentially compromising the new behaviors he was supposed to be learning. I wasn't there, so I can't really comment on the situation). Anyway, I consider his environment to be a wild environment, even if it were surrounded by people working to keep him healthy.

And I'm sorry but I do consider his release a success. You can try to sway my opinion all you want, but where he ended up was a hell of a lot better than where he was. Alone, in a tank too hot for a killer whale to live that was so shallow that he had sunburn all over his dorsum. Where the tank wasn't deep enough for him to spy hop and it only took three strokes of his fins to get him from one side of the tank to the other. When SeaWorld and other larger aquariums were contacted for help they all denied him due to his possible infectious diseases, so his options were stay where you are or be released into WILD Icelandic waters. I'll respect your opinion of being in the wild and you should respect mine as well.
 
EdinBelle said:
I'll respect your opinion of being in the wild and you should respect mine as well.
Click to expand...

Let's not turn this into a pissing contest.

DVMD's point is that being fed, cared for, and housed by humans is not the same as being wild. There was no disrespect in her posts.
 
EdinBelle said:
I guess it depends on your definition of wild. When Keiko was released into Icelandic waters, he was free of the aquarium lifestyle, he was free to hunt on his own and he wasn't starved to the point where he would perform for crowds of people. He was living in a realistic environment for killer whales and was able to be as "free" as he potentially wanted to. He was no longer held captive, he just never integrated in with a pod and chose to be around people. (On a side note: there was rumor of the SeaWorld trainers who helped in his efforts potentially calling him back on his walks too soon and not allowing him to stray as far as he wanted, potentially compromising the new behaviors he was supposed to be learning. I wasn't there, so I can't really comment on the situation). Anyway, I consider his environment to be a wild environment, even if it were surrounded by people working to keep him healthy.

And I'm sorry but I do consider his release a success. You can try to sway my opinion all you want, but where he ended up was a hell of a lot better than where he was. Alone, in a tank too hot for a killer whale to live that was so shallow that he had sunburn all over his dorsum. Where the tank wasn't deep enough for him to spy hop and it only took three strokes of his fins to get him from one side of the tank to the other. When SeaWorld and other larger aquariums were contacted for help they all denied him due to his possible infectious diseases, so his options were stay where you are or be released into WILD Icelandic waters. I'll respect your opinion of being in the wild and you should respect mine as well.
Click to expand...

Removing him from Mexico was successful. I do not disagree with that and never said that I did.

Putting him into a seapen (yes, I get it he was in the ocean) is not wild and living on his own. When he was actually forced to live on his own (i.e the HSUS dropped him off in the middle of the ocean and left him so he could not follow back to his seapen), he did not survive long.

Wild animals do not rely on humans to care for them. Keiko relied on humans in order to survive. We are discussing complete release free of human involvement. Nobody goes out and feeds wild orcas to make sure they live. Keiko needed humans in order to survive. That is the difference.

I am not saying that the move from Mexico was unsuccessful, I am saying that the full rehabilitation and release (what this thread is suggesting attempting to do) was unsuccessful. You don't see people who release other animals back to their wild environment feeding them and providing them with veterinary care consistently.

That is the difference here. You can have your own opinion for "being in the wild" but it is not equal to what we are talking about here. I respect your opinion that his rescue from Mexico was successful. But when we mentioned releasing currently captive killer whales "into the wild", we did not mean release them into seapens and have people still feed them and provide veterinary care for them. You can't argue that releasing Keiko into the wild shows it can be successful if your idea of "wild" isn't equal to ours. I respect your opinion of "wild". That is fine, you can have your own opinion, but you can't use Keiko's "release" as an example of a successful killer whale released to the wild because he was never able to survive free of human interaction like wild orcas do.
 
BlackDog17 said:
Let's not turn this into a pissing contest.

DVMD's point is that being fed, cared for, and housed by humans is not the same as being wild. There was no disrespect in her posts.
Click to expand...

I'm not turning this into a pissing contest at all. Clearly DVMDream has her opinion and I have mine. And were both pretty deeply rooted into that opinion. So instead of going on and on about those opinions, we should agree to disagree. No animosity intended.
 
DVMDream said:
Removing him from Mexico was successful. I do not disagree with that and never said that I did.

Putting him into a seapen (yes, I get it he was in the ocean) is not wild and living on his own. When he was actually forced to live on his own (i.e the HSUS dropped him off in the middle of the ocean and left him so he could not follow back to his seapen), he did not survive long.

Wild animals do not rely on humans to care for them. Keiko relied on humans in order to survive. We are discussing complete release free of human involvement. Nobody goes out and feeds wild orcas to make sure they live. Keiko needed humans in order to survive. That is the difference.

I am not saying that the move from Mexico was unsuccessful, I am saying that the full rehabilitation and release (what this thread is suggesting attempting to do) was unsuccessful. You don't see people who release other animals back to their wild environment feeding them and providing them with veterinary care consistently.

That is the difference here. You can have your own opinion for "being in the wild" but it is not equal to what we are talking about here. I respect your opinion that his rescue from Mexico was successful. But when we mentioned releasing currently captive killer whales "into the wild", we did not mean release them into seapens and have people still feed them and provide veterinary care for them. You can't argue that releasing Keiko into the wild shows it can be successful if your idea of "wild" isn't equal to ours. I respect your opinion of "wild". That is fine, you can have your own opinion, but you can't use Keiko's "release" as an example of a successful killer whale released to the wild because he was never able to survive free of human interaction like wild orcas do.
Click to expand...

Well I was going off of your comment several posts ago about viable solutions to taking the killer whales out of captivity. Not strictly an all or nothing viewpoint.

Also, I think that using Keiko as the only indication about releasing killer whales into the wild and it's success (whether you believe it was successful or not) is foolish. You're talking about a whale, who's only interactions were with humans and one other dolphin, no other whales for over 20 years. He was incredibly docile (docile enough for Warner Bros to put an 11 year old kid in the tank with him daily). Humans were his pod. The outcome could be incredibly different if you put the man made pods of SeaWorld whales in the wild together. Although the man made pods of resident vs transient whales is not ideal, it could be better than a single whale being released alone.
 
Last edited:
WildZoo said:
Now the conflicting information is confusing me 😕
Click to expand...

I love to discuss things on SDN, but it's important to do your own research on these things. Not that anyone would want to mislead you on purpose, but often in the case of animal welfare there are a variety of sources to choose from (everything from PETA to SeaWorld) and we have to read them with the idea that there will be some level of bias.
 
EdinBelle said:
Well I was going off of your comment several posts ago about viable solutions to taking the killer whales out of captivity. Not strictly an all or nothing viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I think you are seriously misreading my posts if you still believe I have an all or nothing viewpoint. No point in discussing further if you can't see past that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom