Blackfish

That looks really interesting. I wonder if Sea World will be able to survive this? Although I am a staunch defender of wild animals in captivity (if properly provided for), I do not think it is possible to build a tank large enough for orcas. Sea World does a lot of good in regards to rescuing stranded marine mammals, etc and I would love to see them reinvent their parks without orcas.
 
Arizona Docent said:
That looks really interesting. I wonder if Sea World will be able to survive this? Although I am a staunch defender of wild animals in captivity (if properly provided for), I do not think it is possible to build a tank large enough for orcas. Sea World does a lot of good in regards to rescuing stranded marine mammals, etc and I would love to see them reinvent their parks without orcas.
Click to expand...

I fully agree, and with the transformation of many zoos with their elephant programs (multi-acre paddocks with larger herds) I wonder if anything can be done for cetaceans? The buzz on the new documentary is that it is terrific, with a 97% rating on the movie website rottentomatoes.com. That site compiles reviews of films and so far there are 36 positive reviews and only 1 negative in regards to Blackfish.

Blackfish - Rotten Tomatoes
 
I just saw Blackfish and was extremely impressed. It's very well made and confirmed my belief that animals like orcas are simply too emotionally and socially complex to be kept in captivity.

I have to say, Seaworld come off incredibly badly, not only from an animal welfare point if view but also as a negligent employer.
 
I just watched the film also. I was amazed at how badly some of the whales have been treated in the past. It makes for chilling viewing.

I would have liked a more balanced argument. I have no doubt that what the documentary says is true. However, it gave the impression that all the whales were wild caught and did not mention that out of the 45 orca currently held in captivity, 32 of those are captive bred. They were either unable to find any former trainers that could offer the other side of the story or they declined to include them in the film.

I have so many questions about the whales and how they are managed in captivity.

It mentions that all the orca come from different families and that each family have different "languages". Is anybody aware of a study of the captive whale vocalisations? Do they pick up calls and whistles from each other? how do they communicate with each other? do the baby whales learn the calls of all adults in the same pool, are there multi-lingual whales?

Also I think some of Seaworld's whales are from transient pods and others are from resident pods. In the wild their genes have not mixed for thousands of years. Are they cross breeding these "types" of whale in captivity? Should these "hybrids" (for want of a better word as I dont think they are different species or sub-species) be released into the wild?

I have lots of questions and would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on the movie...
 
I remember at the end it stated that Seaworld were invited to participate but declined. It also mentions breeding in captivity although no specific stats were given as far as I am aware.
 
Shirokuma said:
I remember at the end it stated that Seaworld were invited to participate but declined. It also mentions breeding in captivity although no specific stats were given as far as I am aware.
Click to expand...

SeaWorld would have been fools to get involved.
This was not, after all, intended to be a thorough discussion of the subject. It was intended to sell an idea.
Is it a good idea? A bad idea? Don't know. But the "documentary" like most, is a form of propaganda and as such skeptical viewing is in order. What weren't we told? What weren't we shown?

Vulpes said:
However, it gave the impression that all the whales were wild caught and did not mention that out of the 45 orca currently held in captivity, 32 of those are captive bred. They were either unable to find any former trainers that could offer the other side of the story or they declined to include them in the film.
Click to expand...

Now there's a fact that the directors would not wish to muddy their waters.

Would the public care about orcas if SeaWorld hadn't made them care? Now that's a tricky thing. Captive Orcas were so successful in raising concern about orcas in general that those who opened the discussion are attacked for ever doing it. Ironic. That would be an interesting aspect for the debate to wrestle with.

Excuse me, I believe no one. A documentary about animals in captivity is certainly part of the on-going "culture war" and must be evaluated in its context. I think I'd be more impressed by an open debate of concerned parties than by a one sided program. I like making up my own mind.
 
Zooplantman said:
Would the public care about orcas if SeaWorld hadn't made them care? Now that's a tricky thing. Captive Orcas were so successful in raising concern about orcas in general that those who opened the discussion are attacked for ever doing it. Ironic. That would be an interesting aspect for the debate to wrestle with.
Click to expand...

It's widely accepted that "Namu", the second Orca ever kept in captivity, changed the attitudes of some people towards orca. They were no longer seen as the killers that they had previously been portrait as. Namu was the first orca to perform with a human in the water with him.

"Shamu" was captured as a mate for Namu, but they didn't get along, so Shamu was then sent to Seaworld and the rest is history.

Another significant whale and probably the most famous, was Keiko aka Free Willy. He certainly inspired a generation to love these big piebald gentle giants of the sea.

I think without whales like Shamu, Namu, Keiko and even Tilikum people would be a lot less aware of their intelligence and beauty and subsequently the plight of orca and other marine fauna. I dont think a whale would stir up such strong feelings in people had they not been personified and anthropomorphised in the media. An interesting study by conservationists at the universities of Kent, Oxford, Columbia (USA) and Monash (Australia) suggests that people's tendency to relate more to animals that bear a resemblance to humans (anthropomorphism) could help improve public engagement with conservation projects.

Relating animals to humans could help conservation projects
 
Zooplantman said:
Would the public care about orcas if SeaWorld hadn't made them care? Now that's a tricky thing. Captive Orcas were so successful in raising concern about orcas in general that those who opened the discussion are attacked for ever doing it. Ironic. That would be an interesting aspect for the debate to wrestle with.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the documentary? Because this exact point was brought up in it. There was a comparison between general perception of orcas before and after the parks became popular (comparing the depiction of orcas in this movie to that in a Sea World commercial).

Also I don't think it's fair to say that the movie "implied" that all captive orcas are wild-caught: the part about babies being separated from their mothers said this was done for the sake of breeding programmes, and mention was made of how many of Sea World's orcas are descended from Tilikum. Both of these make it pretty clear that Sea World breeds its orcas. Sure, more time was given to the (horrible, traumatic) process of capturing baby orcas from the wild, but this is more relevant to the movie than the breeding stuff because the orca it's actually about was captured in this way, not bred in captivity, and it might be relevant to how he behaved later in life.
 
I do wonder if some of you watched the same film I did? There are obviously some selective memories at work.

The film CLEARLY states that the main value of Tilikum is as a BREEDING male so how anyone can suggest that the film makes the case that animals are still taken from the wild is laughable-the footage was clearly from the 1970s. There is even a breeding chart showing how many animals Tilikum has sired (mainly to suggest that his psychotic tendencies may have been passed on but hey ho).

Yes it is ANTI SeaWorld but that is the basic narrative of the film-it doesn't set out to paint Seaworld as any sort of benevolent organisation and why should it?

I fail to see any conservation/education in what they do-they are purely an entertainment in the same way the Disney Zoo is. Just accept it for what it is.

As for a relatively small scale documentary being responsible for SeaWorld's downfall, you'd have to be living in cloud cuckoo land to believe that-it's more likely the economic downturn that has hit visitor numbers.

And let's be honest the sort of people who go to SeaWorld aren't likely to be swayed or even likely to watch Blackfish in the first place.
 
I won't go into any further detail but I just got done watching this online and although I thought it was a wonderful film, I was not moved emotionally.
 
Those discussing the fact that the film did not mention the ratio of captive whales are correct to an extent. That was not clarified, but the number of young born to Tilikum and his descendants was. The number of calves separated from their mothers for reasons as trivial as "disrupting shows" (something understandable in young animals), and the emotional implications it had in both the mother's and offspring, was also discussed. So to act as if the film is completely propaganda is a demonstration of yourself being as extreme as the animal rights activists themselves.

The population is no where near sustainable, nor will it ever be, and they are already inbreeding. With the unknown implications of breeding orcas from separate regions/cultures. (transients vs. residents, North vs. South hemisphere, and Pacific vs. Atlantic). It is reckless from any breeding program standpoint, with the goal being to produce more whales, through whatever means necessary.

I found it to be very honest, based on my extensive knowledge and research on the Seaworld orca program (which I entered as a supporter).
 
Arizona Docent said:
Although I am a staunch defender of wild animals in captivity (if properly provided for), I do not think it is possible to build a tank large enough for orcas.
Click to expand...

Not in the landlocked states, no, but San Diego should have the capability of doing something suitable via sea-enclosures. It comes down to will and means.


If you're like me, and missed this in theatres, it makes its debut on home video on the 14th of November.
 
Why Blackfish is Misleading, Unoriginal, and ‘Stupid’

Worth a read!!

The author makes a very valid point

One of the interviewed trainers says:

“In a reputable breeding program, rule number one is that you certainly would not breed an animal that has shown a history of aggression toward humans. Imagine if you had a pit bull who had killed…that animal would have likely been put down…”

To accompany this statement is an animated graphic along with some whimsical carnival music to suggest the bizarre absurdity of what SeaWorld was doing. The only thing that is absurd is for this ex-trainer to make a comparison of an orca whale to a domesticated dog in the context of genes and behavior. Of course, the reason why dogs are massively successful with humans as domesticated animals is due to their flexible genome that dramatically shapes their traits and behavior, and this is not possible with all animals. For instance, you cannot breed away a spotted genet’s extreme aversion to human handling (hence why they failed against cats to become a popular pet), and cognitively complex animals, such as elephants, make even poorer subjects of domestication.


Not only was that statement stupid, but it contradicts the main message of the film that I spent time trying to refute in my original review—that a killer whale killing is a surefire indication of so-called psychosis (defined as abnormal behavior), and isn’t inevitable unpredictability of a wild animal. While I’m no expert in genetics, genes do not code for so-called captivity-induced ‘madness’. If I am on board with believing that captivity stress is the cause of the killing (as it could be), why would this trainer suggest that a more ‘placid’ male orca’s sperm would be the proper way to theoretically carry out the breeding program as would be done with pit bulls? Would this orca be immune to captivity stress genetically and pass that on to its offspring?"
Click to expand...
 
Where do people stand on the film Blackfish?? Emotive topic I know, but what is the general opinion of people in New Zealand on it?? I personally see no reason for any type of sea mammal to be in captivity unless that animal is near extinction and a breeding program is in place to save the species. Also are people bothered about who owns what?? As far as i am aware, kelly tarltons is owned by merlin who in turn are owned by blackstone who also own seaworld. Does that make a difference to people?? I will not visit kelly tarltons for that reason, does it bother you??
I am a 40yr old bloke , drive fuel tankers and have visited various zoos and aquariums in my lifetime, as a kid I was taken to seaworld and loved it!! Now I am grown up and a little wiser!!! My children will not be taken anywhere like sea world until they are old enough to make their own mind up and have all the information made available to them. Do you care if large aquariums have to close because of falling ticket sales?
As I have said I am no expert!! Unless it comes to driving a fuel tanker!! But I think in a free world everyone should be allowed an opinion on various topics and without getting shouted down!! All I am interested in is other peoples opinions, everyone I know of who has seen the film has made the decision never to go to seaworld, If you saw the film did it change your mind and to what extent??
 
Well, you asked about New Zealanders so I don't know if you're interested in other opinions. I haven't seen the movie and I won't. I just ask that if you do watch it, please don't take it at face value. The movie doesn't mention anything about the conservation and rehab work Sea world does. It's not all shows and spectacular leaps. The animals there can NOT be released back into the wild. Most of them were born in captivity and the ones who weren't have been outside their native waters so long that to put them back would kill them as it did Keiko. Sea pens aren't the answer either, in my opinion.

Now, before you dismiss me as a pro-captivity weirdo I'll say I'm not. For many years I was very "rah rah sea world" and chose to ignore the incidents and how the animals ended up in captivity. However, too many unexplained animal deaths or the reason given didn't make sense, I can no longer blindly support Sea World. I do still support their rescue/rehab/release, though.

I'm what you would consider an insider. I know a lot about what goes on at the parks. How the animals are treated by the trainers. How here cared for. I know many of the whale trainers. I've seen what the average public hasn't. The animals are all well cared for.

I'm sorry for getting wordy, but I'm tired of seeing all the negative comments basis solely on having seen the movie and never having gone to Sea World or any marine mammal park. One guy even called orca 'fish'

Anyway, I encourage anyone to send me a PM with any questions you might have about Sea World. I'd be happy to answer them
 
Thanks for the response. I only asked about New Zealand as that is where i reside, I myself am Welsh!! Anyones opinion on the subject is fine with me!!
You said you will not watch the movie, can i ask why?? As for taking everything on face value, im here asking questions!!:)
As i said im not here as an expert and do not claim to know everything!! I am just an average joe and can only go by what i find out from films,books, tv and the news coverage
I agree that these whales cannot be returned into the wild, but should more be bred in captivity?
I think my point is why are they in captivity? We used to have bears in a circus, was that right? And if not what is the difference??
Rescue, rehab release again I accept, as in my eyes it is human nature and compassion to do for others what we can.
But I still cannot see the point at all, in anyway, why it is acceptable to keep non endangered species in captivity.
Surely (again not an expert!!!) the rescue/rehab/ release whales can be studied instead??
I am not going to start bleating about exploitation for profit as many people do, I do try to learn both sides of the debate so I can make my own mind up, but it just seems to me that there are other viable options.
Hopefully more people can join in!!!!
 
I haven't seen Blackfish, and have no real desire to, but there is a thread on it here: http://www.zoochat.com/183/blackfish-movie-trailer-323685/ with various opinions.

I'm fairly pro marine mammals in captivity, although I feel that most cetaceans are not given large enough enclosures. I haven't been to Sea World in America, but I have been to a number of places that hold marine mammals, and I think most do a good job with pinniped enclosures, but less so with cetaceans. What do you think of Auckland Zoo's marine mammal exhibit (currently the only one in the country)?

Re. ownership, Merlin bought Kelly Tarlton's, and a number of major Australian aquariums (Sydney, Melbourne, etc) from Village, who retained Sea World Gold Coast (which is unrelated to the American Sea Worlds) and various other attractions. Given they were already owned by a major multinational entertainment business, its a bit hard to say that now they are owned by Merlin it should be boycotted. From what I have seen, Kelly Tarlton's has improved significantly following the change in ownership (although generally on this site Merlin attractions are not highly regarded - seen one, seen them all - and acquisition of an aquarium by Merlin is considered a bad thing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top