sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
You're right, of course, but sometimes I can't stop myself.....
Nice to see you back in these parts, incidentally.
Gotta love Sea World
- Thread starter monkeyarmy
- Start date
You're right, of course, but sometimes I can't stop myself.....
Nice to see you back in these parts, incidentally.
I appreciate the reasoned response and will offer my answer.
I don't see my "conversion" as respects Sea World's orcas as "faulty logic" - to the contrary, as a lawyer, faulty logic would really bother me. I freely admit (and am glad that) that captivity for orcas is improving and am thrilled that no more orcas are being taken from the wild. I would not describe my opposition as towards Sea World specifically, but towards the continued captivity of orcas as a means of gathering revenue - which is a practice engaged in (in the United States at least) almost exclusively (soon to be exclusively) by the Sea World parks. The Blue World project may be (and I hope it will be) a great step forward in the exhibitry of the species, but I doubt that even it will banish my strong feelings that orcas do not belong in captivity, at least as they are exhibited and showed at Sea World. My own opposition to the practice has developed (not because of the improved husbandry practices of Sea World but in spite of it) because I have learned more about orcas and the specifics of their captivity, as well as more about the practices of Sea World (specifically, as it is the only organization that keeps so many orcas, and as it owns or had owned most of the orcas currently performing in the world, and because it is the organization subject to such scrutiny). And I also believe that it is best to judge the success and rightfulness of an species' captivity by looking at more than the species' life expectancy and breeding history in captivity. What is more, I do not believe that Sea World (in particular its trainers, vets, and others in animal care) deliberately mistreats its animals - I'm sure the organization (in most cases) does have the welfare of its whales in mind - I just don't believe it's enough.
As for breeding, as you noted, much (if not most) of the continued breeding of orcas in captivity is carried out through artificial insemination. This practice would be easy to stop. In fact, I would venture to say (without much fear of contradiction) that nearly all (if not all) of the "natural" breeding that occurs is carefully planned and facilitated by Sea World (in fact, given the small size of the current population, breeding has to be carefully managed in order to maintain a viable captive population) It's not as if the park keeps all of its whales together and lets nature take its course - the parks actively transfer whales among facilities in order to facilitate breeding. Sea World is actively attempting to breed these whales as quickly as possible to maintain their captive numbers now that removal of individuals from the wild is no longer practical (or, in most cases, legal). That's what bothers me. This not a breeding program focused on species conservation, research, or animal welfare - it is simply a way to keep the parks' population of orcas strong (and to allow the dispaly of adorable baby orcas).
By the way, with respect to other discourse in this thread, I'm happy if people point out my grammatical or other errors. =) I don't promise to carefully proofread everything I post, but I do make an honest effort to make my posts both readable and well-reasoned. And I hope to continue to engage in polite, reasoned debate with those who disagree with me, and I would say that I respect the right of others to hold opinions that differ from mine (as I would hope those who disagree with me would respect my opinions and grant me the right of civilized debate).
I can sort of understand where you're coming from,looking at statistics,mortality rates and things like that are quite appalling to look at,but on the other hand, anything before the year 2000,for me,is often disregarded. Husbandry in the past was absolute crap. It took them almost 20 years to be able to successfully produce a calf, Kalina. It is also not uncommon to look through lists of deceased orcas and notice just how many died only a couple of months after arrival,which is disturbing. Of course,now, death is not an extremely rare event,but when exactly was the last orca death at SeaWorld? (genuine question,it seems like it was Kalina,which would make it 5 years)
As for natural breeding,I don't believe SeaWorld facilitates it. They've said before they mostly try to avoid mating between two orcas in the same pod. However they did also a.i. Kalia with Ulises after noticing them mating naturally,so it does look like it still happens. As for movement of whales, my theory is that that's why a.i. is used so frequently now. Why move an entire orca,and risk stressing the animal out greatly,when you could just move its sperm? From what I can see,orcas being moved from park to park isn't nearly as common as it once was. I can't find the most recent movement,but it looks like it may have been Keet? You said you were bothered by breeding to keep the population strong,but I disagree. You're right,it doesn't exactly serve a conservation or research purpose,but neither does breeding in most species at zoos,however right now, Amaya,a calf at SeaWorld, is being used for NOAA research, so they may not be bred specifically for research,but they are occasionally used for it. As for using it to keep the populations strong,I don't find that to be a problem. I've noticed many people have criticized SeaWorld for their groups being far too small (San Antonio only has 6 orcas,Orlando only has 7 at the time being),so now that group sizes are increasing, I feel it may actually end up being beneficial.
By the way,don't worry about your spelling and grammar. I've noticed no glaring issues,and anyone who criticizes either in a debate greatly weakens their side. It is nice to engage in this sort of debate civilly,without anyone resorting to various insults though. It's rather refreshing.
Thanks for the response. To address a few of your points:
Yes, husbandry is better now than it was 20 years ago. I think all would agree with that. I just don't feel that husbandry is at the point that, with today's knowledge, we can justify continuing to keep orcas in captivity as they are kept today, and that is even if we take out the performances and various troubling practices that are the subject of allegations against Sea World. One of the issues I have is with Sea World's allegations that whales in captivity live as long as they do in the wild - this is simply not a fact that Sea World can prove, even in studies by its own scientists. Sea World points to this as a reason to support its continued captive breeding program, but the argument is faulty. Furthermore, to my mind, even if Sea World were to prove that its orcas do have the same life expectancy as wild animals, it would not establish that there is any quality to that life. Whales that in the wild spend most of their time submerged instead often lie motionless on the surface - and this comes from personal observation of two years working right next to the whales' holding - to the point that whales have died from mosquito-born diseases?
As for the issue with continued breeding, I'm not sure where your argument is coming from. You originally stated that you weren't sure how Sea World could stop breeding from taking place (while noting that much of the breeding that does occur is a result of a.i.); I noted that if they wanted to stop breeding, they could cease a.i. and use husbandry proceedings that did not allow (or certainly did not encourage) natural breeding. In that past, Sea World has moved animals to encourage natural breeding - that practice seems to have stopped, but only because Sea World is now using a.i. My argument has been that Sea World is actively encouraging breeding, and I don't think that should continue. If anything, Sea World's current practice is more troubling because it represents a use of extraordinary measures to artificially increase the captive population for no reason beyond profit. I understand your argument that more captive whales means more larger, more natural social groupings of whales, but nothing in Sea World's past behavior suggests that much concern about natural, larger groupings and much suggests an attempt to maintain a captive population when there is little hope of continuing to augment the number of orcas from the wild.
As for the comparison to other species, I feel the comparison is not apt. Can you name another species which is maintain in captivity for which expensive artificial insemination and other extraordinary measures are taken to insure captive breeding when there is no reason to do so for either conservation (in the case of endangered species) or research (in terms of, for example, a.i. and other procedures tried on common species in the hopes of extending their use to other, more endangered species)? I can't think of another example of this happening. There is not sufficient genetic diversity in the captive population to maintain a genetically healthy population of captive orcas in the long term (not to mention the fact that the population is managed without regard to the origin of the whales). There are no similar species to the orca for which the same techniques could (or would) be used in captive breeding. The only reason the breeding is occurring is to keep the population of orcas to continue to cash-generating orca shows for which Sea World is known. This, in the end, is my problem. Sea World is a corporation, and while I do not doubt that many of the individuals working for Sea World care greatly for the animals in its care, the corporation is, at heart, concerned with the bottom line (and must be if it is to survive as a corporation). The decision to enlarge and improve the whales' exhibits was taken only after Sea World's stock had plunged dramatically due to the effects of Blackfish. It's hard to see that decision as anything more than an attempt at damage control (and it remains to be seen if it will succeed). Maybe the ultimate design of the project will prove me wrong and Sea World really will revolutionize the keeping of captive orcas to address many of the concerns I and many others have. Maybe Sea World will find a way to maintain adult males without collapsed dorsal fins (and will no longer attempt to evade or sidestep those who levy this charge against the company), to maintain whales in healthy social groupings that avoid the problems of aggression and unnatural social behavior that have been documented in some whales, to otherwise counter some of the allegations that have been levied by numerous people. I know Sea World could never satisfy PETA or other zealous anti-captivity people or groups, but I'm sure there are many others like me who are not averse to orca captivity on principle but merely as currently practiced.
I do agree that orca captivity is not what it could be,but we've been at it for a very short time. 50 years? How long have we been keeping elephants in captivity? Or gorillas,both animals considered similarly intelligent to orcas? And let's look at just how long it took us to stop putting them in cages of steel and concrete until we finally reached the exhibits we have today? In my opinion,it seems like improvements on orca captivity are being made a little faster than improvements were made with other species,however different challenges have to be overcome with cetaceans.
Regarding breeding, a large percentage of zoo species hold neither conservation nor research value. Breeding programs for non-endangered animals honestly serve almost no purpose,aside from stocking zoos with crowd pleasers like giraffes and zebras,and of course educational value. We all know those animals aren't going to be sent to Africa to bolster wild populations,and even endangered animals bred at zoos most likely would never see the wild,but we at ZooChat enjoy them just the same,so I really don't find the breeding to be an issue. In a perfect world SeaWorld could breed orcas in the same park indefinitely without having to worry about genetics,however this isn't a perfect world,and the options are limited. They could either moving animals for breeding purposes,which most zoos do, but it would result in stress and likely is bad for the animal's overall well-being. The other option is a.i. Between the two realistic options,I'd prefer they continue to use a.i.
Overall,we've still got a lot to learn about how to keep these animals in captivity. Dorsal collapse,as you mentioned, is an issue,as it is known to occur both in the wild and in captivity,but nobody can seem to agree on why it happens. I've heard reasons from lack of exercise,to genetics, all the way to depression being listed,but no explanations for this reasoning was given. All anyone can seem to agree on is that it occurs more in captivity than in the wild,and it's more prevalent in some parks than others (I've heard quite a few people say that dorsal collapse is less common at San Diego than Orlando or San Antonio). You also mentioned them floating on the surface not moving. In about 10 years of going to SeaWorld San Diego,I've really only noticed this a couple of times,so I can't really comment on that,however I've seen many species in zoos just sit or stand in one place without moving (elephants especially). I think animals not doing anything is more of a zoological problem in general than a strictly SeaWorld problem,but I don't think it should be excused,I think something should be found to occupy their time.
Again,I very much appreciate the civility,and the openness to change you've exhibited. It seems like everyone else currently on the anti-cap side is completely closed off to change,and that anything short of an entire ocean would continue to anger them. It's nice to find someone reasonable.
I also appreciate the civility. It's nice to have a sensible debate, and to hear some points intelligently made by a reasonable person. I'm the first to admit that my views change over time and I don't expect them to be fixed, so I relish the opportunity to challenge them.
As to the breeding, the issue I raise is NOT that zoos are not breeding common species with little to no conservation or research background, but that zoos are not engaging in costly a.i. or other methods to increase populations of species like those being used by Sea World to maintain orca populations. Yes, a.i. may be more feasible than transfer of individuals, but the extreme expense of either approach (and the effort of Sea World to prop up the breeding of a species) seems only to be carried out with the ultimate goal of profit in mind. That's my problem. If Sea World was concerned with the whale's well-being solely, then the expense of a.i. and the necessary training, equipment, etc. needed to engage in the practice (or the extreme cost of transporting animals between institutions) would not be necessary. Sea World has made the choice to artificially bolster breeding at great expense in order to maintain a population of a species that is no longer available from the wild in order to fatten its coffers. That is the problem I have. Even if only a small portion of the claims made by John Hargrove and others are true (and I by no means accept all of the claims made by him or others), it's hard not to see Sea World breeding program as motivated by anything outside of concern for profit.
As to dorsal fin collapse, merely noting that it is more common in captivity than in the wild (and that it is more common in some facilities than in others) is a bit understating it. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but there is much, much higher incidence of this problem in captive whales, and Sea World has done much to underplay, deny, or otherwise cloud this. As for the instance of whales hanging around on the surface, I used this solely because not only is it an example of stereotypical behavior, but it can lead to unnatural health problems in the whales. I find stereotypical behavior in captive animals to be troubling in all cases and species, but the mere fact that it is present in other species at some institutions does not excuse it at Sea World. But I am especially troubled by these behaviors in such mentally advanced and social animals as orcas are (and yes, the same holds true for elephants - I'm also a strong critic of how elephants are kept in many zoos, though I'm encouraged by the progress zoos have made). From all I've read, experienced, and seen, orcas in captivity are so limited in their ability to engage in natural behavior that continuing to keep them in captivity seems wrong to me.
Thanks for the continued debate. I always enjoy being challenged in my own beliefs, as it forces me to examine the reasons underlying them.
azcheetah2
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but one visit to Sea World and she's an expert? In my opinion, if you've never been to any of the Sea World parks and just nod along with whatever PETA and their cronies say, you're beyond ignorant. I always find it interesting how not a single anti-Sea World person has taken me up on my offer to show proof that PETA and Blackfish have lied repeatedly about Sea World. They choose to ccontinue to believe the crap Blackfish has said instead of taking me up on my offer to show photographic proof and ontinue to live in ignorance. Do I think Sea World is perfect? Not by a long shot. But it's nowhere near as PETA and Blackfish want you to believe.
Who exactly are you responding to? Although I have clearly stated that I do not believe Sea World (or any other organization) should continue its orca program once its current whales die and should cease captive breeding, I have been to Sea World parks uncountable times. And while I have seen Blackfish and read John Hargrove's book, I've also seen much evidence discounting some of the information from both; I've also visited many websites and read other arguments both for and against Sea World and its orcas. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but from all I've seen, the middle in this case suggests that Sea World should discontinue breeding orcas and phase out its program. I wouldn't necessarily consider myself to be an "anti-Sea World person," but I do disagree with Sea World's practices in many instances, particularly as they involve orcas.
@jibster: I don't wanna be offense, but allow myself some questions and remarks to your quotes and opinions:
1. You wrote that you don't want/like orcas in captivity (at least at the moment). But feelings are not facts.
2. You brought up the point, that the tanks are not an adequate surrogate for the ocean. Although I'm agree simply because no artificial exhibit can replace a nature environment (but can accept those surrogates), I must ask: What about birds in captivity: Do you "feel" as uncomfortable with them as with orcas? Specially when you keep in mind that many (like cranes, ducks etc.) are exhibited with cutted wings/feathers? What about migrating land mammals? What about tropical coral reef fishes, whom the most are taken from the wild?
3. Orcas had a bad reputation until, say the 70ies/80ies. Now, most people like them. What do you think is the reason for that change? Exactly: Marineparks like SeaWorld showing Orcas as animals and not as monsters. The individuals in captivity are very important ambassadors for their kind in the wild. So I think those parks have really a right to exist and a right - or rather - an obligation to exhibit orcas and other cetaceans.
But this fact doesn't mean that everything ref. keeping these animals is okay. Continous improvements are necessary (so in this point absolutely agree). But give them the chance to do so.
4. Ref. the way of presenting orcas, I also saw a change from educational presentations to a bare entertainment during the last 20 years or so. This is the wrong way in my opinion too. Also, the marineparks should point out in their shows the "wild side" of the orcas. As I wrote, they are not monsters, but they are also not cuddly pets. Why not demonstrate, how an orca is hunting a(n artificial) seal on an (artificial) ice floe?
1. You wrote that you don't want/like orcas in captivity (at least at the moment). But feelings are not facts.
2. You brought up the point, that the tanks are not an adequate surrogate for the ocean. Although I'm agree simply because no artificial exhibit can replace a nature environment (but can accept those surrogates), I must ask: What about birds in captivity: Do you "feel" as uncomfortable with them as with orcas? Specially when you keep in mind that many (like cranes, ducks etc.) are exhibited with cutted wings/feathers? What about migrating land mammals? What about tropical coral reef fishes, whom the most are taken from the wild?
3. Orcas had a bad reputation until, say the 70ies/80ies. Now, most people like them. What do you think is the reason for that change? Exactly: Marineparks like SeaWorld showing Orcas as animals and not as monsters. The individuals in captivity are very important ambassadors for their kind in the wild. So I think those parks have really a right to exist and a right - or rather - an obligation to exhibit orcas and other cetaceans.
But this fact doesn't mean that everything ref. keeping these animals is okay. Continous improvements are necessary (so in this point absolutely agree). But give them the chance to do so.
4. Ref. the way of presenting orcas, I also saw a change from educational presentations to a bare entertainment during the last 20 years or so. This is the wrong way in my opinion too. Also, the marineparks should point out in their shows the "wild side" of the orcas. As I wrote, they are not monsters, but they are also not cuddly pets. Why not demonstrate, how an orca is hunting a(n artificial) seal on an (artificial) ice floe?
To address your points:
1: I specifically chose to address my feelings, but they are based on facts. I don't think I could ever say it's a "fact" that orcas should not be kept in captivity, not could anyone say it's a fact that they should be. You obviously feel that orcas should be kept in captivity, but that's no more a feeling than mine is. Merely because something is an opinion does not invalidate it, particularly if there are hard facts backing it up.
2. The difference between orcas and these other species, in most cases, is the intelligence and detailed social structure of orcas. I do not approve of all of the examples you give, but this does not invalidate my point. Orcas are different, and the exhibits which they are kept (and the way in which they are kept) differ greatly. I do not have a bias that all animals must be "free"; for that matter, I don't have an inherent problem with tanks for marine animals. I do have a problem with the tanks in which Sea World keeps orcas, and the way in which they are kept.
3. I think it's far oversimplifying to state the marine parks like Sea World are the sole reason that orcas have a different impression today. And I take issue with your statement that marine parks (or indeed any zoo, aquarium, or other institution that might choose to hold animals) has any "obligation" to exist, particularly if the conditions in which animals are kept are not up to par. Many species of animal are misunderstood - zoos are not under any obligation to hold these animals to correct any misunderstandings. I would agree that zoos would do well to attempt to correct any misunderstandings surrounding animals which they do have in their care, but there is no obligation on any institution to hold any type of animal in order to educate the public. There are many species of animal which cannot or will not be kept in captivity - I believe that, at present, orcas should be counted among those species.
4: I agree with you on this point entirely. If orcas are to be kept in captivity and if they are to perform shows for guests, the only way I could see justifying such shows is if they are educational. Water work with orcas - how was that ever justified as educational? It was all performance - impressive performance (and one I enjoyed when I was younger), but how does that serve educational purposes? Sea World does not hold whales solely (or even primarily) for the purpose of education - Sea World is a for-profit company, and it exists to make money for its shareholders. That's not to say that it does not educate many people in many ways, but if education were Sea World's sole purpose, why is it a for-profit corporation? I have the same problem with circus acts, which is essentially what these orca shows currently amount to.
I have appreciated the opportunity to discuss this issue rationally in this thread, and I have found myself having to carefully consider some issues that I haven't before, but ultimately, I still come down against Sea World on this issue at this time. This is not to say that there is no way of humanely holding orcas in captivity, but simply to say that the way orcas are currently being held and managed by Sea World (and every other marine park I know of) is unjustifiable in my mind.
First, thanks for your reply. I really appreciate it.
To 1: Okay, the mines are also based on facts. So we're agree that we have different "feelings" in this case.
To 2: Please don't bring up the "intelligence" term. This is a human term. Every species has the skills/the "intelligence" it needs to survive. Beside that: Who says what is enough "intelligence" so that an animal should not be kept in captivity. Who is able/has the right to draw the line. The social structure can be a valid point instead, although - afaik - it is not enough investigated to judge (Maybe you have more informations in that point).
And yes, orcas are different. As birds are. And like the exhibits of orcas also bird exhibits differ greatly.
to 3.: Of course not the sole reason, but an important reason. At least more then movies like "Orca" (1977), who shows the male as a vengeful animal.
I must confess that "obligation" was not the best term. I appologize. I agree with the first part of your phrase ("I would agree that zoos would do well to attempt to correct any misunderstandings surrounding animals which they do have in their care"), while the second part I don't. Zoological institutions must also be educational, specially because they show living "material", while museums, movies and books only show death "material" that has not the same educational effect. When you think of an elephant, you don't think of one in the books, you think of one you have seen in person first (except you have never seen one live of course).
And as I wrote here and in other chats: EVERY animal CAN be kept in captivity. Its just a matter of financial efforts and space.
to 4: So we are agree in this point. I would also "feel" better if SeaWorld would be a non-profit organisation.
I respect your opinion absolutely. I just miss the typical American spirit ("Yes, we can. Lets make it running") and hear (or read) more the typical Swiss (I can write that, I'm Swiss) in your post. Means: "No, this will never work, we should stop that". Give your efforts to improve it, not to stop it!
To 1: Okay, the mines are also based on facts. So we're agree that we have different "feelings" in this case.
To 2: Please don't bring up the "intelligence" term. This is a human term. Every species has the skills/the "intelligence" it needs to survive. Beside that: Who says what is enough "intelligence" so that an animal should not be kept in captivity. Who is able/has the right to draw the line. The social structure can be a valid point instead, although - afaik - it is not enough investigated to judge (Maybe you have more informations in that point).
And yes, orcas are different. As birds are. And like the exhibits of orcas also bird exhibits differ greatly.
to 3.: Of course not the sole reason, but an important reason. At least more then movies like "Orca" (1977), who shows the male as a vengeful animal.
I must confess that "obligation" was not the best term. I appologize. I agree with the first part of your phrase ("I would agree that zoos would do well to attempt to correct any misunderstandings surrounding animals which they do have in their care"), while the second part I don't. Zoological institutions must also be educational, specially because they show living "material", while museums, movies and books only show death "material" that has not the same educational effect. When you think of an elephant, you don't think of one in the books, you think of one you have seen in person first (except you have never seen one live of course).
And as I wrote here and in other chats: EVERY animal CAN be kept in captivity. Its just a matter of financial efforts and space.
to 4: So we are agree in this point. I would also "feel" better if SeaWorld would be a non-profit organisation.
I respect your opinion absolutely. I just miss the typical American spirit ("Yes, we can. Lets make it running") and hear (or read) more the typical Swiss (I can write that, I'm Swiss) in your post. Means: "No, this will never work, we should stop that". Give your efforts to improve it, not to stop it!
Last edited:
First, thanks for your reply. I really appreciate it.
To 1: Okay, the mines are also based on facts. So we're agree that we have different "feelings" in this case.
To 2: Please don't bring up the "intelligence" term. This is a human term. Every species has the skills/the "intelligence" it needs to survive. Beside that: Who says what is enough "intelligence" so that an animal should not be kept in captivity. Who is able/has the right to draw the line. The social structure can be a valid point instead, although - afaik - it is not enough investigated to judge (Maybe you have more informations in that point).
And yes, orcas are different. As birds are. And like the exhibits of orcas also bird exhibits differ greatly.
to 3.: Of course not the sole reason, but an important reason. At least more then movies like "Orca" (1977), who shows the male as a vengeful animal.
I must confess that "obligation" was not the best term. I appologize. I agree with the first part of your phrase ("I would agree that zoos would do well to attempt to correct any misunderstandings surrounding animals which they do have in their care"), while the second part I don't. Zoological institutions must also be educational, specially because they show living "material", while museums, movies and books only show death "material" that has not the same educational effect. When you think of an elephant, you don't think of one in the books, you think of one you have seen in person first (except you have never seen one live of course).
And as I wrote here and in other chats: EVERY animal CAN be kept in captivity. Its just a matter of financial efforts and space.
to 4: So we are agree in this point. I would also "feel" better if SeaWorld would be a non-profit organisation.
I respect your opinion absolutely. I just miss the typical American spirit ("Yes, we can. Lets make it running") and hear (or read) more the typical Swiss (I can write that, I'm Swiss) in your post. Means: "No, this will never work, we should stop that". Give your efforts to improve it, not to stop it!
Thanks for the respectful post. I'm about to put this topic to bed (not my topic in the first place; much of the language from the original poster and first respondents is the perfect example of why it can be so frustrating to even tackle this subject on a discussion board)...at least for the time being.
As to your points, "intelligence" is indeed not the correct term, at least not in the usual terms used. However, I stand by my assertion that the brain size and structure of orcas makes them different from birds and most other species of animal (including most other mammals). I still don't agree that there is any "obligation" for zoos to hold any particular species, but I think we're mostly talking about semantics. I don't think any zoo should hold a species, even for educational value, if that species' needs cannot be met (I venture to say that we agree on this point as well). I suspect the only place we disagree here is on specifically how well orcas needs are met while they are in captivity. As you have pointed out, things could improve. My fear is that for the funds available, any changes will be insufficient to result in a suitable life for captive orcas. Nonprofit organizations are not likely to have (or be willing to spend) the funds on a species that is not currently endangered and has so many difficult-to-meet needs, not to mention a species that cannot be sourced from the wild (at least in the foreseeable future). To my mind, Sea World has yet to show that it is willing to outlay the funds necessary to improve their exhibitry and husbandry. Perhaps their new orca enclosures will improve some things, but a better exhibit without improved husbandry would not, to my mind, be enough.
As to your argument that every species CAN be kept in captivity, I would agree, but I don't think that's the sole issue. The question I'm asking is where a species SHOULD be kept in captivity. I think most zoos would agree that many species, for many different reasons, should not be kept in captivity even if they could be. It is my contention that orcas should not be kept in captivity as they are now, given current technology, exhibitry, and our current knowledge about orcas. I don't think, given space and financial concerns, Sea World (or any other organization) could meet orcas' needs, and even if it could, I think those funds are best spent elsewhere.
Finally (and please take this in the light-hearted spirit it's intended - I'm not trying to start a cross-cultural political war...ha), I take it as a badge of honor that you don't see my attitude as typical American. While I love my country (most of the time), I think too often we Americans are too concerned with what we can do to ever stop and consider whether we should do it.
Thanks, all, for the interesting discussion on this issue. I think I'll be going back to the "boring" threads about my local zoo and other less controversial topics....
Azcheetah2 was talking about the woman who wrote the article ("I'm sorry, but one visit to Sea World and she's an expert?" etc).
I disagree. Orcas show neuroanatomical adaptions to their habitat and activities (such as echolocation), just like other cetacea. Brain size/volume is not necessarily a doubtless sign of higher "intelligence" or uniqueness, and the brain-to-body size ratio isn't a 100% foolproof indicator; neither is the EQ. Orcas ARE smart (from a human point of view, which is hardly ever objective) and highly social animals. Yet so are corvidae or parrots, for example, which are again and again surprising us with unexpected feats, may it be toolmaking and tool use or deliberate accoustic mimicry. Nevertheless, I haven't seen anyone protesting against the husbandry of corvidae or parrots (expect for the usual animal right activists, who are opposed to any animal husbandry) or demanding the improvement of their husbandry (which is in many cases still on the same level as decades ago). We're only bit by bit discovering the diversity of natural "intelligence" and plurality of neuronal anatomy, as illustrated by current research on the avian nidopallium or cephalopodean mental feats. Therefore, I wouldn't consider higher mental capacities in a species as a criterion for exclusion of husbandry, but rather as another factor to be incoperated when keeping the species adaequately.
Very interesting indeed. Perhaps that is why monkeyarmy left and began another thread seemingly meant to rile people up. Zoomaniac brought up that SeaWorld has an obligation to keep their orcas,and even though he took back that statement,they do have an obligation for different reasons. jibster,you mentioned SeaWorld is not obligated to keep their orcas,but at this point they essentially are. Nothing can be done with these animals. The NOAA rules out release,and at the moment,no other zoological facility in North America is equipped to handle orcas,and even if millions were spent for brand new exhibits for SeaWorld's orcas,that negative press would then be transferred to those facilities,and nobody wants that burden. SeaWorld isn't only obligated, they're stuck. The only thing they can do is improve the quality of life on these animals and hope for the best. As for intelligence being measured by brain size,Batto used the exact response I would've used. Crows and corvids in general are considered extremely intelligent,as are African Grey parrots. If intelligence was reliably measured by brain size,these animals would be quite primitive,so I'd dismiss the argument that orcas are intelligent by the size of their brains,and intelligence itself is a hard thing to measure as others have said.
Shellheart - I agree with you that Sea World does have an obligation to keep the orcas it currently has, as I cannot see any way in which reintroductions to the wild could be carried out (and, it they were, it would certainly not be good for the whales). I do not at all advocate release of the whales, and the "sea pens" that have been suggested by some are of dubious practicality at present (though anyone committed to the future of cetaceans in captivity might do well to put some money towards innovative solutions, which a workable "sea pen" might be). The trouble I have is that Sea World is going to lengths which can only be seen as extraordinary to expand the captive population of a species for which captive breeding has little conservation or research priority (but ludicrous profit potential).
As to the brain size/development, I know there are other species with developed brains (I hadn't even been thinking about crows, though I had thought about parrots). To (briefly) tread into some dangerous water, I think what persuades me is the way the orcas have put their natural gifts to use in captivity, through the documented intra- and inter- species aggression and anti-social and unnatural harmful behavior. In the end, the one things that continues to trouble me most is that the whales are being used simply to create profit - while I don't doubt that there are many trainers, vets, and others who view the whales' welfare as their primary concern, I have seen all together too much evidence that Sea World is less concerned with the overall welfare of its charges than with its continued ability to milk its cash cow. But I think (hope) we can agree to disagree....
Thanks for the great discussion.
Inter- and intraspecific aggression as well as antisocial and unnatural harmful behaviour occurs in many if not all species in captivity whenever not all needs are met (and sometimes even if; some animals can be scumbags and idiots, too...). The aim of a good husbandry is to limit such negative occurances to a minimum, if completely preventing them isn't an option. As for creating profit: if we're brutally honest here, pretty much all animals in zoos are kept for profit. Hey, many species in national parks, preservations etc. all over the world are actually kept alive because they deliver a profit, in one way or another (may it be tourism, studying objects for scientists, hunting trophies...) And I honestly fail to see why training orcas is any different to training, say, a cockatoo to perform tricks, if the animal in questions enjoys doing so. Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of silly theatratical animal shows that demean both animal & human and lead to stress and death. I just think that we should be careful not to fall for favouring one species for another on the basis on mere anthropic, emotional criteria.
I keep saying I'm going to stop watching this thread, but a few points...
In what way are most animals held in zoos kept for profit? There may be money made, but the difference between a non-profit organzation and a for-profit corporation are quite significant. Most accredited zoos are not beholden to shareholders (as I say this, I realize the same is probably not true of aquaria - anyone know?). I would venture to say that most zoos are money-losing propositions, with money made only partially offsetting the costs of maintaining the collection. But Sea World manages its orcas (and its employees) as a corporation, with an eye to the bottom line. I do not think the whale's best interest is first and foremost in its consideration.
I do not favor whales over other species due to anthropic, emotional criteria. It's quite simply the facts behind their captivity that has led me to my position. Yes, there is antisocial and aggressive behavior among other species in captivity and in the wild - but to the same extent as in orcas? More importantly, what has Sea World done to alleviate such behavior?
Orcas in captivity are a special case, in the needs they have (relative to their size, strength, habits, etc.), the way those needs have been met in captivity, and the way that they are managed in captivity. Yes, we all can fall into pitfalls of using anthropic, emotional criteria (you, for instance, said that you see no difference between training a cockatoo and an orca "if the animal in question enjoys doing so"), but to my mind, with the numerous concerns related to orcas specifically (many of which do not apply to other species held in captivity) and their treatment at Sea World in particular, maintenance of orcas in captivity (after the ones held die out) should not continue. Yes, it's a value-based judgment, and I recognize that others can come out differently with respect to this issue (hence my willingness and hopefully my openness to question and debate - I know that I am not the only one who has conflicted (at the very least) feelings about orcas in captivity who frequents this site).
For the time being though, I really do want to set this issue aside and agree to disagree. I'm not so passionately set in my ways that I want this thread to be my sole contribution to this community, nor do I have the time or resources to engage more fully in this debate at present (at least not at the level of debate that I would want - I spend enough time as a lawyer building carefully researched and exhaustively cited arguments and, at present, do not have the inclination to do so here).
I've mostly been staying out of this discussion, but I have to say I am rather pleased about how it has got past a rough beginning and become a reasoned and civil discussion on the topic of keeping orcas in captivity 
To throw a little side-discussion into the mix, here is some food for thought: whatever your opinions on keeping cetaceans in captivity, there *is* a clear and present need to crack their husbandry. One word: Vaquita.
From my point of view, there is *no* way this taxon is going to survive in the wild; the threats are too many and the rate of decline far too fast. Much better to take as many into captivity as possible in order to at least *attempt* captive breeding - such efforts may still fail, and the taxon may still go extinct..... but if it is doomed in the wild, even the slenderest chance of maintaining the species is worth a crack. However, such an effort is unlikely in the "post-Blackfish" backlash against keeping cetaceans in captivity; as such, zoological collections and conservation agencies should be working on how to make the prospect as viable as possible..... and fast. At the current rate of decline the Vaquita *could* be gone entirely by 2020.
To throw a little side-discussion into the mix, here is some food for thought: whatever your opinions on keeping cetaceans in captivity, there *is* a clear and present need to crack their husbandry. One word: Vaquita.
From my point of view, there is *no* way this taxon is going to survive in the wild; the threats are too many and the rate of decline far too fast. Much better to take as many into captivity as possible in order to at least *attempt* captive breeding - such efforts may still fail, and the taxon may still go extinct..... but if it is doomed in the wild, even the slenderest chance of maintaining the species is worth a crack. However, such an effort is unlikely in the "post-Blackfish" backlash against keeping cetaceans in captivity; as such, zoological collections and conservation agencies should be working on how to make the prospect as viable as possible..... and fast. At the current rate of decline the Vaquita *could* be gone entirely by 2020.