Killer whale kills trainer at seaworld!

Im currently on holiday in Orlando and was across the road from seaworld when this happened.

The eyewitness reports on the local news over here are changing by the day. We will probably never know the real story.

I can confirm seaworld started the shows again today but with no trainers getting in with the orcas, If i have chance to go back i will post about the show

Reevesie
 
What a horrible tragedy! My take on the accident is this: A wild animal did something unpredictable, and at the end of the day, that's the only real take away we can have. It doesn't mean that the practice of keeping and observing animals is wrong or evil, as many like to put it in those black and white terms.
 
John Dineley said:
I think this is rubbish regarding giving seditives. It dangerous anyway because of the way cetacean breath. More ill informed nonesense that will be filtering out from the animal rights groups of the next few months. They have nothing better to do and this is there agenda.
Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more :D

But some groups will use anything to push their case :(

At the end of the day working with Bull elephants or Bull Orca's is a RISK they are after all very large and very powerful animals
 
I think the proof is in the pudding really could a sedated whale make amazing leaps like they do? I think not! A sedated whale would be much more dangerous in my opinion anyway! to the trainers and themselves!!
 
so what is the situation at the parks now? have the shows gone back to normal or are trainers still not entering the water?
 
ANyhuis said:
Jack Hanna delivered a strong and convincing defense of Sea World (and all zoos) in a CNN clip, debating CNN's own animal rights wacko, Jane Velez Mitchell. She (JVM) used the typical anti-zoo tact of comparing zoos to prisons. Jack was relentless in defending zoos, saying "You don't know what you're talking about, Jane".
God bless Jack Hanna!
Click to expand...



couldn't disagree more.

a classic example of shallow pro-zoo rhetoric from jack hannah against what i think, was one of the more educated and well constructed arguments put forth by an animal rights campaigner.
 
phoenix said:
couldn't disagree more.

a classic example of shallow pro-zoo rhetoric from jack hannah against what i think, was one of the more educated and well constructed arguments put forth by an animal rights campaigner.
Click to expand...

Hmm, all she wanted to do was shout and interupt. Her loss of temper did not help make her arguement any more convincing. And not everyone in the USA can afford to go to south america to watch whales.
 
phoenix said:
couldn't disagree more.

a classic example of shallow pro-zoo rhetoric from jack hannah against what i think, was one of the more educated and well constructed arguments put forth by an animal rights campaigner.
Click to expand...

She kep going off point. Jack made a few good points relating to conservation efforts SeaWorld is involved in, the education value of zoos. She was constantly interrupting. He did well with what he could. The News guy clearly favoured the lady.
 
sealion said:
Hmm, all she wanted to do was shout and interupt. Her loss of temper did not help make her arguement any more convincing.
Click to expand...

really? i'd say that jack hanna wasted an aweful lot of time addressing her apparent "interruptions" without actually constructing any valid argument regarding the ethics of cetaceans in captivity. in fact he accused her of "not knowing what she was talking about" and interestingly only one person was debatably wrong.

see she was talking ethics and ethics are rather open to opinion. jack hanna stated that the "whale" likely didn't "attack" its keeper. he cited his experiences observing orcas attack sealions in patagonia as an example of how a orca really attacks prey.

unfortunately had jack hanna payed attention when he was in the valdes peninsular in patagonia (a place i have visited) he would know that the hunting method used by orcas there is unique to a single pod and the origins is well documented. its a learnt behaviour from a single animal that mastered the art and taught the method to its podmates. and since no other orcas worldwide are known to exhibit such behaviour, it unreasonable to expect an animal that was caught from any other family group, let alone in iceland on the opposite side of the world, would exhibit such behaviour. thus that method of attack is not indicative of an
orca attack and cannot rule out the behaviour of the animal at seaworld as play gone wrong.

so essentially, whilst she (i have forgotten her name) did speak aggressively - the only person who's argument i can denounce in one way or another was jack hanna's!

sealion said:
And not everyone in the USA can afford to go to south america to watch whales.
Click to expand...

too bad. keeping an animal is a privilege - not a right.

(and fortunately you don't have to leave the US to see wild killer whales)
 
Last edited:
phoenix said:
couldn't disagree more.

a classic example of shallow pro-zoo rhetoric from jack hannah against what i think, was one of the more educated and well constructed arguments put forth by an animal rights campaigner.
Click to expand...

While Jack Hanna has probably done more to put zoos in a positive light to a larger population than anyone in recent memory, I have long worried that his faux "folksy" schtick, and his consistently inaccurate grasp of the facts would taint the scientific and ethical credibility of zoos. This TV "debate" confirms my worries. The American public sees "Jungle Jack" as the voice of the zoo community, which does not bode well given the far superior intellectual firepower the anti-zoo forces can muster. But then again, there is a huge segment of our society that actually believe Sarah Palin is a viable option as a national political leader.....
 
phoenix said:
too bad. keeping an animal is a privilege - not a right.

(and fortunately you don't have to leave the US to see wild killer whales)
Click to expand...

I never said it was a right.

Maybe.....on an expensive boat trip. People seem to charge a lot for wild animal watching, and you aren't even guaranteed to see anything, hence why parks where you can be 100% sure you'll see the animal and that have added entertainments such as rollercoasters or shows etc have so much appeal to the general public. Zoos and Aquaria appeal to a much larger proportion of any population than expensive/tricky trips to far-away places to view the same animals. (I am talking about general cetaceans not just killer whales here.)
It is true that some parks do better jobs than others, but Seaworld is certainly one of the best, if not the best of it's category. Efforts should be focused on sorting out the situations of animals like Lolita at MS and dolphinariums with bad conditions such as Manati Park in the Dominican Republic.
Manati Park: http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/2f/b3/52/punta-cana.jpg

Are you saying that the same amount of people would get to see all these kinds of animals if no-one kept them in zoos? Unfortunately it would not happen.

I sit on the fence regarding cetacean captivity and I believe that the reason such places still exist is because the general public/governments feel the same way. It is not as clear-cut as it may first appear.
 
Last edited:
sealion said:
Are you saying that the same amount of people would get to see all these kinds of animals if no-one kept them in zoos? Unfortunately it would not happen.
Click to expand...

like jack hanna - you seem to be entirely missing the point. people who are against killer whales in captivity don't actually care if nobody sees them or not. and they certainly don't care if those that wish to have to pay more for the experience. (and for the record i'd be keen to actually compare the costs to be honest).
 
phoenix said:
like jack hanna - you seem to be entirely missing the point. people who are against killer whales in captivity don't actually care if nobody sees them or not. and they certainly don't care if those that wish to have to pay more for the experience. (and for the record i'd be keen to actually compare the costs to be honest).
Click to expand...

these people are obviously missing the point about why people keep them in captivity in the first place.
 
sealion said:
these people are obviously missing the point about why people keep them in captivity in the first place.
Click to expand...

no - they are arguing that the reasons for keeping them in captivity do not justify keeping them in captivity.

tell me sealion -

what have seaworld done for orca conservation?

and what evidence do you have that the orcas at seaworld are healthy and happy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top