Obsessive Anti-Zoos Are A Headache

birdsandbats said:
If it has some pro-PETA propaganda, I don't trust anything it says, knowing how PETA is not afraid to straight-up lie all the time. Sam as if that book references Blackfish at any time, which is also full of complete lies and misleading editing.
Click to expand...
Well, pro-PETA seems very harsh-I guess it's more like the author's interactions with them have been positive. PETA at that time hadn't really been doing anything too outlandish and shocking that got to the public eye via news outlets, though they still had been doing some pretty stupid crap, so it's safe to assume he more or less visited the organization to get another perspective on SeaWorld after he left the company, and PETA (for obvious reasons) didn't mention any of their, *ahem*, tomfoolery. The main mention of Blackfish was his role in production, and yes, it did involve a scientist who had been studying social interactions of orcas in British Columbia for quite some time-however, I'd say PETA and other organizations have been taking advantage of her credentials as a scientist, and overall, she kind of rolls along with it-I wouldn't blame her, studying orcas as intelligent, social, humanlike beings for years and then finding out we mostly treat them horribly isn't going to make someone too pro-captivity. John Hargrove wasn't afraid to point out a few details in Blackfishes production-he wanted to do a DVD feature detailing his positive relationship with an orca called Takara, but it was rejected by the scientist-forgot her name, sorry-because it looked more like an ad for SeaWorld-but, he goes into that relationship in the book, and it's arguably much better then Blackfish, as he details a much more detailed picture about the orcas then Blackfish does, because he does it with a relatively unbiased perspective-he's had positive interactions, but he's also seen how bad captivity can be. And, really, it's pretty hard for PETA to craft a convincing lie. You can see, clear as day, if they're lying or not if you have enough knowledge on animals. I hate PETA just as much as you, don't get me wrong. That doesn't change the fact that, until I can find an orca exhibit that is genuinely good and not up to 1960s standards, I won't visit a SeaWorld park with orcas-I'll only visit the Abu Dhabi park to vote with my money and say that I'm not supportive of abusive orca exhibits.
 
Though there are some absoloute horror zoos. There are so many bad roadside zoos; outnumbering the good zoos. Some animal rights and welfare try to moderate for the better. But then there's PETA. They say they are animal rights and yet they say no kill animal shelters make there animals suffer. This is to support there 90 percent kill shelters. Usually some animal welfare and rights are good. Even healthy. But then there is PETA. Which would rather euthanize elphants then keep them in zoos or send them to sanctuaries. PETA states that zoos capture their animals and factory breed them. This has lead some of my friends to believe that zoos have conspiracy of shooting their animals and putting them in cages. Their website states all zoo animals die young. They even traumatized me as a child. Yes though some zoos cull animals which I find wrong. Not all zoos cull "surplus"(hate that word) animals. My opinion is there are more bad zoos than good. Change is needed and some zoos need to close down or improve. But the change should come from multiple perspectives. Maybe some protesters advice could be taken in. PETA though, should not be part of the change. They just want any animal in captivity(Even pitbulls and some cats) to shut down no matter how unrealistic and without reasearch. PETA is metaphorically charcoal rasins. Bitter and unadaptable.

Here's a post they gave last year: "PETA will always vigorously defend animals and do everything we can to end speciesism, even if naysayers think we're “bad"". A sign of non adaptability and violence.
One side note: Some species just don't belong in zoos, sanctuaries or aqauriums. Rehab should be the only time those species are in captivity. But still Peta is charcoal rasins.
 
birdsandbats said:
Are we sure bad roadside zoos outnumber good zoos in the US? There's a lot of AZA zoos nowadays and while there are a lot of roadside zoos the number does seem o be going down. Plus there are plenty of non-AZA zoos that can not at all be considered roadside zoos.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think this is something anyone can be "sure" of, especially as "roadside zoo" and "good zoo" are both highly subjective terms, and there have been numerous arguments about these terms on this site before. Depending on how someone defines this terms, I suspect someone could easily make the case that there are more bad roadside zoos, or the case that there are more good zoos.
 
Goji said:
Well, pro-PETA seems very harsh-I guess it's more like the author's interactions with them have been positive. PETA at that time hadn't really been doing anything too outlandish and shocking that got to the public eye via news outlets, though they still had been doing some pretty stupid crap, so it's safe to assume he more or less visited the organization to get another perspective on SeaWorld after he left the company, and PETA (for obvious reasons) didn't mention any of their, *ahem*, tomfoolery. The main mention of Blackfish was his role in production, and yes, it did involve a scientist who had been studying social interactions of orcas in British Columbia for quite some time-however, I'd say PETA and other organizations have been taking advantage of her credentials as a scientist, and overall, she kind of rolls along with it-I wouldn't blame her, studying orcas as intelligent, social, humanlike beings for years and then finding out we mostly treat them horribly isn't going to make someone too pro-captivity. John Hargrove wasn't afraid to point out a few details in Blackfishes production-he wanted to do a DVD feature detailing his positive relationship with an orca called Takara, but it was rejected by the scientist-forgot her name, sorry-because it looked more like an ad for SeaWorld-but, he goes into that relationship in the book, and it's arguably much better then Blackfish, as he details a much more detailed picture about the orcas then Blackfish does, because he does it with a relatively unbiased perspective-he's had positive interactions, but he's also seen how bad captivity can be. And, really, it's pretty hard for PETA to craft a convincing lie. You can see, clear as day, if they're lying or not if you have enough knowledge on animals. I hate PETA just as much as you, don't get me wrong. That doesn't change the fact that, until I can find an orca exhibit that is genuinely good and not up to 1960s standards, I won't visit a SeaWorld park with orcas-I'll only visit the Abu Dhabi park to vote with my money and say that I'm not supportive of abusive orca exhibits.
Click to expand...

Anyone who says they've had positive interactions with PETA is a blind fool. They have always been doing outlandish - and criminal - things. Their goal is to end all animals in captivity, including pets.
 
antilio capra said:
Though there are some absoloute horror zoos. There are so many bad roadside zoos; outnumbering the good zoos. Some animal rights and welfare try to moderate for the better. But then there's PETA. They say they are animal rights and yet they say no kill animal shelters make there animals suffer. This is to support there 90 percent kill shelters. Usually some animal welfare and rights are good. Even healthy. But then there is PETA. Which would rather euthanize elphants then keep them in zoos or send them to sanctuaries. PETA states that zoos capture their animals and factory breed them. This has lead some of my friends to believe that zoos have conspiracy of shooting their animals and putting them in cages. Their website states all zoo animals die young. They even traumatized me as a child. Yes though some zoos cull animals which I find wrong. Not all zoos cull "surplus"(hate that word) animals. My opinion is there are more bad zoos than good. Change is needed and some zoos need to close down or improve. But the change should come from multiple perspectives. Maybe some protesters advice could be taken in. PETA though, should not be part of the change. They just want any animal in captivity(Even pitbulls and some cats) to shut down no matter how unrealistic and without reasearch. PETA is metaphorically charcoal rasins. Bitter and unadaptable.

Here's a post they gave last year: "PETA will always vigorously defend animals and do everything we can to end speciesism, even if naysayers think we're “bad"". A sign of non adaptability and violence.
One side note: Some species just don't belong in zoos, sanctuaries or aqauriums. Rehab should be the only time those species are in captivity. But still Peta is charcoal rasins.
Click to expand...
The fact you are equating "animal rights and welfare" here is concerning. Animal rights and animal welfare are not the same thing. Animal welfare is a scientific field focused on the mental and physical well-being of animals. All good zoos have animal welfare as an integral focus of all the decisions that they make. Animal rights is a philosophical position, arguing that animals share the same rights that humans have. For an "animal rights activist", putting an animal in captivity is bad not because of any scientific evidence, but because being in captivity inherently infringes on that animals' "rights". These two positions are very different and to equate them looks bad on all the good zoos and other welfare-focused organizations.
 
PossumRoach said:
It isn’t surprising at this point. They pressured biscuit/cookie manufacturers and toilet paper retailers to remove imagery of circus animals and animals in a circus setting.
Click to expand...
Next thing will be- you mustn't look at a pig/farm animal, in case its stressed by the interaction...wouldn't put it past them.
 
GaryA said:
PETA are like a bagful of rusty tools.

Useless and dangerous at the same time.

Everything they do is for publicity for their highly questionable activities.

Not one person would have a pet, let alone eat meat, if these nutters got their way.

Multiple (more) species would be extinct following their criteria.
Click to expand...
I will say this.
I agree that meat, as it exists, is one of the greatest issues which face our planet. Livestock in their billions can and do produce a lot of wasteful and harmful gases. And such a thing is exacerbated by the destruction of carbon stores in rainforests, which itself releases more CO2 into the atmosphere. And I'm not a sort of person to put a date as to when 'carbon armageddon' is going to take place, when so and so iconic landmark will be submerged, or when the last polar bear shall join the choir invisible - that never tends to work out. But we are starting to see changes as the result of a warming atmosphere.
But saying all that, I do believe in regenerative agriculture. Perhaps it is because I am not anthropocentric to the same degree as many vegans; who believe that the main reason that we don't have the right to eat meat but every other species does somehow is simply because we can comprehend pain as they can't. Though what is funny then is that of course then they are reluctant to say anything about invasive species; which themselves cause undeniable pain to all other species in the ecosystem. I believe that a compromise may well be the best thing - with regenerative agriculture, some amount of meat will still be consumed; but it won't necessarily be quite as bad as what exists now. And vegans themselves are reluctant to admit the flaws that arable farming faces today - how much water various plants need to thrive, or how monoculture itself is destructive to the environment, or how nutrients of many plants are difficult to attain if humans alone are the consumers; which is why in many cases animal flesh is a more feasible alternative. [Admittedly this point isn't a uniform one]
PETA, however, is not an organisation willing to take all of this into consideration. It has a uniform agenda. It is one of many, if the largest, political organisations which use 'animal rights' as a crutch to push a political ideal. Most of PETA's money doesn't go into what they use is their greatest marketing point; much of it goes into publicity stunts. Be it live protests, advertising campaigns, etc. And speaking of pain comprehension, one of PETA's apparent goals, the eradication of pets, is one I find intriguing to think about. I think some amount of time from now there will be some degree of restrictions regarding pets, which breeds are legal to own, how these pets can be kept. PETA however assumes the position that no pets should exist. And I think it sees its kill shelters [as that is what they are] as a way of fulfilling this ideal. And there is a river of blood which it will need to cross to fulfill this methinks.
 
Pertinax said:
... and now the animal figures on merry-go-rounds in fairgrounds it seems... riding them doesn't mirror good animal treatment...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And this is why I'm not overly concerned with PETA. While not only do no reasonable people take these ideas seriously, the more time they spend focused on fake animals the less time and energy they spend actually doing anything related to zoos, pets, etc.
dillotest0 said:
I will say this.
I agree that meat, as it exists, is one of the greatest issues which face our planet. Livestock in their billions can and do produce a lot of wasteful and harmful gases. And such a thing is exacerbated by the destruction of carbon stores in rainforests, which itself releases more CO2 into the atmosphere. And I'm not a sort of person to put a date as to when 'carbon armageddon' is going to take place, when so and so iconic landmark will be submerged, or when the last polar bear shall join the choir invisible - that never tends to work out. But we are starting to see changes as the result of a warming atmosphere.
But saying all that, I do believe in regenerative agriculture. Perhaps it is because I am not anthropocentric to the same degree as many vegans; who believe that the main reason that we don't have the right to eat meat but every other species does somehow is simply because we can comprehend pain as they can't. Though what is funny then is that of course then they are reluctant to say anything about invasive species; which themselves cause undeniable pain to all other species in the ecosystem. I believe that a compromise may well be the best thing - with regenerative agriculture, some amount of meat will still be consumed; but it won't necessarily be quite as bad as what exists now. And vegans themselves are reluctant to admit the flaws that arable farming faces today - how much water various plants need to thrive, or how monoculture itself is destructive to the environment, or how nutrients of many plants are difficult to attain if humans alone are the consumers; which is why in many cases animal flesh is a more feasible alternative. [Admittedly this point isn't a uniform one]
PETA, however, is not an organisation willing to take all of this into consideration. It has a uniform agenda. It is one of many, if the largest, political organisations which use 'animal rights' as a crutch to push a political ideal. Most of PETA's money doesn't go into what they use is their greatest marketing point; much of it goes into publicity stunts. Be it live protests, advertising campaigns, etc. And speaking of pain comprehension, one of PETA's apparent goals, the eradication of pets, is one I find intriguing to think about. I think some amount of time from now there will be some degree of restrictions regarding pets, which breeds are legal to own, how these pets can be kept. PETA however assumes the position that no pets should exist. And I think it sees its kill shelters [as that is what they are] as a way of fulfilling this ideal. And there is a river of blood which it will need to cross to fulfill this methinks.
Click to expand...
You're looking at things from a scientific perspective. It's important to understand that PETA, and similar organizations, are not. Debating the science behind PETA claims will go nowhere, because it isn't a scientific opinion, but a philosophical one. There's nothing inherently wrong with a philosophical argument, it's just a different type of worldview, but that's why PETA isn't focused on things like invasive species, regenerative agriculture, etc. To PETA, it isn't a scientific argument that makes keeping animals in captivity immoral, it's philosophically immoral to infringe on the rights of animals. Granted, I don't agree with this position, but I think it's important to frame our arguments/discussions about animal rights within this context. I'd also like to add that just because it isn't a scientific argument doesn't make it "anti-science"- the questions and arguments PETA makes by and large simply aren't scientific questions.
 
Goji said:
Technically it's not SeaWorld themselves. It's the trainers. Read the book "Beneath the Surface" by John Hargrove. While it does have some pro-PETA propaganda, it still showcases that the trainers were doing most of the loving, while SeaWorld was mainly just sitting back and counting the cash roll in, and overall making ****** decisions that drastically reduced the welfare of the orcas. The problem with orcas are their personalities. Some, like Tilikum, are excessively violent. Others are rather OK with doing things with trainers. Really the only good tank for an orca is one that has individual environments and areas for each orca-areas for introverts, extroverts, etc.
Click to expand...

I do feel like that’s a valid point, however I don’t think that tilikum was excessively violent…he was just a mistreated animal
 
Goji said:
Technically it's not SeaWorld themselves. It's the trainers. Read the book "Beneath the Surface" by John Hargrove. While it does have some pro-PETA propaganda, it still showcases that the trainers were doing most of the loving, while SeaWorld was mainly just sitting back and counting the cash roll in, and overall making ****** decisions that drastically reduced the welfare of the orcas. The problem with orcas are their personalities. Some, like Tilikum, are excessively violent. Others are rather OK with doing things with trainers. Really the only good tank for an orca is one that has individual environments and areas for each orca-areas for introverts, extroverts, etc.
Click to expand...
I know this branch of killer whale captivity discussion is off-topic, but it needs to be stated that John Hargrove is not a reliable source in any way when it comes to SeaWorld or anything to do with captive cetaceans. I would like to add though that SeaWorld has its flaws, as do many companies involved with animals, but John should never be a part of the conversation when talking about the company. During his time as a trainer, John was mainly concerned about his job position and the whales always came second. He was extremely arrogant and was known for being difficult to work with if you were one of his subordinates. John made judgments on people based on the color of their skin and has said very unkind things to coworkers. During his time at SeaWorld San Antonio, John caused an incident, leading to his demotion from Shamu to the Sea Lion & Otter Stadium. This caused him to quit his job and instead turn to his current career path of anti-captivity programs. John was an alright trainer although most whales, especially the ones at Marineland Antibes, were not the biggest fan of him. The main reason he and a couple of other trainers “spoke out” against SeaWorld is primarily based on grudges with their former employer and, in John’s case, the attention he can get from being a “whistle blower”. Lastly I would like to add that Tilikum was not an aggressive or violent whale and rather had a very rough upbringing between his capture and time at Sealand of the Pacific. It is unknown his motives behind bringing Dawn into the pool that day, but it is best not to speculate and paint either side in a bad light, as we truly can’t comprehend what happened. SeaWorld has made plenty of mistakes of course, from the past yet cruel captures etc. but it is important to look at both sides of such a complex topic that is cetacean captivity and make sure to understand where both sides are coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top