SeaWorld To End Orca Breeding Program (latimes.com) 167
An anonymous reader writes: Amusement park operator SeaWorld Entertainment announced on Thursday that it is ending its orca breeding program. The announcement comes amid growing pressure from activists who found that whales and their trainers weren't treated properly. A 2013 documentary Blackfish cited a number of violent incidents at the amusement park. In an op-ed Joel Manby, President and CEO of SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment laid bare the details on why his company is shutting down the orca breeding program. "Customers visit our marine parks, in part, to watch orcas. But a growing number of people don't think orcas belong in human care. [...] Now we need to respond to the attitudinal change that we helped to create -- which is why SeaWorld is announcing several historic changes. This year we will end all orca breeding programs -- and because SeaWorld hasn't collected an orca from the wild in almost four decades, this will be the last generation of orcas in SeaWorld's care. [...] More than 3,000 species are endangered, and hundreds are lost every year. Americans and thoughtful people everywhere need to acknowledge these fundamental problems. SeaWorld takes seriously its responsibility to preserve marine wildlife. That's why we are partnering with the Humane Society of the United States. Together, we will work against commercial whaling and seal hunts, shark finning and ocean pollution.
in other news, 30 divers seriously injured (Score:2)
in orca condom project. film at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it's bad enough they've been mistreated, but now...they aren't even gonna let them get laid anymore?!!?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Once you go blackfish, you never go backfish.
Re: (Score:2)
That's some awful stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Together, we will work against commercial whaling and seal hunts, shark finning and ocean pollution.
I'm no environmentalist or anything but some of that stuff is truly barbaric.
Re:That's some awful stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
...that stuff is truly barbaric.
Absolutely. And for Orcas, this seems obvious to me. Animals generally should live longer in captivity than in the wild, because they're protected from predation, have a high quality diet, medical care, etc. Orcas in captivity are living half their wild life expectancy. That makes it obvious how disgusting it is.
If you think keeping zoo animals is good generally, even in that context the situation with orcas is barbaric.
Re:That's some awful stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Orcas in captivity are living half their wild life expectancy.
Multiple studies have shown that the life expectancy of orcas in captivity is roughly the same as those in the wild:
- D. P. DeMaster and J. K. Drevenak, "Survivorship patterns in three species of captive cetaceans", Marine Mammal Science 4(4): 297-311, 1988.
- T. R. Robeck, K. Willis, M. R. Scarpuzzi, and J. K. O'Brien, "Comparisons of life-history parameters between free-ranging and captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) populations for application toward species management", Journal of Mammalogy 96(5): 1055-1070, 2015.
- J. Jett and J. Ventre, "Captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) survival", Marine Mammal Science 31(4): 1362-1377, 2015.
Re:That's some awful stuff (Score:5, Informative)
That's a nice word, "roughly". We've seen 100 year old wild orcas. The orca that has currently been alive the longest in captivity is a 51 year old female, Corky.
Corky is a 51-year-old female orca at Sea World San Diego. She is the longest-held captive orca in the world and is the largest female orca in captivity. She is now the only survivor from the Northern Resident captures. Around the age of four, Corky was captured in Pender Harbor off the coast of British Columbia on December 11, 1969. From there, she went to Marineland of the Pacific and lived with three other orcas. However, the two orcas who she was captured with died after three years and she spent most of her time at Marineland with an orca bull named Orky. Corky has been pregnant seven times, resulting in four live births from 1977 to 1985 (with two failures in 1986 and 1987), none of which survived the first two months of life.
I don't know about you, but a 100% infant mortality rate sounds "roughly" higher than what you would expect in the wild. Let's go over some others who have died in captivity. "Baby Shamu II" lived for 12 days. Bingo was 31 when he died of a respiratory illness. Freya was 35 when she died of an unknown illness. During her time in captivity she had 4 stillborn calves and 1 that survived.
Gudrun was captured near Iceland in 1976 and moved to Florida in 1987. Gudrun gave birth to Taima in 1989 (Taima's father died the next year at age 20). In 1993 Gudrun gave birth again, to Nyar. Nyar was often mentally and physically ill, and Gudrun tried to drown her several times. In February of 1996 Gudrun tried to deliver another calf, but after 20 hours of labor it was dead and had to be removed with a crane, which caused bleeding in Gudrun and her dorsal fin collapsed. She swam to a gate to try to make amends with her abused daughter Nyar, and died 4 days later. Nyar died several weeks later in April at the age of 2. Her oldest daughter Taima tried to drown several of her own calves after watching her mother do that to Nyar. Taima died in 2010 following complications after another stillborn birth.
Here, you can read some more about them if you'd like [wikipedia.org]. I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not a marine biologist, but in the wild when orcas are traveling in family pods I'm pretty sure that they don't have these kinds of problems on this scale. If an animal as large as an orca with such a long gestational period had a birth survivability rate of around 90% I don't think they would last too long. And a new mother isn't going to try to drown her calves because the entire pod takes responsibility for raising the calves. Wiki reports the wild mortality rate for the first 7 months as between 35% and 50%, not 90%. Wiki also says "Captive killer whale lifespans are typically significantly shorter, usually less than 25 years; however, numerous individuals are alive in their 30s, and a few have reached their 40s." The citations are on the article. But, there's one of those words again, "typically". Just like "roughly".
What we know is this: a life in captivity is no way for an orca to live. They belong in the ocean, not in a tank. They aren't pets, they're whales. They aren't here for our amusement.
Re: That's some awful stuff (Score:2)
The main thing I get from this is that you don't understand what life expectancy means. It's the average lifespan; with some species, it may not even really reflect well what you can expect as they have a vicious bathtub curve--all species have a bathtub curve, but some have it so gradual that it isn't noticed. Others have a high mortality rate right up to where it levels off. (Do your own research for orcas, but I suspect the short answer is that most of the research wraps up with what those who know th
Re: (Score:2)
I understand what average life expectancy means, thank you. Here's my point: if we have a breeding program which causes extremely high infant mortality rates, but the survivors still live about as long as wild animals, is it really fair to ignore that infant mortality rate and just claim that they have the same life expectancy?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...that stuff is truly barbaric.
Absolutely. And for Orcas, this seems obvious to me. Animals generally should live longer in captivity than in the wild, because they're protected from predation, have a high quality diet, medical care, etc. Orcas in captivity are living half their wild life expectancy. That makes it obvious how disgusting it is.
If you think keeping zoo animals is good generally, even in that context the situation with orcas is barbaric.
I have a lot of difficulty with that short of thinking :
"The way we treat those orca are barbaric"
"Those bullfighting are barbaric"
"They live half their life expectancy"
Boo fucking hoo.
Hey big scoop, the beef of your burger are about 1½ year old (about 10% of their 15-20 years life expectancy) and we killed about 50 million of them last year. And if I had to choose between the life of a cattle (or most other animal we consume for that matter) : http://www.aussieabattoirs.com... [aussieabattoirs.com]
All living organism (plan
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From my point of view, a cattle will "amuse" a few thousand person's mouth with his meat. On the other hand, the orca from TFA amuse a few million person each fucking years. So, again from my point of view, using orca is a over 1000x time more "morally right" that using cattle for meat.
How about just not having the orcas in captivity? If you want to eat meat, fine, go eat meat, but is it really a vital necessity to keep orcas in tanks? Why do you have to choose between one or the other, which one is "more right"? How about just not fucking putting the whale in a tank by itself for 30 years? Why is not doing that not an option?
Re: (Score:2)
How about just not having the orcas in captivity? If you want to eat meat, fine, go eat meat, but is it really a vital necessity to keep orcas in tanks?Why do you have to choose between one or the other, which one is "more right"? How about just not fucking putting the whale in a tank by itself for 30 years? Why is not doing that not an option?
If I want to eat meat I'll eat meat. If I want to look at some orca I'll go to a marine park that got them. But it have nothing to do with my point.
My point is that those orca have way better condition of life that all the animal and end up on our plate. And before we should even think about making a live better for animal, we should start with the 30k children that die each day of preventable cause. As long as there's even one children to save, saving animal is immoral.
And if you dare to disagree with this
Re: (Score:2)
OK. So, until we end child starvation and things like that, we should keep animals captive in horrible conditions. Because that's moral. That's what you're saying?
I mean, how about we stop keeping animals captive, AND ALSO try and help suffering people? Why do you want to insist on being assholes to animals until every human is fed?
Re: (Score:2)
OK. So, until we end child starvation and things like that, we should keep animals captive in horrible conditions. Because that's moral. That's what you're saying?
I mean, how about owe stop keeping animals captive, AND ALSO try and help suffering people? Why do you want to insist on being assholes to animals until every human is fed?
It's a different way to say it, but yeah exactly. Any action to save an animal that could be used to save a child instead is immoral in my eye.
But I prefer my way : "Why save an animal why you could save a child instead?"
Or even better : "If you save an animal, then go explain to one of those starving child why you rater save an orca than is miserable life"
Re: (Score:2)
But I prefer my way : "Why save an animal why you could save a child instead?"
Because we locked the animal up, it's suffering because of us. It is immoral to leave them in that condition. The presence or lack of human suffering has no bearing on the morality of keeping animals captive in bad conditions.
Moreover, ending all human suffering is not a reasonable goal. It will never be achieved. There is no reason to extend unnecessary animal suffering indefinitely just because we can't end all human suffering. We should do good wherever we can, not hold out for 100% achievement of a
Re: (Score:2)
So your point is that it's better to kill a happy animal young than to kill a tortured animal young? The way you think is really tough to understand for me.
I suggest that you check your eyesight because I've never made such a claim.
I'll try to make it as simple as possible :
No matter the animal, insect, fish whatever. All animal life in my eyes worth the same. With the only exception of an animal that I've grew a bond with (like my dog). In consequence, for me dog meat is no different than pork if the animal got the same treatment.
However, animal should have :
A- Receive the painless death possible.
B- Have the most economically possible quality of life.
C- Serve
Re: (Score:2)
"As long as there's even one children to save, saving animal is immoral."
So the millions of animals that we abuse, exploit and murder each year are nothing compared to one human child. You're a real hero to the planet.
So tell me Einstein, how many animal live worth a human life in your eye? A dozen? A thousand?
How many animal do you think we consume in one lifetime?
You want to draw a line? I won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Coward. Go back to playing with your machines. And while you're at it, go read some Einstein, if you can.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello BTU_BBQ, been some time.
Still struggling finding a PCB design job in Montreal?
I'm quite sure I'll regret it but...the hell with it. Care to elaborate your point? Why I'm a coward? Why are you asking me to go play with machine? Why should I read Einstein?
Re: (Score:2)
Coward : "You want to draw a line? I won't."
An abstention to draw a line is not an abstention of opinion, it simply mean that I make a clear difference between an animal life and a human life.
But you, if you're no coward and you disagree with me, do draw a line and tell me how many animal lives worth an human one.
If you're going to drag Einstein into your pinheaded world, at least read some of what the man wrote. It might go over the point on your head, though. Not sure they teach anything more than wires and CEGEP-level math at ETS...
You're doing a little far for a simple use of Einstein name as an expression. But I'm sorry if I vexed you by using his name. And if you took the time to know me (don't worry, I'm sure you're not interested), I think you'll find me quite kno
Re: (Score:2)
So tell me Einstein, how many animal live worth a human life in your eye?
That's exactly the point. Is an animal life worth any less than a human life? You clearly believe so. Many people believe so. But is it actually true? Does a sheep, cow, or orca really have any less of a right to a happy and healthy life than you or I? [huffingtonpost.com] That's a good article, written by a man farming animals, and it touches on the struggle that we have with this idea. I highly recommend reading it. If you think it's a "save the animals" fluff piece, it's not.
As to whether or not we should help animal
Re: (Score:2)
While I think one can go overboard with animal rights, I think there is actually a difference between raising a captive (and domesticated) animal for slaughter and deliberately keeping a wild animal in a small "pen" for amusement.
In a similar fashion, I deplore murderers. But perhaps there should be a special punishment reserved for someone who would hold a person captive and torture them intermittently for an entire lifetime. Killing is one act that often happens quickly; it can thus be the result of a
Re: (Score:2)
While I think one can go overboard with animal rights, I think there is actually a difference between raising a captive (and domesticated) animal for slaughter and deliberately keeping a wild animal in a small "pen" for amusement.
Yeah, because a burger is different than an "amusement" for the mouth. We're not obligated to eat beef y'know. And as I said, that orca "amused" way more people that any animal on your plate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because a burger is different than an "amusement" for the mouth.
Uhm... really? You didn't know what happens if animals don't eat?
You're really going to go with the argument that food is optional, it is just entertainment?
Wow, that is just exceptionally daft. There are perhaps issues relating to food choices that would be relevant in other discussions, but the difference between hunting animals and torturing animals is actually really clear and stark. We can just concede that many humans eat meat and then proceed to the rest of the analysis. It isn't the sort of blocking
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because a burger is different than an "amusement" for the mouth.
Uhm... really? You didn't know what happens if animals don't eat?
You're really going to go with the argument that food is optional, it is just entertainment?
Wow, that is just exceptionally daft. There are perhaps issues relating to food choices that would be relevant in other discussions, but the difference between hunting animals and torturing animals is actually really clear and stark. We can just concede that many humans eat meat and then proceed to the rest of the analysis. It isn't the sort of blocking issue that you pretend it is.
I hope, for the sake of your education, that you experience hunger at some point in your life. You'll learn the difference between food, and amusement.
Plain wrong, I'm saying that eating "meat" is optional, difference!
I'm saying that putting animal in a cage for entertainment or putting animal in a cage for food is not much different. And if you feel that we're torturing those orca, then I'l asking you why aren't you defending those chicken that lay eggs all day too?
Re: (Score:2)
Then say that, instead of making weird and sideways arguments.
See, if you said that at the start you'd have had a chance to have a discussion about it. Now it is too late, you've already burned your bridges in this conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're not killing orcas to survive. That is just an insane justification that implies you have a serious internal moral disagreement.
Maybe it is perfectly ok to kill an orca to survive, but still barbaric to kill them for amusement? Perhaps that would solve your internal conflict.
Notice that nothing that I said about the comparison of lifespan in captivity to in the wild would leave any room for mistake that I was making a general moral argument against utilization of animal resources. You just brough
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're not killing orcas to survive. That is just an insane justification that implies you have a serious internal moral disagreement.
Quite a bold claim (and a little sad since it's from a 5 digit elder)
Maybe it is perfectly ok to kill an orca to survive, but still barbaric to kill them for amusement? Perhaps that would solve your internal conflict.
I suggest you read my comment again. Here's my point, we don't need to kill any animal to survive since we can survive on other food source than meat. So, in my point of view, using orca for amusement is no more barbaric than killing cattle at 1½ years old as a source of food.
Notice that nothing that I said about the comparison of lifespan in captivity to in the wild would leave any room for mistake that I was making a general moral a
Re: (Score:1)
Firstly, all farmed cattle have been bred to be farmed. They are similar to bovines from several thousand years ago but certainly not the same any more. Breeding will have included selection for being relatively sedentary and not needing to roam a great deal. Cattle in fields do not suffer from the kind of mental issues that afflict Orcas.
The tank for an orca is significantly smaller than the equivalent field for a cow. Tanks have got bigger but they are still
Re: (Score:2)
There are several issues with your comments.
Firstly, all farmed cattle have been bred to be farmed. They are similar to bovines from several thousand years ago but certainly not the same any more. Breeding will have included selection for being relatively sedentary and not needing to roam a great deal. Cattle in fields do not suffer from the kind of mental issues that afflict Orcas.
The tank for an orca is significantly smaller than the equivalent field for a cow. Tanks have got bigger but they are still small for a fast moving and powerful animal.
Because you think all the meat that end up in your plate had a big beautiful field to play during his lifetime? Oh my sweet summer child...
Orcas are predators, cows are not.
So your reasoning would be different if it was herbivore? Predator have more right? So it's wrong to have a lion in a zoo but giraffe are ok because, fuck them they eat fruit?
Ultimately, whilst cows do have a short life, they are generally treated quite well until the point at which they are killed.
To be honest, a comparison between the way we treat cattle and the way we treat orcas is not great as they are really quite different animals.
Let me ask you this single qu
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to watch orca's to live, but you kinda' need to eat.
Sorry your so freakin' pissed.
If you took the time to read my fucking comment, you'll have found that :
We don't "need" to eat meat. It's a luxury. There's enough vegan in the world to prove it.
That orca served way, WAY more people that the cattle of your burger.
Please go back to facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
There's enough vegetarians in the world to prove it.
FTFY. Healthy vegan diets need to be planned very carefully, and only relatively affluent people can typically manage it. Vegetarianism is much more realistic for most of the world.
Re: That's some awful stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
Vegans and vegetarians can only exist in a society of carnivores (well, omnivores). Alone, the veggies would fail.
The primary benefit of eating meat is the nutritional density. A but of beef provides more energy than all the kale you can eat.
How many vegans do you know with physically or mentally demanding jobs? How many builders, roofers, personal trainers? How many professors, neural surgeons, aerospace engineers? Not many, I'd wager. And the few that exist require extreme dedication and nutritional study to keep it up.
If you want to live a veggie/vegan life, go ahead. It's certainly your right to do so. But don't act as though the whole world could live like that.
Re: That's some awful stuff (Score:4, Informative)
A 4 oz Beef Ribeye Steak has 280 calories.
4 oz (dry) of White Rice has 448 calories.
Olympic athletes all "carb-load", they do NOT meat-load. And dare I mention Sumo wrestlers? The vast majority of their calories come from rice, with a little bit of meat really only for flavor.
With a diet of rice, potatoes, beans, pasta, etc., it's quite easy to be physically fit without eating any meat, and no high-tech dietary studies or supplements are required.
In fact, there's a huge number of major athletes who are strict vegans:
Mirco Bergamasco Rugby player Italy
Brendan Brazier Ironman triathlete Canada
Luke Cummo MMA Fighter United States
Mac Danzig MMA Fighter United States
Steph Davis Rock climber United States
Amy Dumas Wrestler United States
Jon Fitch MMA Fighter United States
David Haye Boxer United Kingdom
Eric Johnson NFL football player United States
Scott Jurek ultramarathoner United States
Jim Morris Bodybuilder United States
Pat Neshek Baseball player United States
Jake Shields MMA Fighter United States
Christine Vardaros Professional cyclist United States
Alexey Voyevoda Bobsledder Russia
Griff Whalen NFL football player United States
James Wilks MMA Fighter United States
Ricky Williams NFL football player United States
Mike Zigomanis Ice hockey player Canada
And last but not least:
Carl Lews Track and field athlete, who won 10 Olympic medals, nine gold, and 10 World Championships medals, eight gold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The fact that your comment got modded-up so highly, despite you clearly not doing one web search for "vegan athlete" to try and verify the veracity of your baseless world view, is a clear sign of how far /. has fallen into irrelevancy and worthlessness.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vega... [duckduckgo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hiya
I thought of suggesting that if you want to see personal trainers and actual athletes who choose to eat vegan diets, you can easily find them (usually preaching vegan goodness) on Instagram. Tags like: #veganathlete and #veganbobybuilding are obvious starting points.
This is to say that people with strenuous physical activity in their jobs or otherwise can carry on doing so with vegetable based food, it will just be bulkier (like you said) and have more fibre, which is not a terrible thing for 1st-world-
Re: (Score:2)
Vegans and vegetarians can only exist in a society of carnivores (well, omnivores). Alone, the veggies would fail.
The primary benefit of eating meat is the nutritional density. A but of beef provides more energy than all the kale you can eat.
How many vegans do you know with physically or mentally demanding jobs? How many builders, roofers, personal trainers? How many professors, neural surgeons, aerospace engineers? Not many, I'd wager. And the few that exist require extreme dedication and nutritional study to keep it up.
If you want to live a veggie/vegan life, go ahead. It's certainly your right to do so. But don't act as though the whole world could live like that.
No way I'll ever be vegan, that was not my point.
My point is that anyone who's OK with eating meat should be OK with zoo and using animal as a divertissent because, in my opinion, orca are more efficiently exploited and cattle.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need the internet either, but you have it. We don't need a nice house, do you live in one? Do you live in the field in the wild with only the exact amount of nutrients you need to live?
Oh, you don't? Go back to Twitter and make a hashtag to those Unicef kids you 'care' about.
?!?!?!?
I fail to see your point
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really balance things well.
1.5 years old cattle gets a (hopefully) quick death, doesn't realize much of what's happening to it.
Orcas on the other hand get to live a long torturous isolation-like life.
If you had to choose, would you go for execution squad or life-time isolation?
Yeah because a cattle live a in a luxury yacht for that 1.5 year.
Please think before you post.
Re: (Score:2)
If you did to the cattle what you did to the orcas, the beef would be absolute garbage. Nobody is against eating beef, people are just wondering why we're making other kinds of life suffer so we can get a look at them.
Why are you so upset that people care about life? Humans are capable of thinking about more than one thing at once, why can a person not give to Unicef AND not support torture? Don't you maybe think that having empathy towards one being might translate towards others?
You really are angry about something but I'm not sure what it is... the 'animal rights' stuff just triggers it.
Are you stupid or you really think cattle live in a princess castle or something?
Let me tell you something.
I'm fucking pissed of all those video about saving animal and all the "fame" they receive.
Look at that video of someone saving a starving child : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It's one of the most popular of youtube of that type and it got only 8566 view.
Eight Fucking thousand View. Even my cheap video of my backyard got more view than this.
Meanwhile, here's another video of someone saving a dog : h [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You are a Fucking. Coward.
Said the AC
Your solution to starving kids is to keep them in poverty, but give them shitty little fifty cent handouts.
Wtf? The solution to starvings kids is to fucking donate your money to a fund that help them like UNICEF instead of moron like PETA.
Oh, blame the environmentalists, they're making it sooooo bad for the poor kids! It's not militants and powerful elites making things bad, it's those people in sandals protesting!
When did I talked about environmentalists? What the hell you're talking about?
You're too afraid to fight the root of hunger so you put some change in a donation tin and pat yourself on the fucking back because you think you've done something decent. Success isn't measured in YouTube hits, dipshit. Get your head out of your ass, either make a difference or stop criticizing people online for having empathy towards life - you know, that thing that makes people donate towards Unicef?
I used those youtube video because it show how much more empathy we got for starving dogs instead of starving children.
For your information, I pledge myself to donate a hundred bucks each years to UNICEF (been doing that for a 3rd years in a row now) and, now that I've graduated, I'll proba
Re: (Score:1)
good deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Glad they are giving in to the pressure.
I think zoos, in general, are terrible places. I remember as a child going to the zoo and feeling really bad for the animals.
It's along the same lines as taking a tour of a prison to see the captives.
Re:good deal (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:good deal (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be true. But it is very hard to see how an animal of fairly sophisticated intelligence (if not some degree of outright sentience) whose ancestors going back millions of years have lived in the open sea, constrained only by the necessities of eating and breeding, can reasonably be put into what amounts to an oversized pool and somehow lead an existent that could in any way considered to be humane.
Honestly, I have a real problem even with elephant confinement, for much the same reason. These aren't macaws or some breed of Amazonian fish. These are very large brained animals that show at least some ability at advanced cognition, memory and emotional capability. Yes, they're not humans, and they do not likely possess anywhere near the mental capabilities of humans, but there are some types of animals who demonstrate their own cognitive abilities beyond that of much of the animal kingdom, and I think keeping them in captivity, at least in the sense of the rather small space that most of them have to exist in, is just plain wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The only drawback is that you may go there wanting to see, say, cheetahs, and you won't see any because the enclosure is so big and none of them want to come close enough for you to see. But I
Re:good deal (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with shutting down the zoos is that now you're going to raise an entire generation of children who have never seen a lion or giraffe or orca, etc. and so have never developed that primeval sense of wonder and excitement for nature's creatures. Decades down the road, those children will be adults, and they'll be voting on wildlife preservation laws, and they won't give a shit about nature preserves, or fishing bans, etc. What do they care? Its just a bunch of bugs and fish and crap, pave it over with something useful, like a strip mall.
So the animal rights activists may think they're winning the day, but really, they're just eating their seed corn. A generation or two later and we won't even have animal rights activists, let alone animals for them to activate over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with shutting down the zoos is that now you're going to raise an entire generation of children who have never seen a lion or giraffe or orca, etc. and so have never developed that primeval sense of wonder and excitement for nature's creatures. Decades down the road, those children will be adults, and they'll be voting on wildlife preservation laws, and they won't give a shit about nature preserves, or fishing bans, etc. What do they care? Its just a bunch of bugs and fish and crap, pave it over with something useful, like a strip mall.
So the animal rights activists may think they're winning the day, but really, they're just eating their seed corn. A generation or two later and we won't even have animal rights activists, let alone animals for them to activate over.
^ Quoted for truth...
Re: (Score:2)
The internet might change that some. The nearest zoo is about 4 hours from me, but my kids have seen lots of books, and I've also looked up youtube animal videos to share with them on multiple occasions. While it may not be the same as seeing the animals in person, it's not entirely negative in tradeoffs -- at a real zoo sometimes the animals aren't doing anything interesting, or they're hiding, or they're completely out of the display for some reason, while the video is reliable and on demand.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Sure. Says the sociopath who can't feel the suffering of others, (animal or human), so has to spend their entire life PRETENDING to give a toss about other people...
People who love animals, love them because they can FEEL the suffering of others. Unlike you. Seeing a living animal in a cage doesn't make you suddenly care about animals, if you DIDN'T ALREADY CARE. You know, like you...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Out my way (Vancouver Island), but I regularly see deer (oh man, so many f---ing deer), bears, a couple of cougars (damned scary animal), ferrets (smelly and ferocious), raccoons (got to be as many of them as deer), heard some wolves (never seen them, they're very shy creatures), not to mention a huge number of bird species (my personal favorites ravens and crows, but there's nothing quite like the sight of a hawk hunting), plus all the little critters; voles, mice, the odd rat (not a fan mind you, but an a
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't a lot of those animals rescues? Injured animals that would have died in the wild? Abandoned babies? Zoos used to be horrible places with every locked into a tiny cage, but I don't think there are too many like that left are there? My experience is that most are pretty well run, attempt to maintain appropriate habitats, and are very conscientious about their animals.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too! (Score:2)
Glad they are giving in to the pressure.
Me too!
The BC and Washington state orcas, which are arguably a distinct species are on the U.S. Endangered Species List.
What better way to help them survive, then by ending a captive breeding program?!?
Wait. Seeing a problem with the whole "bowing to pressure from people who are not professional wildlife biologists" thing...
Re: (Score:2)
What better way to help them survive, then by ending a captive breeding program?!?
That might not matter, as no Orca raised in captivity has survived release into the wild. Ergo, you can't repopulate a wild population with them. Maybe techniques to do it successfully could be done, maybe not.
As a secondary thing, the '40 years without a capture' made me wonder if there might not be a secondary reason that they're not talking about - specifically inbreeding. How many generations in are they? Do they have enough lines to keep genetic diversity up?
Re: (Score:2)
What better way to help them survive, then by ending a captive breeding program?!?
That might not matter, as no Orca raised in captivity has survived release into the wild. Ergo, you can't repopulate a wild population with them. Maybe techniques to do it successfully could be done, maybe not.
As a secondary thing, the '40 years without a capture' made me wonder if there might not be a secondary reason that they're not talking about - specifically inbreeding. How many generations in are they? Do they have enough lines to keep genetic diversity up?
It's more complicated than that. Although they are only really on their second to third generation (it's only been 40 years), a couple of the second generation are cross-generational (e.g, Mother & Son offspring). To avoid too much inbreeding, they have attempted crossbred Pacific Northwest and Northern Atlantic orcas (strangely, scientist have frown on this as they don't approve of whale population diversity).
I suspect that since the expensive breeding program has been generally unsuccessful, (success
Re: (Score:2)
It's along the same lines as taking a tour of a prison to see the captives.
The state slammer at Canon City CO used to do that...you could go into a cell block and meet some inmates. More recently, the tour has been replaced by a museum.
Re: (Score:2)
They are terrorists, so no.
Re: good deal (Score:1)
I would *pay* for a prison tour where we got to stare at the animals in cages.
Yeah? Maybe if you throw 'em a pack of smokes, one of 'em would be willing to stick his pecker through the bars for you. Fucking loser.
on the next episode of fawlty aquaria (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Basil! Basil!
Great news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was cruelity to be holding them captive. Cruelity I tells you boss!
Oh they're going to keep the whales they have until they die. They just won't be getting any new ones.
Re: (Score:2)
In Sea World's defense (Score:3)
Yeah, they're in the entertainment business but they did at one time do quite a bit of biological research on sea life, Orca included. With the stories that have come out and the trainer getting killed I would have thought they'd shutdown the program before now.
I remember growing up on SoCal and we had Marineland where they kept their Orcas in a very small tank that was about 4 stories high and had glass around it. so you could see them in the tank. I always remember going there and seeing how for lack of a better term, depressed they were. One of the Orca crashed through the tank glass and died and that was the end of Marineland from what I remember.
Problem with the tanks (Score:3)
One of the Orca crashed through the tank glass
The problem is, that in the tanks they circulate the water.
It only makes sense the animals would end up going...
Stir Crazy.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I always remember going there and seeing how for lack of a better term, depressed they were.
I always get a laugh out of people like you. They seemed 'depressed' to you... and what are your qualifications for reading the body language and behavior of those animals? Oh, you don't have any, you're just projecting your own assumptions. Pretty typical, sadly.
I was at a zoo recently with my young son, and a lady was giving a talk with a falcon of some sort sitting on her wrist. The crowd was pretty small that day, maybe a dozen people watching. Partway through, the falcon puffed up it's feathers and sho
Re: (Score:2)
And now it's a Trump resort; Win-Win!
"a growing number of people" (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia has done a great job in training me to spot weasels.
"we need to respond to the attitudinal change"
IOW, you're not responding to what's right or wrong, but what some ambiguous growing number of people think you should do? This is symptomatic of the disease that has also lead to Trump's popularity in a section of the populace.
Re: (Score:1)
"Wikipedia has done a great job in training me to ..."
And that's where I stopped reading...
Re: (Score:2)
The majority are usually right. Not always, but usually. So if you have any views that disagree with the majority, you really need to give those views some in-depth examination and make sure you are able to properly justify not just why you hold them, but why the majority do not.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority are usually right.
That is so wrong on so many levels.
Not always
Perfect escape clause.
So if you have any views that disagree with the majority
When did a growing number of people morph into a majority?
you really need to give those views some in-depth examination
People should give all of their views in-depth analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
If the majority of people are religious, and you are not, this is a potential sign that you are in error. This potential error must be investigated. The appropriate measure is to study religion until you either determine the majority view is correct, or are able to both defend your lack of religion and explain what factors cause the majority to be in error.
Don't look now... (Score:2)
...but that's not how onus probandi works.
Also, you're arguing the metaphor (religion) not the argument (that the majority CAN be wrong).
Redefine religion as belief in witchcraft (all of them have rules regarding witches, ergo...) and it should make more sense.
Also too... what you are arguing with that "study religion just so you could defend your position that you don't need religion" is not only contradictory (as it basically forces one to "need" religion).
It also, in essence, suggests that an individual
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"we need to respond to the attitudinal change"
IOW, you're not responding to what's right or wrong
Who defines right or wrong? 200 years ago it was generally considered "wrong" for a wife to disobey her husband, something which was resolved with a quick beating. It was an attitudinal change that converted that "wrong" to a "right".
So who makes the decision? Is it a PETA activist? Is it a big game hunter?
perils of being a charismatic animal (Score:4, Insightful)
curious thing, this selective sympathy of humans for some animals, and total indifference to fate of others.
must be a wonderful feeling to protest against alleged 'improper' treatment of orcas, while munching on a battery cage eggs. or condemn japanese whaling while supporting activities that end up eliminating nasty looking insects and reptiles.
(of course there are a small percentage of humans who prefer to be consistent on treatment of animals, on one side or other side. but being rational is perhaps not quite human, or as they say 'humane' )
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you mean by eliminating insects and reptiles, afaik none of those are endangered. The problem with killing large animals like orcas, sharks, lions, elephants etc are that those are very impactful on local ecosystems. You kill 1 lion or 1 whale and suddenly you have an entire family in trouble and that has an immediate impact on other species in the area and the entire system goes out of balance. You kill a bug and there will be millions more to do their job and we typically only kill bugs/rept
Re: (Score:2)
Ecosystems are not as fragile as you believe. Or there wouldn't be any around at all. Including us.
Re: (Score:2)
curious thing, this selective sympathy of humans for some animals, and total indifference to fate of others.
must be a wonderful feeling to protest against alleged 'improper' treatment of orcas, while munching on a battery cage eggs. or condemn japanese whaling while supporting activities that end up eliminating nasty looking insects and reptiles.
Nothing curious about it. Selective sympathy applies to our own personal situation. If orcas were running rapid in the streets injuring people for the most part no one except a few PETA protesters would bat and eye if we killed them.
Insects carry diseases and venom. Eggs are tasty. Japanese whaling is industry driven almost exclusively with almost crippling amounts of money dedicated to marketing the meat and while post war situations produced a surge in whaling due to lack of other available meat that temp
Re: (Score:2)
Some animals are much smarter than others, much cuter than others, much more dangerous to human than others, much more useful to humans than others, etc.
You hit it on the head with the "cuteness" idea. The rest are merely excuses. Decades ago orcas were just another sea creature (with a nasty name like "killer whale"). But Seaworld did itself in when it starts showing how "cute" they are and selling stuffed animals, etc.
When you see a lot of kids playing with stuffed animals of slugs, a few years later there will suddenly be a much greater objection to pesticides against them.
Misread title (Score:5, Funny)
I read that at first as "gives up Orc breeding program" and was thinking, we just dodged a bullet there!
Re: (Score:2)
We breed them to only produce females...
Nature will find a way!
"Welcome to World of Warcraft Park!"
Now what will you do? (Score:2)
> SeaWorld to End Orca Breeding Program
Well, that's pretty much it for you Slashdot nerds, then. That was your only hope as a dating service.
Re: (Score:2)
His response was, "Yeah, I guess... but you've got to give me a couple weeks to raise the money!"
First , they imprison them (Score:3)
And now they suspend conjugal visits. There's going to be a riot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this "news for nerds?" (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Outrage is the preferred drug of choice these days though
Indeed it is, but I thing you just committed a microagression by mentioning it.
While I have you here whipslash, who would I talk to about recovering an old account? I have had three accounts here. A fairly low UID when I was young, dumb and trolling with frosty piss I do not remember that one at all. Then another that I treated much better. Then I went to prison for 10 years and lost access to this one. I know the name and UID, but the email for recovering the account is long since defunct (and I am
Re: (Score:3)
I do really like that the new owners are now chiming in against this anti news bitching. I for one find the story interesting. But two people arguing on the internet is just not the same as the owner coming out and setting the bar.
Kudos for being an active member of the site you run!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course.
If you add piranhas or electric eels.
Re: (Score:2)