Keeping Orcas in captivity - Is it wrong?

[gavin]

And if you ban orca shows, you're going to contribute to making their lives dull. Setting them free would be cruel at this stage in their lives, leaving their complex brains to rot without enrichment would also be cruel. That's all I'm saying.

Absolutely agree on this point. Banning the shows with regard to the current orca stock would be extremely damaging, and we all know that there's no realistic way to release them. A better alternative, as I've mentioned before, would be to ban the breeding and importation of them and carry on as normal until the current stock dies out. Some of those animals have got many years left in them; it gives the parks plenty of time to come up with alternative business strategies and also slowly weans the public off the expectation of seeing them.

There's more to their tricks than human entertainment.

Let's not get it twisted here. Human entertainment is the sole reason those animals were ever there in the first place. Yes, it's better to have them performing than doing nothing, but enrichment of the animal is a byproduct of an entertainment industry. I'd have far more respect for the parks, and the people that support keeping them in captivity if they were just more honest about that.

We are as wild as we were then. We're not domesticated.

By definition, we've never been wild and can never be domesticated. Domestication refers very specifically to one species, us, deliberately breeding animals for our own use. We can never be domesticated because there is no species capable of doing it; therefore, we've never been wild as that refers specifically to a state of non-domestication.

Generations aren't relevant [...] You implied that 2 generations of whale is vastly different to hundreds of human generations, when it's not because we haven't evolved in a biological sense.

I'm not making those implications because my entire point as that you shouldn't/can't compare them to people at all, which you still seem intent on doing. I don't know how to say this any more clearly: You can't attribute human qualities, development and emotions onto another species of animal.

Generations absolutely are relevant when you're talking about the captivity and domestication of animals. The argument that "it was born in a tank, so it doesn't know any better" is just ridiculous if you've got even the most basic grasp of how domestication works.

We're not talking about memory; we're talking about instinct. It takes multiple generations of very selective breeding to get animals to a state where they're not considered wild anymore. Even then, instinct is never completely removed, and it obviously has nothing to do with memory.

Take dogs for example. They're one of the earliest animals to be domesticated. They've been selectively bred for thousands of years to turn them into something that suits us as a commodity, whether that be to work or, more recently, as a pet. Even still, they display aspects of wild behaviour - that weird turning in a circle thing they do before lying down for example - that hasn't been a wild behaviour for hundreds of generations.

We also know that some animals, while they can be tamed, will never be domesticated, regardless of human interference with their breeding. The point is, it takes dozens of generations of selective breeding to get to that point and reach those conclusions.

So yes, when talking about captive breeding of animals, generations absolutely do matter, and saying that a 2nd generation animal is probably "happy" because it doesn't know any better goes against everything we know about captive breeding and animal domestication.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Marc and Neal - Nobody is still taking them out of the wild though????

I'm not making those implications because my entire point as that you shouldn't/can't compare them to people at all, which you still seem intent on doing. I don't know how to say this any more clearly: You can't attribute human qualities, development and emotions onto another species of animal.

Whilst I agree, it was only brought up because people were anthropomorphising the whales about negative stuff. So I was just pointing out that it works both ways if you want to play that game. I do think there's some relevance in basic comparisons.

Generations absolutely are relevant when you're talking about the captivity and domestication of animals. The argument that "it was born in a tank, so it doesn't know any better" is just ridiculous if you've got even the most basic grasp of how domestication works.

We're not talking about memory; we're talking about instinct. It takes multiple generations of very selective breeding to get animals to a state where they're not considered wild anymore. Even then, instinct is never completely removed, and it obviously has nothing to do with memory.

Take dogs for example. They're one of the earliest animals to be domesticated. They've been selectively bred for thousands of years to turn them into something that suits us as a commodity, whether that be to work or, more recently, as a pet. Even still, they display aspects of wild behaviour - that weird turning in a circle thing they do before lying down for example - that hasn't been a wild behaviour for hundreds of generations.

We also know that some animals, while they can be tamed, will never be domesticated, regardless of human interference with their breeding. The point is, it takes dozens of generations of selective breeding to get to that point and reach those conclusions.

So yes, when talking about captive breeding of animals, generations absolutely do matter, and saying that a 2nd generation animal is probably "happy" because it doesn't know any better goes against everything we know about captive breeding and animal domestication.

Not really?

If the pressures on a species are not significant enough to create changes, then... generations and time are irrelevant. Some species go billions of generations with barely a change whilst others change in a few thousand.

"Domestication" and "wild" do have different meanings if referring to people as opposed to all other life. I know you called me out on how its impossible to "domesticate" ourselves, but it's just a way of saying "conditioned to living a modern western life" and the term is used that way by anthropologists, wrongly or rightly, a lot. So what's what I meant there - that we are conditioned to live as we do through our lives, its not inherited. But true domestication, as you said, is about literally shaping a species. Changing it. It's not about life experience but about biology. Evolving it, by mans hand.

We, humans, haven't changed in thousands of years. Dogs changed from wolves to the hundreds of species now present in merely hundreds of years through our strict selective breeding.

I think the "thats all it's known" argument is sound, because instincts are only part of the puzzle and insticts aren't just obvious stuff, they are also responsible for, say, the nature of wanting to share knowledge that has made humans what they are today as opposed to 45 thousand years ago. But whats more is that with intelligence and society comes reduced instincts in the typical sense, because said animals rely on their problem solving skills and social skills over basic instincts. Of course, said species are more likley to think outside the box too, and wonder whats past the tank.

So I disagree. Generations don't matter, thats not how evolution works.

Also, as for "some animals cannot be domesticated" - thats bs. Think about it logically, all species originate from a single ancestor. Why suddenly are some animals immune from changes? The issue is that most animals are harder to domesticate than wolves.

 

[marc]

Joey I know that Sea World are not taking them out the wild.

Some countries are still taking them out the wild though.

Humans have changed though. Over the years humans have less and less body hair, organs we no longer need and shrinking.

Cats, dogs whatever know how to hunt from a few weeks old. How? They are born with it. Animals born in captivity are still born with their basic needs and wants.

Why do lions still kill in zoos, even ones born there and have never hunted in their lives. They are born to eat and breed it's life.

Just because an animals has never seen the wild does not mean it's friendly and happy.

Joey you are not looking at this from both sides at all.

Years ago humans did not know any better. Put things in a zoo so everyone can see. Now days we know better and actually study in the wild as technology has moved on so now we can.

There is no need for these or any animal not in danger to be kept in a zoo.

Yes we all like seeing them, I love zoos but I also see the other side. A lot of the animals we can recreate their land but for a whale no chance, putting them in a tank of water is not enough.

 

[gavin]

Not really?

If the pressures on a species are not significant enough to create changes, then... generations and time are irrelevant. Some species go billions of generations with barely a change whilst others change in a few thousand.

Yes really because

Generations don't matter, thats not how evolution works.

we're not talking about natural evolution; we're talking about human domestication of another species. They're not the same thing and each generation, in terms of animal domestication, absolutely does matter.

Also, as for "some animals cannot be domesticated" - thats bs.

No, it's not. Just a couple of examples. There are dozens of generations of captive tigers now, many of which have been hand-reared specifically from more docile individual animals so that they can be more safely handled for shows etc. Are they domesticated? Ask that question of any zoologist, or even anyone who works with those animals on a daily basis and I think you know what answer you're going to get. Tame and domesticated are not the same thing.

Crocodiles have been farmed for many years now. The wild stock of those captive animals was bred out generations ago. While it's still comparitively new, those animals have now been bred intensively and specifically to suit human purposes. Remember, we're talking selective breeding and domestication here, not evolution. The methods are essentially no different from breeding pigs or chickens. Have we domesticated crocodiles? Will those animals ever be domesticated? Possibly, given a few thousand more years, but is it likely? They've naturally remained relatively unchanged for tens of millions of years. Is selective breeding by humans likely to change that?

Think about it logically, all species originate from a single ancestor. Why suddenly are some animals immune from changes?

Because billions of years have created millions of different species that are different in many, many ways. Otherwise, why would there be any change at all? A common ancestor absolutely does not denote that the modern species that have arisen from it are going to behave in the same way. Obviously, no animal is immune from change. We're all, to varying degrees, in a continuous state of change, but that doesn't mean for a second that we're all changing in the same way. You know this.

The issue is that most animals are harder to domesticate than wolves.

Absolutely, to the point of being unobtainable, at least up until now, for a lot of animals.

All this, while interesting, is moving further and further away from the point though. Let's bring it back to the main topic: captive orcas.

Regardless of the possibilites of domestication of other species, are you going to honestly try and say that, given everything we know about how domestication works, that a second generation captive animal, with that kind of intelligence, is now domesticated?

Just a simple yes or no: has a second generation orca born in captivity - in terms of genetics, not where it's living - changed from a wild to a domestic animal?

 

[BBH]

Figured I'd post this here as it's somewhat related and doesn't warrant its own topic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/ ... E020140820

Fate of captured beluga whales in hands of Georgia judge

(Reuters) - A Georgia aquarium went to court on Wednesday seeking federal permission to bring 18 captured beluga whales to the United States from Russia.

The Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta sued the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries service in September for the right to acquire the whales, which were captured off the coast of northern Russia in the Sea of Okhotsk and are currently in the care of Russian scientists.

Lawyers for both sides argued the case before a U.S. district judge in Atlanta on Wednesday, but a final decision could be two months away.

The government contends that bringing the whales to the United States would contribute to the depletion of the known wild beluga whale population and violate the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The aquarium disputes that and wants NOAA Fisheries to hand over more internal documents to show how the government made its decision.

As recently as March 2013 the permit to bring in the whales seemed to be getting the green light, said Daniel Diffley, an attorney for the aquarium. But five months later the government denied the aquarium’s permit.

“If they’re going to change their minds, we’re entitled to look at why,” he said. “We believe the decision is arbitrary.”

The aquarium also wants to submit more studies about the known whale population.

I'm not aware of the conditions that these whales are being held in while they're in Russia, but the genetic diversity argument is an interesting one. Most, if not all captive belugas in North America (such as the ones at my hometown Shedd Aquarium) are from Canada, not Russia, more specifically, the Western Hudson Bay population of whales. Again, I'm not completely aware of the specifics of it, but I wonder if there'd be any significant difference in the behaviors of the Russian-captured whales and the whales of Canadian origin.

 

[marc]

It's now become very clear that Blackfish was fall of lies to mislead a lot of people.

Scientists were not scientists at all they were animal rights people not qualified in any way.

The trainers were very misquoted and the women who died family have spoken out.

Don't get me wrong I still don't think keeping the whales in tanks is wrong but Blackfish should have gone after a park that treats their whales a lot worse than Sea World.

I feel a bit stupid for believing their lies.

 

[tomahawk]

Can I get a link to confirm that? Because if so, Sea World legal department is dancing in excitement for straight slander now.

Damage has been done though.

 

[Smithy]

Not seen Blackfish as from the start I was aware of how one-sided it would be.

Did it feature anything about the Miami Seaquariam? Saw a bit about that yesterday and even though I've not really been fussed about animals in captivity, that images of Lolita in that pathetic pool struck me, did a bit of reading about it and the pool is legally unsafe for her due to lack of safety features protecting her from the public (and vice versa), an the sizing is woefully inadequate.

Question being, how the **** can something shown to be illegal still be in operation? Is America that lax on it's safety enforcement?>

 

[marc]

Can I get a link to confirm that? Because if so, Sea World legal department is dancing in excitement for straight slander now.

Damage has been done though.

Just look on the Sea World website and do google searches.

 

[Robbie]

It's now become very clear that Blackfish was fall of lies to mislead a lot of people.

Scientists were not scientists at all they were animal rights people not qualified in any way.

The trainers were very misquoted and the women who died family have spoken out.

Don't get me wrong I still don't think keeping the whales in tanks is wrong but Blackfish should have gone after a park that treats their whales a lot worse than Sea World.

I feel a bit stupid for believing their lies.

I don't think Blackfish is a particularly good documentary, and is largely an exercise in stating the bleeding obvious (repeatedly) but it didn't mislead me about who the contributors were and what they said, and they backed up the contributions with video and photographs. Despite what SeaWorld may say, pretty much everything in the film is true - the mistake the film-makers made was no providing any context to certain things, and depicting some things (ironically) as black-or-white.

 

[gavin]

I've said it before: if they lied about Sea World's practices, Sea World would sued the **** out of them.

I've said this before too: discrediting Blackfish doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether killer whales should be kept in captivity. The argument has been going on for way longer than that film has.

Sea World has tried its best, somewhat successfully, to discredit the film, but haven't actually answered any of the questions raised by it.

 

[marc]

Yes know what you mean Gavin, I don't understand why they have not sued them either.

There is proof that the people used were not scientists, the trainers have all said they were mis quoted and that should be enough to take them to court.

As I've said as well they need to stop the breeding of them and when the current ones die then that's it.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

All this, while interesting, is moving further and further away from the point though. Let's bring it back to the main topic: captive orcas.

Regardless of the possibilites of domestication of other species, are you going to honestly try and say that, given everything we know about how domestication works, that a second generation captive animal, with that kind of intelligence, is now domesticated?

Just a simple yes or no: has a second generation orca born in captivity - in terms of genetics, not where it's living - changed from a wild to a domestic animal?

No. But it's not about the time or generations they've been in captivity, it's about breeding intent.

SeaWorld are not trying to domesticate them. They're not selectively picking individuals for their desirable traits. They couldn't even if they wanted to, because they just don't have a choice of males.

But, lions in zoos aren't domesticated either, in spite of being in zoos for over a hundred years now.

And I argue that an intelligent species like an Orca, or Macaw, probably does better as a second gen captive animal because of it's ability to adapt.

There's literal domestication, as we see with dogs where individuals were selectively bred for specific traits that change the genetic make up of descendants. That change behaviours through genetics. But there's also the domestication possible by training and taming of individuals. Intelligent, social species learn from one another and their environment and change their behaviours in ways others do not. Many intelligent species cannot exist on their own with just instincts, but need to be taught by parents how to hunt, how to clean themselves, etc. I don't know enough about cetaceans specifically, but whilst the fish I'm breeding need no parental guidance and live their lives through instinct alone, I bet dolphins and their kin cannot.

Humans have changed though. Over the years humans have less and less body hair, organs we no longer need and shrinking.

None of those changes have happened since the dawn of our species, they all developed long, long before. Our ancestral species - NOT the same species as us - of which there are many that have been identified and many more undiscovered, had more body hair. But our species has not changed in significant terms genetically since it first emerged in Africa. And yet, we miraculously manage to live happy lives very different from our ancestors.

 

[SilverArrow]

As someone who has experience working within zoological institutions (and animal training), has a zoology degree and has attended talks on topics like this I can tell you that there are indeed a lot of falsities in Blackfish (and The Cove). I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, just debunk some of the so-called truths and myths that surround the topic.

Personally I feel like people should be allowed to make their own mind up about it but it is a real shame that the likes of PETA etc have got hold of this story and twisted it. If it were really just for the animals why do they charge so much for people to watch it? Surely it can't have been that expensive to make? PETA are also known for killing thousands of animals a year and CNN, I believe keep replaying the film because they hold some shares/ownership of it = more $$$.

Playing the devils advocate here, a few points to consider:

"They're all inbred" or "they're all split from their families" - how can both of these be true? Each species within BIAZA, AZA institutions will have a studbook holder who oversees the breeding of the species, trying to ensure as much genetic diversity as possible. Also, inbreeding does frequently occur in the animal kingdom. If you're interested in breeding management I suggest you look at white tigers!

"The animals are in chlorinated pools"- This is just wrong. Anyone who's been in the soak zone will know that this is false. Chlorinated pools for marine animals in zoos have been phased out (to the point where only a couple of places exist in the UK that I know of). Within animal care circles Seaworld is regarded very highly as the always have the pioneering equiptment that is then eventually rolled out to all other facilities over time.

"The animal are abused"- Anyone who's worked with positive reinforcement animal training (myself included) will know that this is not the case. The whole essence of this type of training is to give the animals a choice. The marine mammal field leads the way in animal training. Many dogs trainers (including Caesar Milan) still use negative reinforcement (i.e. use punishment) as a form of training. Animals trained using positive reinforcement are ALWAYS given the same amount of food each day regardless of whether they choose to take part in training or not. There is no starvation.

"There is no point to having them in captivity" - whilst some people do just generally oppose zoos and aquaria, it should be known that the southern resident population, the group of whales that the Seaworld Orcas are descended from are in decline at the moment and are said to be the most polluted (by this I mean pollutants in their flesh, similar to the DDT issues we used to have). A captive breeding program such as the one Seaworld and other parks have could be an important player in trying to rescue this population in the future.

"People would still care about Orcas if they weren't at Seaworld" - but would they? Before the first Orca was captured and put in an aquarium in Vancouver everyone thought that these whales were terrifying and were ravaging maneaters. I think Seaworld are a victim of their success as now people care a lot about these whales because they're seem how amazing they are up close. People time and again seem to show a strange sensitivity towards cetaceans in captivity when most of these same people have no care for other similarly intelligent species in captivity.

So in conclusion, and I could talk about this forever, I think it is perfectly reasonable to be anti captivity if you really think that we don't need zoos and aquaria, but films like this are damaging to the whole industry and also to people's abilities to think for themselves. I always encourage people to do their research before making their opinions, as with most biological subjects (animal testing, vegetarianism, stem cell research etc) there often isn't a clear black or white answer, but one that lies somewhere in between the two sides.

A lot of these activist movies focus a lot on anthropomorphising the animals, convincing you that the animal is feeling this and that (probably when they themselves have never met the animal). Also, The Cove states that facilities all around the word take the drive hunt animals, this is false. There have been no animals imported into the mainland Europe since 1980 and in the US since 1989 from any drive-fishery. It's asian aquariums that are newly opening that are taking these animals.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that you guys don't think intelligently about the topic, as this thread suggests that you do!

So yeah, there is a lot of BS out there (with a lot of animal rights and anti-captivity) stuff but you just have to wade through it all, find the truths and work out how you feel about them for yourself.