Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Shamu kills trainer at Seaworld Orlando

Ok then...

For the most part, I don't have an issue with keeping animals in captivity, but have an issue with romaticizing Seaworld.

That's not to say that I think they treat their whales badly, as clearly they don't, but they are, first and foremost, a theme park. The whales are there purely for people's entertainment and, to a lesser extent, education, and that's fine. However, those are the only reasons. There is absolutely zero conservational value in keeping orcas in captivity.

The "they would be there anyway and so people should be able to see them" angle is slightly ridiculous. They would not be there anyway if Seaworld hadn't gone out and captured them in the first place. Ok, so some of the whales they keep now were born in captivity (20 isn't a huge amount compared to the numbers that have either died in captivity or during capture), but the "stock" they came from certainly weren't. Yes, that goes for any captive species. NONE of them would "be there anyway."

Regardless, less than half of the current, worldwide, captive killer whales were born in captivity.

The life expectancy issue has been raised already, but it's an important one. The vast majority of animals kept in captivity live a lot longer than they would in the wild. The killer whale is one of very few exceptions.

Yes, Seaworld do a great job of aiding injured wildlife, and have many successes with animal releases. NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN ORCAS.

Seaworld said:
With proper government permits, we may collect animals from the wild or rescue sick, orphaned, or injured animals. SeaWorld has the finest facilities on the planet for the rescue, rehabilitation, and release of stranded animals, so many of the creatures that you see at our parks have been rescued. Our main goal is to release these animals. However, some of them are so badly injured that they would not survive in the wild.
Click to expand...

They've never claimed to have rescued or released an orca (because they haven't), but have just posted the above directly after citing their orca breeding successes. Sneaky, eh?

Ok, I'm going to stop ragging on Seaworld because although it may not seem like it, I do admire a lot of the work they do, but their work with whales is purely for our benefit. If they had the best interests of the whales at heart, they would stop allowing them to breed (not that that's quite as common as they make out anyway), and let the current whales slowly die out, without replacing them.

It's not going to happen, nor am I saying it necessarily should; I'm just pointing out the actual facts over the spin the parks have put on it.
 
Yes that was literally seconds before the incident, some of the other videos underneath explain what the witnesses saw. See the video “Family Recounts Horrific Attack At SeaWorld” which should be on the same page, unfortunately it won't directly link to the video.
 
^Yes apparently Tilikum grabbed her pony tail moments after that footage ended and dragged her underwater where she drowned.

Seaworld made the announcement this afternoon that the ‘Believe’ shows will resume tomorrow and the Dine with Shamu experiences next week. A video of the announcement and the full story of her death can be found on BBC news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8539924.stm
 
For God's sake! It's a KILLER whale! It was designed to kill! Why should Shamu even be allowed to be in a family amusement park?

There is one quote from Madagascar I have always liked:

Alex: Now I'm going to have to compete with Shamu... and his smug little grin!
 
alexdude98 said:
For God's sake! It's a KILLER whale! It was designed to kill! Why should Shamu even be allowed to be in a family amusement park?]
Click to expand...
It wasn't designed to do anything. And It's not any more a killer than any other canivour. Besides, they let the most dangerous animal into amusement parks by their thousands. Us.

Killer Whales are not even Whales. They are dolphins. So why believe they are killers?

Mantis Shrimp's are neither mantis nor shrimp.

Slow worms are not worms. They are lizards.

Whale Sharks are not whales.

Red Pandas are not pandas.

Kolala Bears are not bears.

Cuttlefish are not fish, neither are Jellyfish.

I could go on.
 
UC said:
That's really not a fair thought process. You make it sound as if SeaWorld goes out and finds animals to capture and put in shows - and that's far from the case.

You seem to want to discuss facts - in that case, let's do that - the animals that are currently in captivity cannot be released. Therefore, yes, SeaWorld might as well let others see them.

Who cares, exactly, what the history was? What does that have to do with current facts? Your entire argument is based on "Well, the original whales were captured, so therefore, the fact that the current ones can't be released is irrelevant."
Click to expand...

But there's no "might as well" argument. The whales at Seaworld exist purely so that the public can see them, and that's fine, but they would not be there otherwise. Again, I'm not necessarily against that; I'm just emphasising the reason they're on display. The "might as well" argument would be fine if Seaworld were scaling down the whale shows, with a view to eliminating them completely. Then fair enough, the whales would be there anyway while that process was ongoing. Is that the case? Absolutely not, nor am I saying it should be.

I find that to be a very narrow-minded viewpoint on the subject. You must also believe that Americans, with the exception of native americans, should all go back to their respective home countries...? Or that there should be no black people in the U.S.? After all, these groups may have been born here, but - as you put it - their "stock" certainly wasn't.
Click to expand...

That's not even a remotely comparable area of discussion, and you know it. Quoting me grossly out of context like that, to make it seem that what you've suggested is something I would endorse, is actually incredibly offensive.

Besides, nowhere have I stated that I'm an advocate for releasing the whales; I'm not.

Not all of SeaWorld's first orcas were captured - many were bought from other aquariums/zoos.
Click to expand...

Pedantics. Ok, so Seaworld didn't go out and capture the animals themselves, but they were originally taken from the wild, including the animal that has just killed the trainer. Alright, that's past vs present, and I agree with you that the present situation is what we should be talking about.

If you want to make general statements, make sure you aren't including SeaWorld where they don't belong.
Click to expand...

Ok, you're right there. The majority of Seaworld's current orca popluation are captive born, and that's really the area we should be discussing.

After all, I'm sure you can agree (as I've been trying to say this whole topic), that since the whales SeaWorld has are already in existence and can't really go anywhere, there's nothing wrong with doing everything possible to make their lives better...
Click to expand...

Of course I agree with that, and I've never suggested that Seaworld in any way mistreats their animals. They absoltutely do provide those animals with the best care possible, and there's no doubt in my mind that the trainers genuinely love their animals.

...just as there's nothing wrong with having them shown to the general public, many of whom could be inspired to perhaps work with wild animals.
Click to expand...

I've never said there is anything wrong in having them shown to the general public, but you're trying to make it sound like that is a byproduct of having the whales, when it's actually the sole reason. I fundamenatally don't disagree with keeping animals in captivity; I'd just like to be honest about the reasons they're there.

no more so than blaming SeaWorld for owning whales that were born in captivity because of the heritage of their parents
Click to expand...

It's not a case of "blaming," but you're almost making it sound as if SeaWorld's whale facilities exist in order to take care of unwanted/orphaned whales, when they don't. They exist primarily as an entertainment facility. Again, that's fine, but let's be honest about it.

As for the captive births: they don't just happen. SeaWorld are actively breeding the whales, in some cases through artificial insemination. Yes, a fully captive group is 100% preferable to having to capture more wild orcas, but it's another reason why the "they'd be there anyway" argument doesn't stand up.

After all, I really don't think it's too far a stretch (no more so than blaming SeaWorld for owning whales that were born in captivity because of the heritage of their parents) to think that the inspiration these animals often cause in others will perhaps have a great benefit for their wild bretheren, due to the increased awareness and interest in the species itself.

Therefore, I don't agree when you say there is zero conservational value - I think it's quite the opposite, and introducing the masses to these animals has great benefit for wild members of the species - it's simply that the benefit doesn't physically involve the current whales SeaWorld has.

Remember, conservation doesn't HAVE to be releasing animals in to the wild - these animals definitely serve a purpose to promote conservation.
Click to expand...

SeaWorld is great when it comes to education; there are no arguments to be had there. There is conservational value to be had in general by keeping orcas, through creating a general interest in marine wildlife, but not necessarily for the species itself. In the wild they're not under threat, nor is their immediate habitat, as a whole, because they're so wide-ranging.

The bottom line is, SeaWorld is an entertainment business with education and conservation as byproducts. If it weren't a profitable business, Busch would never had bought it. The branding of their whales as "Shamu" is a prime example of a fantastic business model (and is actually a whole other area for discussion regarding their keeping of orcas).

I don't have an issue with any of that at all, but let's just tell it like it is. If you wanted to be really cynical, you could argue that they have to make an attempt to educate and involve themselves in conservation management in order to maintain a more favourable public image.

Anyway, the point I'm making: I have no basic personal issue with keeping animals in captivity for whatever reason, but let's just see it as it is, and acknowledge exactly why those animals are there.
 
Joey said:
Killer Whales are not even Whales. They are dolphins. So why believe they are killers?
Click to expand...

Because well they are known to be pretty good hunters....Killing whales, sharks, seals, dolphins etc.
 
Wait, I just read something online. I think it was a different whale that killed the trainer. The whale's name is Tillikum.
 
^Tell us something we don't know. You must read the topic before saying things. Go to the first page and you should be able to find the article that says so. And don't bother saying, "he's already killed 2 people" because it's already been reported.
 
alexdude98 said:
Wait, I just read something online. I think it was a different whale that killed the trainer. The whale's name is Tillikum.
Click to expand...
"Shamu" is the stage name for ALL the performing whales. Tillikum is a Shamu.

Because well they are known to be pretty good hunters....Killing whales, sharks, seals, dolphins etc.
Click to expand...
Wolves and are impressive killers, too, but we keep them in our houses.

My point being, killer whales are no more "killers" than any other carnivore.
 
We kill more than any other animal in the world simple.

At least a whale does not hunt and kill things for pleasure.
 
marc said:
At least a whale does not hunt and kill things for pleasure.
Click to expand...
You own cats. You know this isn't true. :lol:

I would almost guarantee that Orcas hunt and kill for fun also. A carnivore has to enjoy killing, or else it would starve. Intelligent animals realise that they can have one without the other. Same applies to all pleasures.

EDIT: My spellchecker is spazzing up so sorry for any errors. We all know I can't spell for ****.
 
Once upon a time I took note of UC's posts...

Now he has quoted Wikipedia, I don't think I can believe anymore :(

;)
 
Wikipedia is never appropriate dude! ;)

Well, unless you know nothing on the subject, and I mean nothing. It's quite clear that you have some knowledge on the subject, so you've just sourced something entirely below the level you were operating at :p
 
People kept telling me that this Whale, Tilikum, isn't "Shamu" and that Shamu is the biggest one.

Ironically, Tilikum IS that Whale. The finali Whale. The HUGE one.

I'm sure I read somewhere that SeaWorld have said there were special procedures in place for Tilikum, and that trainers shoudn't be in the water with him, but.... A trainer sits on him in the show finali when he splashes guests? I assume this girl who'd died is that trainer?

Ugh.

EDIT: Neal, shut up. You're being pedantic and irratating for the sake of it and no one but you finds it funny.

Wikipedia is the most appropriate source of information for a great numer of things, especially public opinion, since it WORKS on public opinion.
 
For the sake of it? No. Thems is just my opinion, so calm down dear, m'kay? ;)

And you've proven my point precisely. Public opinion is just that - opinion. And as such is varied, therefore making Wikipedia grossly inaccurate on most counts.

I was merely jesting that it's unlike UC to use such a silly place to form part of an argument. Yet you felt the need to throw your barbie dolls out of the pram. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top