Eh...how did this even get in front of a judge?

[PaulaSB12]

You mean like dogs in a house? Fish in a fish tank..... Cats in an apartment?

NO it would be like keeping them in an over small cage if you make it relative to the size of the cat or dog and if you kept a dog or cat like that you would have them taken of you. The life expectancy for a "kept" whale is half what they expect in the wild HALF and the infant mortality is worse as well. Not to mention the self harming and there have even been cases of dolphins and whales committing suicide, but they look cute so they have to be kept. Its past time to let the whales and dolphins in captivity to grow old and die and stop replacing them.

 

[marie1203]

Okay, quick disclaimer, I do not support PETA or the ALF or their ilk, and I believe they do not, ultimately, help the cause of animal welfare.



I'm not sure you're not just being sarcastic here (which, if that's the case, ignore this), but you cannot compare the restrictions we place on pets with the restrictions that are experienced by sea mammals in captivity. Firstly because cats and dogs (dogs more than cats) have been genetically altered by humans to the extent that their "natural" territories are no longer defineable by those utilizd by their wild cousins. And more importantly, you cannot compare the mental/emotional stimulation required by you average Labrador with that required by cetaceans.

I would like to see better conditions for all animals in captivity (not just charismatic megafauna), however, at this point, I'm more focused on trying to save their cousins who are still wild.



Recent studies have shown that cetaceans, like higher primates, have the capacity for language. But, their capacity is nowhere near the level you describe. For instance, someday we might be able to get a dolphin to communicate something along the level of "that = good". The level of linguistic interaction that would be necessary to engage in a conversation comparing the relative pro's and con's of captivity is almost certainly beyond their grasp. I'm not saying that's entirely the case, as I think that Koko the gorilla could probably have a conversation like that with her handlers, and I wouldn't put it past dolphins to be as good at communication as she is. But you still have to question their ability to make choices about what's "best" for them in a modern human-centric world that they cannot possibly conceive. Even if such high level communication were possible the best that they could ever hope to advance to in a concept of "personhood" would be the level of a minor or incapacitated adult who requires a guardian to make decisions on their behalf.

Unfortunately, we are at the point were we need to start saving species. And I agree with you that I think at this point we need to concentrate more on saving the wild animals we have left. I have mix feelings about the animals in captivity it seems that if it wasn't because of it we would have lost certain species forever, but I feel we should never have to hit that point. I think we need to work on protecting and living with our planet and animals before we start contemplating releasing animals from captivity.

 

[RNMOM]

After years of taking my kids to Sea World, Cleveland and the zoos in our state, I agree with them.

Keeping any animal in a cage or pool is cruel and what gives us the right to do so just to make money off them? Put that way I do agree it is slavery.

It is infinitely better to see animals of any kind in their natural habitats. We have pleanty of video of animal to show our youngsters and it is possible to visit many of these places safely for both us and the animals.

I even put a mandate that we would have no more animals in cages. No hamsters or turtles or any of that. We have a domesticated dog and two house cats who live the life most people would desire. They are both rescues and one has been declawed by it's previous owner. DH and I agree we are done "getting" pets but if we ever do it will be a rescue.

 

[cornflake]

Besides Tilikum in Orlando, none of the whales are from the wild. They are all breed in captivity. We can't change the actions of those from 40 years ago when they pulled them from the ocean, that's long done and over with. However, if the whales are breed in captivity, it has no influence on the whales in the wild. It creates a great opportunity to study and learn about these wonderful creatures up close, that could not possible be done in the wild.

Any wild animal at Sea World is there for rehabilitation or it flew in and is looking for a good meal. They create an amazing sanctuary for injured or distressed animals, and give them an opportunity to survive.
Just a few winters ago, Florida had a massive cold snap that were affecting the sea turtles and manatees. Between all the marine parks in Orlando, thousands of turtles were able to be plucked from the freezing water (they go into a shock, and almost appear dead), and kept at the parks till the waters got warm enough.

Just as much as I don't like what's done with lab rats. They're bred specifically and internally for such experiments. Therefor have no outward affect on wild population.

We can't change that some animals were captured 40 years ago but we could, you know, let them GO.

I just looked and two of the Orcas at Seaworld Fla and three in Ca were taken from the wild. There are more in other countries. That's not even discussing dolphins and belugas in captivity.

However - I don't understand what difference it makes in the end. If it's wrong to keep them captive, then it's wrong to keep them captive, regardless of where they were born.

If a human baby is born in prison does that mean it'd be ok to keep it in a cage in a zoo forever, because it was born 'in captivity'? I don't see what it matters, besides that we should free the ones we captured from their homes somewhat more urgently.

 

[Ember]

We can't change that some animals were captured 40 years ago but we could, you know, let them GO.

No, let them live out their lives and then don't get new animals to replace them. If you release them, there's a pretty a pretty good chance they'll die.

There's a good reference on in here: http://www.education-reform.net/animals.htm

 

[cornflake]

No, let them live out their lives and then don't get new animals to replace them. If you release them, there's a pretty a pretty good chance they'll die.

There's a good reference on in here: http://www.education-reform.net/animals.htm

It's possible that captive animals would fall prey to other animals or be unable to be integrated back, yeah. It's also possible, especially with higher order mammals, that they may be able to reintegrate. I think it's our responsibility, given we took them in the first place, to release them. If one turns out not to be able or want to reintegrate, then that's that situation and can be dealt with.

Elephants remember their family members after decades apart (so we can likey have successful reintegrations there) - we know where most of these animals, especially orcas, were taken from. We can try.

Certainly with you on not replacing them.

 

[brasswillow]

Let's take some humans, stick them in a habitat 1/1,000,000 the size of their natural world, take away all natural social structure, and see how they like it. Any volunteers?

Sounds like Big Brother or Survivor to me.

 

[Kies99]

Sounds like Big Brother or Survivor to me.

Or jail??

 

[fall08CP]

Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's wrong.

If they want to spend their time and money on a lawsuit, let them. It doesn't affect you.

I think it's revolting to kill a living being for your eating pleasure, but that's your decision, and there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Okay, getting totally off-topic now, because we've gotten into discussions about things which I am passionately interested in.

As for the cognition issue - Koko and her ilk are conversant in a way that clearly indicates knowledge of self, place, others, desire, emotion, etc., Alex and his ilk are even more conversationally sophisticated. As for the marine mammals, last I saw there was a project to map dolphin language, using captive dolphins, which seemed to be making decent progress with vocabulary but I dunno what's been up with it.

1. We're not talking about Alex the African Grey are we? Because as much as I loved him, I would not put him or any bird in the same cognitive category as any primates or cetaceans. Alex was amazing...at memorizing and identifying things. I give him props, but I don't give him the recognition of having linguistic skills. Language is considerably more than vocab. Perhaps we're referring to some other animal language program who's major participants I do not know by name.

2. Yes, Koko has shown an ability to converse about somewhat abstract concepts, however, asking her something like "Would you rather live in the same caged environment you've always known or be left in a beautiful but dangerous jungle you've never seen and where your human friends will not be able to feed and comfort you?" would be asking her to imagine quite a number of very abstract concepts at once and then make an "informed" decision about them. This is something she is probably unable to do effectively. In all honesty, we have absolutely no idea how she interprets concepts like "freedom". Within her caged home, she very well may consider herself to be "free". Regardless, it's my personal opinion that Koko is a genuis among gorillas. Her mates in the same program, although they have made amazing advances in signing and primate studies, have never quite been up to her snuff.

3. Regarding recent cetacean language studies, there's been some advancement, but what scientists consider to be advancement is not necessarily what the average person would think it to be. There is no dolphin "vocabulary". There is dolphin ability to associate human vocabulary with their environment. Among the more stunning of recent finds in dolphin studies include the fact that dolphins have "names" by which they identify each other at a distance, that dolphins can recognize and replicate the tones and rythyms associated with music (this one was done at Epcot!), and that dolphins can comprehend the "parts of speech" such that they become confused by instructions that are given to them which do not make linguistic sense.

 

[Planogirl]

We can't change that some animals were captured 40 years ago but we could, you know, let them GO.

I just looked and two of the Orcas at Seaworld Fla and three in Ca were taken from the wild. There are more in other countries. That's not even discussing dolphins and belugas in captivity.

However - I don't understand what difference it makes in the end. If it's wrong to keep them captive, then it's wrong to keep them captive, regardless of where they were born.

If a human baby is born in prison does that mean it'd be ok to keep it in a cage in a zoo forever, because it was born 'in captivity'? I don't see what it matters, besides that we should free the ones we captured from their homes somewhat more urgently.

You can't just let them go in many cases. They wouldn't know what to do.

I used to be against captivity myself but I realized that there is a fine line between captivity and protection. I believe that the best we can do right now is protect as many animals as possible and help them to further their species too. Maybe someday humans will wake up and quit destroying so much.

 

[dngnb8]

No, the natural habitat of a domesticated dog or cat is a human home.

The species was wild at one point, and to this day, dogs have attacked others because of the "wild" instinct

I know all the "tastes like chicken" comments are jokes, but having lived in Japan and eaten whale (and puffer fish (fugu)), whale tastes more like beef.

As a member of People Eating Tasty Animals, I support this post.

NO it would be like keeping them in an over small cage if you make it relative to the size of the cat or dog and if you kept a dog or cat like that you would have them taken of you. The life expectancy for a "kept" whale is half what they expect in the wild HALF and the infant mortality is worse as well. Not to mention the self harming and there have even been cases of dolphins and whales committing suicide, but they look cute so they have to be kept. Its past time to let the whales and dolphins in captivity to grow old and die and stop replacing them.

Considering the natural habitat of dogs and cats (prior to domestication), I would say it is comparable. Additionally, dogs are "kenneled" in many situations while people are gone for the day. That is far less room then the tanks the whales are in.

A fish bowl isnt much better for a gold fish, who usually die because people dont keep the environment clean.

 

[Schmeck]

I was a volunteer at the Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal lab in Oahu. The bottlenosed dolphins there at the time, Phoenix and Akeakamai, were able to understand and respond to 2-3 different forms of artificial language.

One day, during free time, I was playing with one dolphin (I'm guessing it was Ake, because Phoenix was cranky when I was there) and I signed for her to 'spit', and then pointed at the guy further down the tank. It wasn't a sequence I had seen used at the lab, but she went over and squirted water on the guy, and then came back and showed excitement and pleasure, and asked for more.

The dolphins were able to communicate, and it was tested under very controlled circumstances. Google Louis Herman for his published works. When I was there, the dolphins could distinguish between 'put basket on ball' and 'put ball in basket.' They could answer yes and no questions about what was in their tanks.

So, yes, they can communicate with us.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

maybe they can get the whales voting rights too.

 

[CathrynRose]

Actually, I think it is about time that someone did something about the conditions and treatment of large marine mammals in captivity. I've worked with tanked dolphins, and it broke my heart.

Let's take some humans, stick them in a habitat 1/1,000,000 the size of their natural world, take away all natural social structure, and see how they like it. Any volunteers?

 

[pogo791]

Just to make sure y'all got the update:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/08/peta-whales-slavery-suit-tossed/

PETA's whale slavery suit tossed
Greg Moran

4:12 p.m., Feb. 8, 2012

Updated 8:08 p.m.

SAN DIEGO — Shamu and his whale pals at SeaWorld are staying put, despite efforts by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to set them free.
A federal judge dismissed on Wednesday a lawsuit filed in San Diego by PETA against SeaWorld, alleging the park’s performing killer whales are being held in captivity as slaves, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment.

Judge Jeffrey Miller dismissed the lawsuit two days after hearing an hour of arguments about the case’s merits. Miller ruled that the 13th Amendment, adopted in 1865, applied only to humans, and the lawsuit could not proceed.

A lawyer for PETA said the group has not decided if it will appeal the ruling but vowed the fight on behalf of the whales will continue.

“We’ll look at the order closely and see where we go from here,” said lawyer Jeff Kerr. “We’re concerned only with the well-being of the orcas and trying to end their enslavement.”

SeaWorld issued a statement after the ruling, praising Miller for dismissing the suit in such a way that it can’t be filed again, “ending the waste of the Court’s valuable time and taxpayers’ money.”

“The speed in which the Court issued its opinion provides reassurance of the sanctity of the 13th Amendment and the absurdity of PETA’s baseless lawsuit,” the statement said.

The suit was filed in October on behalf of five whales, three of which perform in San Diego and two at a park in Orlando, Fla. It was the first suit to try to apply the constitutional ban on slavery to animals.

SeaWorld called that claim offensive and defended how it cares for the animals at its amusement parks. The tactic was also met with skepticism by Miller at Monday’s hearing.

Kerr was undeterred. He said the suit was the first step in a new frontier of civil rights law on behalf of animals.

“The civil rights battle for humans was not, in many respects, won over night,” he said after the ruling. “We’re going to continue to pursue every available means to fight for these animals.”

In his ruling, Miller reviewed the history of the amendment and its adoption, and how courts had interpreted it in previous cases. He found no support for PETA’s position that it could be applied to animals.

“The clear language and historical context reveal that only human beings, or persons, are afforded the protection of the Thirteenth Amendment,” he wrote.

PETA had argued that the whales were captured in the wild, forced to perform and breed, and live a captive existence in large tanks, which Kerr called “concrete bathtubs.”

In the statement issued Wednesday, SeaWorld said it provides “the highest possible standard of care to our animals,” and will continue to do so.

Lawyers for SeaWorld had argued that PETA’s suit should be tossed out for the exact reasons that Miller cited. They warned that any traction the suit could get would open a Pandora’s box of potential claims against zoos, aquariums, even pet owners who got on the wrong side of their dogs and cats.

 

[Christopher Robin]

Just to make sure y'all got the update:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/08/peta-whales-slavery-suit-tossed/

PETA's whale slavery suit tossed
Greg Moran

4:12 p.m., Feb. 8, 2012

Updated 8:08 p.m.

SAN DIEGO — Shamu and his whale pals at SeaWorld are staying put, despite efforts by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to set them free.
A federal judge dismissed on Wednesday a lawsuit filed in San Diego by PETA against SeaWorld, alleging the park’s performing killer whales are being held in captivity as slaves, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment.

Judge Jeffrey Miller dismissed the lawsuit two days after hearing an hour of arguments about the case’s merits. Miller ruled that the 13th Amendment, adopted in 1865, applied only to humans, and the lawsuit could not proceed.

A lawyer for PETA said the group has not decided if it will appeal the ruling but vowed the fight on behalf of the whales will continue.

“We’ll look at the order closely and see where we go from here,” said lawyer Jeff Kerr. “We’re concerned only with the well-being of the orcas and trying to end their enslavement.”

SeaWorld issued a statement after the ruling, praising Miller for dismissing the suit in such a way that it can’t be filed again, “ending the waste of the Court’s valuable time and taxpayers’ money.”

“The speed in which the Court issued its opinion provides reassurance of the sanctity of the 13th Amendment and the absurdity of PETA’s baseless lawsuit,” the statement said.

The suit was filed in October on behalf of five whales, three of which perform in San Diego and two at a park in Orlando, Fla. It was the first suit to try to apply the constitutional ban on slavery to animals.

SeaWorld called that claim offensive and defended how it cares for the animals at its amusement parks. The tactic was also met with skepticism by Miller at Monday’s hearing.

Kerr was undeterred. He said the suit was the first step in a new frontier of civil rights law on behalf of animals.

“The civil rights battle for humans was not, in many respects, won over night,” he said after the ruling. “We’re going to continue to pursue every available means to fight for these animals.”

In his ruling, Miller reviewed the history of the amendment and its adoption, and how courts had interpreted it in previous cases. He found no support for PETA’s position that it could be applied to animals.

“The clear language and historical context reveal that only human beings, or persons, are afforded the protection of the Thirteenth Amendment,” he wrote.

PETA had argued that the whales were captured in the wild, forced to perform and breed, and live a captive existence in large tanks, which Kerr called “concrete bathtubs.”

In the statement issued Wednesday, SeaWorld said it provides “the highest possible standard of care to our animals,” and will continue to do so.

Lawyers for SeaWorld had argued that PETA’s suit should be tossed out for the exact reasons that Miller cited. They warned that any traction the suit could get would open a Pandora’s box of potential claims against zoos, aquariums, even pet owners who got on the wrong side of their dogs and cats.

Good.
Sanity previals at least a little while longer.
Can you imagine if they had won, and our Constitutional Rights had been extended to animals?
Shamu exercising his Second Amendment Right and packing heat.