Pete's solo show today is a must!

[rmm7e]

So I would ask SW to keep doing everything else that it is doing. Just shut down your killer whale shows. That's all.

That moment when someone out there in the vast world of the internets understands you. Love you, JimmyV!

 

[disneysteve]

if he is referring to doing homework on how the Blackfish documentary was a hatchet job of bad journalism, I probably don't disagree with him on that.

I've always gotten the impression that the "do your homework" is in reference to the Blackfish documentary.

Same here. It has always been Blackfish that Pete has ranted about, not the captivity issue itself. In fact, he has said that is a different issue and hasn't really clearly stated his opinion. He may have even suggested that he agrees that keeping them in captivity is a problem. I don't specifically remember how he has worded his comments.

But I think the "do your homework" comments have always been about not believing the documentary without doing your research to see if it is actually true.

 

[ninecrayons]

Hubs and I listened to Pete's solo show on the way up to Disney yesterday. I felt his commentary about the bathroom issues quite keenly when we got to the parks and literally, not a single toilet in the bathroom by Space Mountain would flush. It was beyond gross and nobody seemed to be doing anything about it. I opted to skip that one and hold it until we got across the park.

 

[ashley1992]

I listening to Pete's Solo Show on my plane ride home from Orlando yesterday. It made leaving just a tiny bit easier. Thanks for much for another great show, Pete!

 

[JimmyV]

I've always gotten the impression that the "do your homework" is in reference to the Blackfish documentary.

Same here. It has always been Blackfish that Pete has ranted about, not the captivity issue itself.

Sorry, but the content does not back that up. While the reference to "research" and "homework" was made in the context of the documentary itself, you have to dive deeper to see what it is that he is saying was deceptive. Here is the monologue beginning at the 22:05 mark:

Do some research and find out what the other side is, and find out just how dishonest and deceptive that documentary was. There is an argument to be made about whether or not killer whales should be in captivity.

There it is. Right there in front of you. He is saying that the documentary was dishonest and deceptive because it did not present the other side of the captivity argument and that such an argument exists. I suppose the other side of the argument does exist if the jumping off point is: "Is it neat to see killer whales in person?" But if the jumping off point of the argument is: "There are no detrimental effects to the whales when they are held in captivity", there is simply no "research" or "homework" that supports that. Indeed, you could spend hours on the internet looking for studies that support this hypothesis and the only information that you will find in that camp comes from Sea World itself. So where is the dishonest, deceptive bias now? Every other marine mammal organization refutes what SW has to say on the topic. If one wants to say that SW (which has a financial stake in keeping whales in captivity) is "right" and that every other source of marine biology with no stake in the outcome is "wrong", well then, there is little left to debate. But the truth is, the "argument to be made about whether or not killer whales should be in captivity" rests solely in the hands of Sea World.

In discussing longevity in captivity, the best argument that SW can muster is "we just don't know", and that the average life expectancy of killer whales in the wild is approximately 30 years, and that SW has "several" killer whales in their 30's. So Sea World has "several" whales that have made it to the average age. To replicate longevity in the wild, it would have to have its population average out to 30. But don't stop there. Here is a recent paper that one can count as "research" and "homework" that utilizes data pre-Blackfish, and thus has no agenda to either refute or support that documentary.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mms.12225/full

It is dense reading, but the type of study that one must digest before coming out in favor of keeping whales in captivity. If Pete wants us to do our homework, here it is. The data starts in 1961, when killer whales were first put in captivity in the U.S., and draws from records from the Marine Mammal Inventory Report, a database run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that catalogues all the marine mammals held in the country. It can hardly be said that NOAA is a biased source with a journalistic axe to grind. The conclusion? Things have improved over time. Facilities in the U.S. do better than facilities in the rest of the world. But whales in captivity do not fare as well as those in the wild.

But frankly, all of the discussion of longevity is simply irrelevant to the larger question of "quality of life" for immensely intelligent animals. Where is the "other side of the argument" that killer whales "should" (using Pete's word) be kept in captivity when they are huge creatures that swim many miles a day in pods and hunt in packs. To the extent that a zoo or marine park seeks to justify its content by claiming that it has fairly replicated the animals' natural habitat, such claim simply cannot be made with respect to killer whales. As I mentioned earlier, if one wants to keep a clown fish in a tank where it stays close to its protective anemone, I doubt anyone will care. But the man-made habitat of a killer whale at a marine park is not even close to its natural habitat. Nor is its secluded, solitary life kept penned away from other animals. These are group-living creatures whose pods stay cohesive for decades. Where is the "other side of the argument" that an animal that lives in such conditions in the wild "should be in captivity" where it is isolated from its pod, is not permitted to roam dozens of miles in a day, and cannot hunt with its podmates? I've looked for such research and I simply cannot find it. The other side of the argument seems to be tethered to: "Killer whale shows are really cool and people like them". But an argument based on the overall benefits to the animal in general and the species as a whole? I find that completely lacking.

 

[Princess Jes]

What I don't understand about the above ^^ is that pete said "whether or not" I could be missing something but I don't see him making any opinion there. He's literally saying that there are arguments for both sides.

 

[JJZMgailey]

If I have any suggestions I'd like to see Kevin lead a "7 Restaurants in 7 days" podcast
Doug

What a great idea for a segment! I love it!

 

[JimmyV]

What I don't understand about the above ^^ is that pete said "whether or not" I could be missing something but I don't see him making any opinion there. He's literally saying that there are arguments for both sides.

But where is the support for "the other side"? I can say that there are arguments for both sides of the proposition "whether or not" the world is flat and you could say that this is a non-judgmental stance. But without providing some citation in support of the "flat" side of the argument, what is the point? It is easy to say that one should do their homework and review both sides of the argument. But without citing to some source material that supports the position that "keeping whales in captivity is beneficial to the animals", doesn't the proclamation ring hollow? No one has yet cited to a single study that can be researched and studied that supports the other side of the argument. Can you? It is fine to say: "Do some research!" But that presupposes that there is some scholarly source material to review. "Do some research on whether or not the earth is flat!" That sounds reasonable, right? I am "literally saying that there are arguments for both sides" just as you say. But try and do the research and see where it leads.

 

[Princess Jes]

But where is the support for "the other side"? I can say that there are arguments for both sides of the proposition "whether or not" the world is flat and you could say that this is a non-judgmental stance. But without providing some citation in support of the "flat" side of the argument, what is the point? It is easy to say that one should do their homework and review both sides of the argument. But without citing to some source material that supports the position that "keeping whales in captivity is beneficial to the animals", doesn't the proclamation ring hollow? No one has yet cited to a single study that can be researched and studied that supports the other side of the argument. Can you? It is fine to say: "Do some research!" But that presupposes that there is some scholarly source material to review. "Do some research on whether or not the earth is flat!" That sounds reasonable, right? I am "literally saying that there are arguments for both sides" just as you say. But try and do the research and see where it leads.

Again, I think the point is that he's not getting into it, he's merely saying that there are arguments for both sides. He's not stating an opinion not is he staying any facts, so I don't think he needs to provide any arguments because all he's saying is that there are some, not which he agrees with.

 

[MikeTaylor]

Pete's saying the family of Brancheau spoke out against the movie, but really all they did was state that they weren't affiliated with it, getting compensated in any way, had no idea as to the content of the film, and believed Dawn Brancheau would not have continued to work there if the animals weren't cared for properly. That being said, are they experts in animal behavior or could tell you the affects of long term captivity? All they know is that the animals were well cared for, which is a different argument.

Sea World was fined by OSHA and trainers can no longer be in the tanks with the animals now.

 

[SorcererHeidi]

Funny that you say that. I'm catching up on the Universal shows and just listened to some of the Land and Sea series. Pete was on a couple of those and it did totally change the dynamic. It wasn't better or worse but it was absolutely different.

Every show is somewhat different depending on who is in the room that day. Pete is different than Dustin. Julie is different than JeniLynn. Kevin is different than Ryno. There may be combos you come to like better than others. That's perfectly natural. At the end of the day, though, I'd tune in to hear any of them talking about pretty much anything.

I totally agree with your stating that different "combos" are just that - "different" - and sometimes I like different combos on different shows for different reasons. Which is also why I have to say that I really enjoyed Pete's "solo show" (yes - I JUST finished listening to it - better late than never, right?) and enjoyed it very much, even though it was "different" from a "team show". I also wanted to thank Pete for taking the time to do it. Oh - and I also ejoy(ed) the 7-in-7's, Park Benches, and Free Form Friday shows - all different, but enjoyable in their own "different" ways.

 

[BradChristian]

I enjoyed this show Pete! Very well done.