:D I should have stated, I was actually looking at what Ann had in black. sorry. That's my one for the day.:p

May I ask what your source is?

To me, that's a classic example of taking something very ordinary and making it sinister. ASPCA dog training classes tell you to bring your dog to class hungry. It's right there on the website. Are we reducing our dogs to "beggars" by training them with food?

I've read a lot of material about this, and one thing Pryor says over and over again is that you simply cannot train a dolphin through negative reinforcement. You cannot use a choke collar on a dolphin. They are much more powerful than humans, and can easily outmaneuver us in the water. And in fact, you canNOT force a dolphin to perform by withholding food, because dolphins get most of their water from their food. They dehydrate and die very quickly if not fed regularly.

As an aside, Pryor describes one dolphin who figured out how to "beach" itself on the pool rim - it would flop over to people and bang its beak on them when it wanted attention. In other words, working the system. :)

Also: it's firmly established that any kind of animal, including our dogs, gravitate to the reward source. For dolphins, this is the fish bucket. You should be able to easily observe this with your own dog. Thor loves me, but he doesn't know what High Five means - he just knows he gets a Moo Chew out of it.

Okay, one last comment - I've swum with dolphins, and I would never in a million years go into a cage with a tiger. This is an apples and oranges comparison.

The Orca is a magnificent animal and should be observed, studied in it's natural habitat. It shouldn't be used to perform for us, that is selfish and IMO disgusting :(
The Orca attacked, because it is saying >basically< I want to go home.
These creatures stay in pods and are very close to one another and live their whole lives this way.
Can you imagine being taken away from your family and thrown in a tank and trained to perform for people :mad: that is terrible IMO.
There are social animals , highly intelligent , in ways just like us. So, for anyone to put them into captivity is just wrong, they cannot live in captivity and if they do, they don't live long. They are meant to be free and live their lives with their pods who are family members.
I just think it's wrong and I think you will see a lot more of this happening.

My condolences to the families . :(

I put it at the very beginning...Source:WSPA

Here is the link to the entire article...sorry I didn't put that with the excerpt.
http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/2220_d..._faqs.cfm#tank

I want you to know I respect your opinion and hope do not think I am being sinister. We disagree...and that is ok.:) I just don't want to come off like I am arguing with you.

I just can't see why we have to trap them and train them. To take a healthy dolphin from its environment and train it to do tricks for treats is cruel to me. I think we are able to study and create relationships with many animal in thier environment. However, that take much more time. People have spent years waiting to be "accepted" into prides, packs, or families of species they want to study. We have the power to yank them into our world so many times we do.

Rescues are another story. To save the life of an animal that may have otherwise died is a good thing. Sometimes these animals can be returned to the wild, sometimes they cant. These are wonderful examples of animals that should be released into reserves or controled habitats.

May I recommend a book to you all by an animal behaviourist called "Animals Make us Human". Excellent book. I think it is on the NYT best seller list now. It is not an animal rights book--rather, it is a book on how to treat animals, even in captivity, to impart a minimum amount of stress. The book provides insight on how these animals live, what gives them pleasure, what stresses them, and overall, what makes them tick.

In my opinion, after reading this book, we should not be exploiting any wild animals for our entertainment. That means dolphins, whales, lions, elephants, etc. Even if it means a shorter lifespan, the quality of life is something you have to consider. (For orcas, captive whales do not live as long, so even more reason to free them).

FYI, dogs are not wild animals...they have evolved to become domesticated, and in fact, they probably would not survive without humans (wolves would, of course). But we Yorkie owners already know that:D

Alison - thanks, I'm going to check out that book - there was just a thread discussing that book, so it's the 2nd time something is showing me I need to read it :).

I was very disappointed to see the announcement that Sea World is keeping Tilikum, rather than release him to a sanctuary to live in peace :(. One can't help but be suspicious of Sea World's true motivations in their decision in keeping him there - I'm sure now that they've reopened, their shows are more populated than ever, especially since they'll be keeping Tilikum.

So sad to see reporters interviewing people on the street who say "yeah but, we need whale shows like this bc most people can't afford to go see whales where they really live and we need to learn about whales" -- oh WOW. Yeah, bc seeing whales do tricks with humans is what they do in their natural habitat :rolleyes: (sorry for the sarcasm).

I hope Jane Goodall isn't watching this stuff...:(

Sadly I believe they are keeping this animal as he has been used for breeding. I think it is something like 17 have been born into captivity because of him.

Thanks Alison for this book, will order...

P.S. I believe all circuses should be shut down. They are cruel.

Oh I know, inhumane.

Thanks for the book recommendation, Allison.

Ya, get the book Ann.....you will enjoy it!

I used to think shows such as Sea World could serve a purpose by allowing the average person accessibility to live animals that they normally would never have. As magnificent as these and other creatures are though, I do wonder now, if as people we should have to go the extra mile just to see them. If someone truly wants to see a whale, is it not worth that extra effort? I mean, if I want to see a whale, a tiger, an elephant, I would much rather see them as God intended them to be, in their natural habitat, even if it costs me a considerable amount of money and time.

I do get it, that by keeping some species in captivity we have learned invaluable information, which is a good thing. At what point though is it enough and no longer necessary?

I lived on Cape Cod once and you could go out on boats to see these wonderful animals...and I agree with you. Also when I went to Africa it was so different seeing these animals in the wild.

I do believe we have saved some species but many of these places put the animals first and they live in much more humane living conditions then Sea World provides these whales.

You are totally right. Seaworld is a circus. A sideshow of marine animals. I don't believe they are doing it for the research. Go to Monterey Bay aquarium, that is a research and learning facility, tanks built into the actual bay, so they can live in their own natural habitat. :thumbup:

I honestly think that's very unfair to SeaWorld, but I've stated my piece on the contributions that organization has made to animal research.

Training for most animals is done both to benefit us humans as researchers and for the animal. This is one reason I love animal training so much - it's a mutually beneficial activity.

Zoo keepers spend a tremendous amount of time thinking up ways to keep their animals engaged and fulfilled. For instance, there was a lion in the small NYC zoo who appeared to be depressed. His keepers started to hide his meals so he could "stalk" them, and his demeanor improved tremendously.

I believe the book "Animals Make Us Human" lists a scale of animal "freedoms" we are obligated to provide to those we care for, starting the with the freedom from pain and fear, and ending with the freedom to engage in natural behaviors. That might be in "The Omnivore's Dilemma" - I can't remember now.

In any case, many animals live longer lives in captivity than they do in the wild, and you can make a good argument that many animals are better off. It's very easy to anthropormorphisize, or to hold romantic views about the wild, but for a lot of nature, life is nasty, brutal, and short. It may be that some animals thrive in captivity and some cannot.

In the case of this particular orca, I don't think anyone can say why he has killed humans. Who knows? It really could be anything. He may not have even realized that his actions would kill this woman, given his tremendous strength and non-human perspective.

I've seen good arguments as to why this whale should not be released, namely that he has been in captivity since he was two years old. He has lived in captivity for over twenty years. In addition, killer whales generally spend their lives in the same pod as their mothers. Keiko, the whale on which "Free Willy" was based, was never accepted into another pod after his release into the wild. He eventually sought out human contact again in Nova Scotia and died of pneumonia.

Again, this is not to say that he MUST be kept in captivity, but releasing him is not a simple process, nor does it guarantee that he would be "happier". It's quite possible that he would not be accepted to into a wild pod, and he would have no social contact at all. He currently has bonded with his human trainers, and with the other whales he lives with.

How has the research and training of tricks for Orcas in captivity benefited Orcas...bc I honestly don't understand that side of the argument?

How do zoos fulfill animals, what do you mean by that? Do you see how animals pace back-and-forth in their cages at zoos? Or how they rock and self-stim? Those behaviors are extremely meaningful in terms of the effects of captivity. I would not view those behaviors as signs of being fulfilled or engaged.

So are you saying that bc *some* animals live longer in captivity - that quantity of years equates with QUALITY of life? What do you mean "you can make a good argument that many animals are better off" in captivity?

I'm not sure anyone said releasing him was a simple process. There are also whale sanctuaries who were willing to care for him for the rest of his life - while also letting him be, if that's what he seemed to "prefer" (ie, no more training/tricks).

Just another thought on this whole orcas in captivity thread....

I recall about 10 years ago, that there were 2 orcas in a pool at Seaworld....a male and a female. The male orca jumped high in the air and landed right on the female, KILLING HER. It was acknowleged at the time that it was probable that this whale did this intentionally.

Based on the animal behaviour book that I recently read called "Animals Make us Human", it seems that the overwhelming motivator of these whales in captivity is RAGE.

According to the book, all animal behavior can be classified into 4 motivating categories: SEEKING and PLAY (both positive) and FEAR and RAGE (negative). If you think this book makes sense (and I think it does), then you can substitute good motivators with bad ones. For example, if Seaworld provided enough SEEKING AND PLAY opportunities, they could displace some of the RAGE. But I just don't see how that is possible in the tight confines of a featureless concrete bathtub.

Zoos have put a tremendous amount of work figuring out how to keep animals stimulated. I'm sure there's a long way to go, but it's not just, "throw the animal into a cage and hope for the best." Again, zoos in particular have come a very long way in the past 25 years. Generally speaking, zookeepers *love* their charges: they have essentially dedicated their lives to animal husbandry.

Training for orcas (or any animal) benefits the animal directly because the animals enjoy training. Animals like having their minds stimulated too. Referring back to the "Animals Make Us Human", training stimulates and satisfies the SEEK drive.

Indirectly, of course, it helps us understand orcas better, which benefits us and helps us understand how better to care for the world. It's the basic motivator behind any type of scientific research.

FYI, it is extremely difficult to study whales in their natural habitat - because they spend a lot of their lives under water! Again going back to dolphins, which I know more about, they appear to have a wide array of living arrangements and food gathering techniques, but it's difficult for us to observe anything that doesn't happen right offshore. A lot of people do not like tagging dolphins / whales with tracking devices, as they fear the tagging process is traumatic, and that other animals may react to them. Since they have echolocation, they can actually see INTO each other, so even a device that is subcutaneous potentially can cause a problem.

Of course length of life does not necessarily equal quality of life. However, we tend to forget that most animals spend their lives in rather desperate circumstances - they are trying to avoid being eaten alive, or starving to death. Being safe and well-fed are not things to take for granted.

I do think that zoos help foster respect for wildlife. It's one thing to read about a giraffe, and another thing entirely to see one. After all, children are the ones who really love zoos, and I think it helps shape the love for all types of animals.

This is so well put, but oh so wrong-headed. It all reads like so much spin to me.

Generally speaking, I'll agree that zoos have come a long way. My disagreement would be that there are many species that do well in captivity but there are also many who do not. Whether we can provide an adequate habitat for them to live naturally should be the over-riding criteria as to what species we hold captive. It is inherently cruel to hold some species captive, no matter how much their keepers love them. And, as a point of correction, it is not animal husbandry. That is a term reserved for domestic animals...not wildlife.

You speak of animals benefiting directly from training. While true in some cases, let's get specific and relate this to orcas (since that is the subject). Would you compare the benefits of training compared to, ummm....let's see...how about freedom? And, could you explain what useful knowledge we are acquiring by their continued captivity in a circus environment?

You speak of the 'desperate circumstances' that wild animals endure like we are doing them a favor by capturing them. How in the world would you explain to an orca that he is better off in a fish bowl begging for scraps rather than being in the ocean? Nature operates with a perfect cruelty that has sustained a balance for millions of years without man's interference. Our attempts to intervene are feeble by comparison.

I'm not against zoos for certain species. There are some that do thrive in that environment. Also, well designed aviaries and aquariums (for fish, not whales) can be educational without disrupting the creatures natural life.

I also think it is important to have captive breeding programs for threatened species. The bald eagle, red wolf, brown pelican and the condor are just a few that owe their existence to these efforts. These programs, however, have as a goal, to return these animals to the wild. I also support wildlife rescue and re-hab programs.

What you are doing with your post is to somehow equate benign captive programs with keeping a whale in a fish bowl. There are no equivalents to this and it is one of the most cruel machinations mankind has come up with. Whales are held captive for amusement and there is no getting around this.

I've repeatedly said I cannot speak specifically to orcas, as I have not read any in-depth material on them. I also said that if they have shorter life spans in captivity, that's certainly an indicator that they aren't doing well. It seems reasonable to me to think that some animals could do well and others couldn't.

"It's inherently cruel to keep animals in captivity." Really? Why? This seems to me to be an entirely emotional, anthropormorphic argument. Nature is "perfectly cruel." That's not a fact, it's a philosophy, which is fine, but it's not really something you can speak to either way. Either you feel that way or you don't.

Just curious, has anyone who is so passionately against training actually read any studies on how this works? Because I have read a lot, and honestly, to me, "reducing an orca to begging for scraps" sounds incredibly like spin to me.

"Whales are held captive for amusement and there is no getting around this." I'm sorry, but this is FALSE. OF COURSE the whales are being studied in captivity! We study EVERYTHING. Why would whales be different?

FYI, a lot of the "degrading" tricks animals perform, they came up with themselves. It's a basic concept in training, that even fairly low-intelligence animals can do, which is "show me something I haven't seen before". A lot of tricks that dolphins can do, for instance, hopping around on their back fin, aren't shaped by the trainer's goal. It's something the dolphin thinks is cool, and offers as a behavior.

I have to say, I've found this conversation pretty frustrating, because it doesn't seem like people are taking time to really consider the circumstances and educate themselves on these topics. Does nobody else here train their dogs? Those training techniques you're using were perfected on marine mammals. These arguments are totally emotional. Emotional is fine, but it can't be the entire basis for an opinion (IMO!). I'm okay with people disagreeing, but please, use some real information, not just your gut and a link to an article written by someone who hasn't deeply researched the topic.

If anyone is interested in an actual history of animal training, zoo keeping or marine biology, please feel free to PM me for book recommendations. I don't feel like what I'm saying is getting heard at all, so I'm out. Peace. I still love you guys. ;)