Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160310-why-killer-whales-should-not-be-kept-in-captivity

by ComputerGuru • 10 years ago

116 129 10 years ago

carapace• 10 years ago

They are sentient. It is slavery.

On the one hand, I wish I lived in an era of human history when technology had improved to the point where we could explore or communicate with distant planets and meet other sentient life forms.

On the other hand, our treatment of lifeforms of varying difference to ourselves already on our planet is deeply troubling. The thought of that culture spreading across the galaxy like a disease is horrifying.

I have a pet dog. I think I treat her well. Will my descendants look back on this and compare me to my not-so-distant ancestors who were racist or sexist?

toomuchtodo2• 10 years ago

I have the same fears about sentient machine intelligence. Will it be a kind god?

dpflan3• 10 years ago

Here is an article about a Beluga whale that began to mimic human speech:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/story-one-whale...

Also, In the "Animal Minds" episode, Radiolab recounts a story of divers saving a net-entangled whale, and the whale in turn "thanks" each diver. It's a good show, and the examples included are thought-provoking. If you found this story intriguing, I recommend giving this Radiolab episode a listen. If not, the stories leads to what is intelligence and connection possibilities across species, and the topic of Spindle Neurons is presented which are explored as a connection between high and low order parts of the brain. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_neuron)

The Goods:

1. The episode: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91701-animal-minds/

2. A related follow-up about whales:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/149761-whale-saying-thank-you/

krapp2• 10 years ago

The thought of that culture spreading across the galaxy like a disease is horrifying.

Why the assumption that humans are uniquely pestilential in our behavior? For all we know, 'the galaxy' might consider our capacity for tolerance to be the disease.

kazinator• 10 years ago

Dogs are not exactly in captivity; they are domestic. Many of them show that they are not in captivity by roaming freely but then returning home.

They do so even if they are not verbally threatened with negative consequences if they fail to come home; and they wouldn't understand that anyway. :)

Domestic animals kept as pets that are treated well have good lives that they arguably enjoy. Wild animals have it very tough, by contrast.

manachar• 10 years ago

At this point we still cannot actually negotiate with our pets to establish a mutually satisfactory relationship.

Domesticated animals are animals that co-evolved with modern humans (lately with a lot of human selection). Some of our practices towards our pets are barbaric now. For instance, purposefully breeding worse and worse genes to get a flatter face despite the misery this causes the dogs.

But in other ways, dogs and cats still can't make choices about things that would allow us to treat them as equals.

For instance, we forcibly sterilize cats and dogs so they don't breed and contribute to the overpopulation problem. We restrict their movement so they do not endanger others or themselves. Outdoor cats are an environmental catastrophe in most areas.

It's tough to know what the right treatment of a pet is. I do believe we've gotten better. It used to be common for vets to not give pain meds to dogs recovering from surgery. I guess it's easier to ignore the pain when they can't talk to you. It also used to be common to shoot a dog who has broken a leg. I recently had a dog who had osteosarcoma. We paid to have his leg amputated and for chemo. Our conversations with the vet were nearly identical to how I'd approach getting cancer. Some people thought we were nuts paying for such care.

Cats are still treated as disposable by many people. One step above a goldfish. Meanwhile, some people are starting to actually take koi fish in to vets for treatment.

If you treat your pets as individual lives worthy of dignity and let that inform your thinking, I imagine you're already better than most of human history's brutally utilitarian approach.

matwood• 10 years ago

I have a pet dog. I think I treat her well. Will my descendants look back on this and compare me to my not-so-distant ancestors who were racist or sexist?

I know mine will not. My dogs are living the good life.

diogenescynic• 10 years ago

Demetri Martin: It seems like there's a fine line between having a pet and having a hostage from a different species. You go to somebody's house, they're like, "Close the door. He'll get out. CLOSE THE DOOR! HE'LL GET OUT!" Okay. What kind of relationship do you have with this dog, exactly?

jqm2• 10 years ago

At what point does sentience end? Whales? Rats? Birds? Fish? Insects? Plants? Bacteria?

Because something has a higher order nervous system does that mean we have to assign it equal rights? How high an order of system would be required to have equal rights? Why does it really matter how something else feels other than members of our own species?

For the record I generally agree with not keeping killer whales in captivity. I'm just asking the question so we know the position has been well considered.

Perhaps "slavery" is a bit too strong? (And that's without even getting into "you say that like it's a bad thing....").

staticautomatic• 10 years ago

I think it was the political philosopher Robert Nozick who posed a related question: If it's acceptable for humans to eat "lower" life forms, then would it be acceptable for a much more intelligent or sentient alien race to eat humans?

zipwitch• 10 years ago

I've no idea where we can draw a line on "sentience". But when it comes to creatures that seem highly likely to be on the same side of the line that we are, I think its far better to err by being too generous with our definitions.

avdempsey• 10 years ago

If you're interested in these questions I highly recommend the book "Beyond Words" by Carl Safina. He embeds with researchers that have been living with different species for decades. Cataloging the exploits of individuals and families across generations. We should not simply assume animals have the same experiences as humans, but we should also not assume they don't. Safina's book shows as we're actually investigating this question we're discovering there's likely a lot more richness to the animal experience than we expected. Fascinating subject, and beautifully written book.

krapp2• 10 years ago

I think "sentience" is a political and religious concept, a vestige of the days when it was simply assumed that humans were unique, even blessed by God, and all other forms of life were just meat machines running blind algorithms. The truth is probably that sentience doesn't exist, only differing levels of complexity between one form of life and another.

tn133• 10 years ago

Our relationship with wild/animals can be better understood by giving more sympathetic ear to tribal people around the earth. I personally find the western liberal logic to far more rely on mutual-exclusion principle than required.

I come from India where we literally and figuratively worship plethora to animal gods. We made our bullocks work like slaves in our field and yet for us they were members of family. Humans in the house-hold did not start their food until the Animals were served their food first. Same for temple elephants, bullfight bulls, snakes etc. it was a relationship that both used Animals and yet respected them for their "life".

In last decade or so a lot of western funded NGOs are on prowl painting all Hindu traditions as "exploitative towards animals" demanding ban on almost everything from bull-fights to temple elephants.

Solutions sometimes exist in plain sight but we refuse to look.

NoMoreNicksLeft2• 10 years ago

Prove this.

Hell, don't worry about proving it. Just define "sentient" in a objective, empirically measurable way.

fnovd6• 10 years ago

Define the word "word" without using any words.

Haha! You can't! Therefore, words don't exist.

cookiecaper7• 10 years ago

Most animals are "sentient" to some degree or another, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. A perception of animal "sentience" doesn't automatically mean it's wrong for humans to employ, enjoy, and/or harvest them.

junto2• 10 years ago

But they are paid in fish!

</ irony>

dpflan3• 10 years ago

Blackfish is definitely a provocative documentary on this topic of killer whale captivity.

tn133• 10 years ago

Sadly that documentary is one sided and what appears to be motivated documentary. We need to hear the other side too.

dpflan3• 10 years ago

True, much needed for a full understanding. Though revelations like this raise suspicion about nefarious activity and whether the debate will be even: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/seaworld-admits-it-sent-spi...

user_0001• 10 years ago

The other side? That good money can be made by keeping animals in substandard conditions for their complete well being (mental and physical)?

:-\

cookiecaper7• 10 years ago

Blackfish provoked me, but not in the expected manner.

I was actually impressed that over 4 decades of orca captivity, they could only identify a small number of violent incidents, and while it's sad that these incidents occurred, it seems like a known occupational hazard whenever dealing with large animals. They tried to make it out like the small group of trainers that had been injured or killed over the years had no way of knowing that their job was potentially dangerous, which is, of course, patently ridiculous.

I didn't see any substantive argument in Blackfish. I don't think they made the case that orcas are a special, elevated form of animal intelligence that is too sensitive to be kept in captivity; they mostly just recounted a list of some bad things that have happened over the history of orca captivity, but I don't see how that's supposed to be representative. All serious endeavors will have mishaps.

I believe Blackfish's producers are trying to lay the baseline for a larger anti-animal-captivity platform in general, and I can't get on board with that. I think that animal captivity is a net good; it allows us to learn about the animals, increases the passion humans have for nature (meaning they'll be less likely to destroy it recklessly), and provides the basic components needed for many important scientific studies.

I think most zoologists keep animals because they genuinely care about them and care about educating the public on how to live peacefully and cooperatively with them. Hiding something away in a corner is not an effective way to engender wonder or interest in it, and that means it's far too easy for some uncharitable business interest to destroy in the name of profit.

Really in some sense SeaWorld is a victim of its own success. They successfully took the daunting specter of the killer whale and made him so cuddly and kid-friendly that this is the animal people are most receptive to believing is actually so super special, caring, smart, and sweet that it doesn't deserve to live in a container.

sxcurry• 10 years ago

Animal captivity is a net good - except for the animals. If you believe, as many people do, that all animals should have the same basic rights, then captivity is shameful. In the future, human animals will look back with revulsion at the way we currently treat other animals.

jkot• 10 years ago

How many men are kept in captivity?

Tiktaalik3• 10 years ago

In line with this, several decades of observation show that orcas are not naturally violent towards humans. There are no recorded cases of a wild orca killing a human.

In a recent BBC Attenborough documentary (I think Frozen Planet) there was a sequence where they showed teams of killer whales swiftly swimming just under the surface to create a wave in an attempt to knock a seal off an ice flow so that they could eat it.

After the main part of the documentary they had a "making of" component that showed how the film crew got the shots and made the film, and they showed the killer whales trying to do the same trick on the tiny boat the camera men were on to try to knock them into the water.

funkyy3• 10 years ago

Attacks on humans by Orcas happens. Its that they do not eat humans, once they realize its us, they let go and swim away. They need to taste us first, especially if none of the members of group haven't tasted or interacted with humans before.

DamnYuppie3• 10 years ago

Same with most sharks. They have to bite you to know what you are, most shark attacks are quick strikes and then they let the victim go.

crispyambulance• 10 years ago

Good to know! Now which appendage should I offer for the tasting menu....

azakai6• 10 years ago

It's not just that they don't eat us, it's also that they haven't killed us for other reasons.

For example, a human happening to stray close to a young orca might be confused as a threat to it, which could trigger an attack by a parent. Yet, despite there being lots of orcas in the ocean, no violent altercation between a wild orca and a human has led to a human death.

That this hasn't happened even once is remarkable, especially given the massive size and strength of orca. Other large mammals often kill humans, and not just as food, for example, hippos.

I don't think we know exactly why orcas have never killed humans, but I would guess their intelligence has something to do with it.

elwesties• 10 years ago

I have personally swum with wild Orcas. They seemed to asses me then discount me as food fairly quickly.

dopamean• 10 years ago

This is not an assessment I'd be interesting in undergoing.

vijayr2• 10 years ago

Is it because humans have less fat than seals etc, that they are not interested in us as food?

Evolved2• 10 years ago

I apologize in advance for this sounding morbid but I'd allege that the reason there are no recorded cases could be that there are no remains and thus a person that may have been killed by an Orca could still be a missing person case without evidence to support any particular theory.

SixSigma• 10 years ago

Aspey Cherry relates a tale on Scott's Antarctic mission when they dragged a horse from the ice in a desperate tug-of-war with the humans and ate it.

http://www.davidspilmanfinebooks.com/pages/books/13027/aspey...

You don't have to pay $350 for the print version, it's on Gutenberg

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14363

cphoover• 10 years ago

I agree that killer whale's shouldn't be kept in captivity, but than on the other hand, I also love me some bacon. Pigs are also sentient creatures with high intelligence yet we see them as a food source, and thus don't really care about their conditions in captivity.

schoen• 10 years ago

That seems like an excellent example of "one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens".

scoofy2• 10 years ago

So, there is animal rights, and animal welfare. I think one of the main problems for orcas is size. Creating an appropriately sized habitat for them would be a gargantuan endeavor, however, if we could, i think a lot of us would be less vehemently opposed to keeping them in captivity.

For pigs, this is entirely plausible. While i'm also very opposed to our current factory farming practices, since i'm fairly nihilistic about ending meat consumption for high functioning mammals in my lifetime, we could absolutely and trivially easily make their lives pleasant before slaughtering them for their delicious bacon. Yes, it would cause bacon to be more expensive, but it's definitely doable. This is simply impossible for orcas under the current paradigm.

Even as someone who supports animal rights and welfare, i could see myself being okay with orcas in captivity, if we're talking about oceanic reservations, say, the size of Connecticut, but at that size, it'd be impossible for us to make them do tricks and crap that people go to sea world for.

asciimo• 10 years ago

It sounds like you support animal welfare, but not animal rights. I would expect someone who supports animal rights to not be OK with captivity for human gain.

DanBC2• 10 years ago

and thus don't really care about their conditions in captivity.

Several vigorous campaigns existed to improve the conditions for pigs. Look at England for an example, where changes in English law were voluntarily followed by Danish and Dutch pig farmers so they could compete on welfare standards.

See also "free range" eggs and higher welfare farm standards.

Plenty of people like eating meat but will only buy meat from animals that have higher welfare standards.

toomuchtodo2• 10 years ago

As soon as vat grown meat surpasses traditional meat sources in cost and quality, it'll make life a whole lot easier for everyone.

funkyy3• 10 years ago

Pigs are meant to be kept as farm animals. They were selectively domesticated. Same with chickens, sheep, cows etc. Problem with Orcas is that they are not use to live in captivity. They were just caught in the sea and forced to do tricks. Its same with large wild cats - they have been not selectively chosen over decades to join the human society.

rosser• 10 years ago

Nothing is "meant" to be kept as a farm animal. The choices we've made about which animals we keep as livestock, which we keep as pets, and which we keep in zoos (or, per TFA, only slightly oversized swimming pools) are in absolutely no way derived from some sort of teleological mandate.

rubber_duck• 10 years ago

While I agree with you I feel like that's a technical problem - if you want to argue from that position it should be a question of "how do we keep them in captivity efficiently/safely" both for them and humans rather than "should we keep them" and phrasing it as a moral question.

Also the article's point and general theme seems kind of weak :

In line with this, several decades of observation show that orcas are not naturally violent towards humans. There are no recorded cases of a wild orca killing a human.

This implies (and the surrounding text) - that this behavior is a result of captivity changing their behavior.

How often do orcas and humans meet in a setting that would allow them to harm a human in a similar way they would - say a penguin ? Would it be plausible that they would do a similar thing in the wild in a similar setting given enough opportunities (since trainers interact with them constantly) ?

maxxxxx• 10 years ago

Pigs are not used to the conditions they have to live under in factory farms. Their life is pure hell from birth to death.

It's not like dogs who have evolved to live with humans and are generally treated well.

worldsoup• 10 years ago

"meant to" might not be the best term, but it's true that pigs are domesticated animals, meaning they've been selectively bred to benefit humans and to have a predisposition towards us. the same can definitely not be said about orcas

azakai6• 10 years ago

But we should.

Future generations will judge us very poorly on this.

cookiecaper7• 10 years ago

Future generations will judge us very poorly on this.

Generally, I find such speculative statements worthless. It's another way to say "I really think this should be obvious and that my idea will eventually be widely accepted to be correct". That's all well and good, but everyone thinks that about their own thoughts. It really doesn't contribute anything to the argument; it's an attempt to shame your opponent into agreeing with you by invoking his future childrens' potential disdain.

I also think that if you really want to know what future generations will think of something, you should refer to what prior generations thought of it. By this standard, future generations are likely to taunt us mercilessly for caring so much about what we imagine to be a whale's internal monologue.

ProAm2• 10 years ago

It's different for animals that naturally migrate hundreds of thousands of miles a year and forcing them to live in a few thousand cubic meters of water.

cookiecaper7• 10 years ago

Why? Can't they swim hundreds of miles within their enclosures, just as humans can walk hundreds of miles on the treadmill? Is the primary complaint that the orca won't be able to enjoy the scenery of the open ocean, and thus, will no longer find joy in its "migration"? This is the main reason some humans prefer to run outdoors instead of in the gym on the treadmill.

darklajid6• 10 years ago

My wife keeps hitting me when I (intentionally, to mess with her) call these creatures 'killer whales'. The name doesn't help, really.

The subtitle is 'Keeping orcas in aquariums deprives them of crucial aspects of their lives, and in some cases it can even prove dangerous to humans'. BBC seems to know what these creatures are called, but prefers to use 'killer whales' in the title. Why? That's messed up, both in general and for this particular piece.

wfunction• 10 years ago

Why?

I'm guessing if someone doesn't know what an "orca" is then they won't get the title at all. Whereas everyone knows what a whale is, even if they don't know what a killer whale specifically is.

darklajid6• 10 years ago

That's actually not a bad (albeit sad) point, but they constantly refer to 'also known as killer whale' in the article afterwards.

I mean, baiting to click the article ('killer whale') and showing the creature ('Hey, I know that one. Free Willy was a great movie!') should be enough, even if we accept your premise.

I'm mostly repeating what my better half wants me to say right now, but .. why would we call something a 'killer' (often hard to get right for people - killing in the animal kingdom isn't what we associate with a killer)? And why would we repeatedly do so in a plea to stop treating them badly?

akavi• 10 years ago

BBC seems to know what these creatures are called

Yes, they're called both "orcas" and "killer whales", with the latter being more common.

And on that note, do people really parse "killer whales" as "whales that kill (people?)". I'm pretty sure I don't; my brain treats the phrase as an opaque semantic unit meaning "those giant, black and white dolphins".

aninhumer• 10 years ago

I parse it as a unit, but it's not opaque. The word killer still carries a pretty violent connotation.

dsp1234• 10 years ago

Quick poll of those around me:

Are orcas called 'killer whales' because the kill people?

yes - 3

no - 2

darklajid6• 10 years ago

So, two things. First of all: Even if 'killer whale' is more common, I don't think that this kind of name is making a good case for a 'pity the social creatures trapped in a cage' article. I'd try to avoid it, if I wanted to make people more aware of the problems outlined in the article.

But - obviously that's a cultural thing as well. I just checked the English Wikipedia and it happily lists Orcas as 'Killer Whales'. The German Wikipedia [1] however calls them 'Orcas' or 'Sword whales' (Schwertwale, translating word by word here) and explicitly says (my crappy translation, original to go and ask Google Translate about is below [2]) "The animals have been referred to as Killer Whales and Murder Whales by Whalers due to their seeminly brutal ways to hunt for prey".

So maybe it's a bit of both? Bad publicity in general with a name like that and using a name that isn't common and generally ~obsolete~ in my home country?

1: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwertwal 2: "Die Namen Killerwal und Mörderwal wurden den Tieren von Walfängern gegeben und nehmen Bezug auf die oft brutal anmutenden Jagdmethoden dieser Raubwale."

Fomite2• 10 years ago

Except from any perspective other than "People", Killer Whale is a pretty apt title. They are terrifyingly effective predators.

darklajid6• 10 years ago

But isn't the article trying to appeal to people?

And here's the bigger problem I (well, I stated it over and over again: This was kinda introduced to me rather recently) have: As a non-native speaker of English 'to kill' is neutral. A fox kills a hen. 'killer' is immediately associated with ethical and moral values, feels much closer to murderer.

Actually .. I have trouble translating 'killer' back to my native language, German. 'Mörder' would be murderer, 'Jäger' is hunter - it might be that I'm just tired, but I cannot come up with something that might match 'killer' without either making the animal sound human and vicious (murderer) or diluting the whole term (hunter).

Native English speakers: Is 'killer' something you read and understand as 'predator in nature'? Do you feel that this name comes with emotional baggage?

nfg• 10 years ago

Alas Orca has its own connotations, Wikipedia: “Indeed, the genus name Orcinus means "of the kingdom of the dead", or "belonging to Orcus".”

Evolved2• 10 years ago

You're not wrong. They are killer whales. It's just that they don't (99.9999999999%) kill humans in the wild. They kill sharks and seals all the time which qualifies them as a killer whale.

gozur882• 10 years ago

Yeah. I'd always assumed "killer" in killer whale was a recognition they eat fish and mammals instead of krill.

namenotrequired• 10 years ago

There are no real arguments here that do not apply to a large amount of other animals kept in captivity. But I guess we have to start somewhere.

Edit: grammar

tn133• 10 years ago

Being one-issue fundamentalist is always a bad thing. A sweeping statement "killer whales should not be ..." does not seem convincing.

No one is even trying to put all killer whales in aquarium. Having few of them where humans could watch them is a good thing. Where else would my 5 year old know about these giant creatures, after all he needs to do something for their preservation.

Watching wildlife up and close is a great experience just so we could empathize with their needs. I cared a damn about Polar Bears or Orangutans until I saw them up and close at San Diego zoo. Now I am much more willing to donate money that helps their cause.

Besides if an animal is entertaining for humans I think that is a great evolutionary trait that can help those animals survive. I don't see how else that df*k Panda would have survived on earth.

fnovd6• 10 years ago

Having few of them where humans could watch them is a good thing.

For humans, maybe. How is it good for orcas? Isn't the issue here that we are denying agency from intelligent beings?

smegger001• 10 years ago

As a species it very good thing as it provides awareness of them and lets the public learn about them and want to protect the species as individual animal it kinda sucks.

ahoyfuckers• 10 years ago

Humans should not be kept in captivity either, yet we do it to ourselves with sedentary lifestyles

fnovd6• 10 years ago

If you are doing it yourself, it isn't captivity.

sschueller• 10 years ago

"There are currently (December 2015) a total of 56 orcas held in captivity (23 wild-captured plus 33 captive-born) in at least 12 marine parks in 8 different countries." [1]

"SeaWorld holds 23 orcas in its three parks in the United States and owns (at least) a further four at Loro Parque in Spain (ownership of Adan and Morgan not verified). At least forty-five orcas have died at SeaWorld." [1]

[1] http://uk.whales.org/wdc-in-action/fate-of-captive-orcas

noondip• 10 years ago

No one is "meant" to be tortured and abused. I find you reply to be morally abhorrent and absolutely disgusting.

Right now, at this very moment, on American highways, there are no less than 5,000 concentration camp trucks. Trucks that we’ve constructed. Inside these trucks there are living, terrified, innocent beings (such as) cows, pigs and chickens. These trucks are being driven to concentration camp slaughterhouses that we’ve carefully constructed all across America. When the trucks arrive, the animals are so frightened they won’t even get off the truck. They’re not stupid. They know what’s next. So people go on the trucks with electric prods and force them to walk down the chutes to their own death. Or if the animals are small enough to manhandle, like chickens, we’ll just grab them off the trucks and toss them inside. Inside, these innocent, living beings are hanged upside down, fully conscious. In other words, they go in alive against their will and come out chopped up into hundreds of pieces. I think this type of behavior is inexcusable and unbecoming of a species that claims to understand right from wrong. The animals have not done one single thing to us to deserve the wrath and the cruelty that we hurl on them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt4lweBJTQs

logfromblammo4• 10 years ago

I find your reference to "concentration camps" in relation to livestock finishing feedlots and slaughterhouses to be tremendously inappropriate. Please find another way to shock and horrify readers into treating food animals more humanely.

It might not have been your intent, but you are reducing the victims of actual concentration camps to the status of food animals.

Synaesthesia3• 10 years ago

I think it's correct, in fact livestock farms are worse than most concentration camps.

dang• 10 years ago

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11269620 and marked it off-topic.

cm3• 10 years ago

Is there some animal which should be kept in captivity? For instance, I don't understand how it's accepted to cage birds and keep them from flying. It makes no sense to me. Please explain, as I'm sure there's a valid reason, but if you try to look it up you end up on animal rights activist sites that don't explain much.

Synaesthesia3• 10 years ago

People also shouldn't be kept in captivity.

pbhjpbhj7• 10 years ago

I disagree. People who pose a significant threat to wider society should be incarcerated IMO, either for safety or punishment purposes. Locking up animals that have caused no significant harm seems wrong unless there is some other reason, eg food production.

Personally I'm fine morally with eating non factory-farmed meat; keeping a massive creature locked up just to use as part of a show to me is morally objectionable.

Zoos seem terrible places on the whole; safari parks are acceptable to me though. I remember with great sadness my first visit to a zoo (in the UK, as an adult) seeing a lion in a tiny cage pacing up and down.

junto2• 10 years ago

If SeaWorld really believed that they needed to capture these animals in order to study them up close in captivity then they wouldn't need to commercialise the study into some Disney-esque circus. Even in zoos animals aren't force to learn tricks to impress the posting visitors. SeaWorld is a travesty.

Or they could just be honest, and about that they are just a Disney-Sea-Circus and the science is just an excuse to keep the dollars rolling in.

No more of these animals should be born into captivity, and if possible, we should at least try to release as many of them as possible back into the wild, possibly as their own pod.

Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

Related Stories