http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/25/florida.seaworld.death/index.html?hpt=T2
Well, that sucks. Right in the middle of a show, too.
Well, that sucks. Right in the middle of a show, too.
Saw this yesterday- certainly a sad story and a reminder that there is always risk, no matter how experienced a trainer is or how docile an animal seems. I remember when Stephen Irvin, one of the most famous trainers ever, went through a similar death (with a sting ray) a few years back.
This is the third time this whale has killed, and the animal rights wienies are saying (from the link):
"Tillikum could have been trying to play with Brancheau or get her attention or companionship, said Nancy Black, a marine biologist who has studied whales for 20 years. Such whales play with seals and sea lions in the wild, tossing them in the air, she said. But they do not kill them and end up letting them go."
Absolutely ridiculous. Killer whales eat seals.
And they tend not to survive the 'play'. And screw seals, Orcas eat Great Whites!
I doubt he wanted to die when he did though. Most people would probably prefer dying doing what they love, so in that regard, I am sure this trainer may have wanted to die doing this too- just not this early.
The whale is not meant to live in captivity like that naturally. As such, one can not expect it to always be docile because in nature it never is. If you want to get rid of this risk, then simply don't capture them for amusement. These trainers, Seaworld, etc. all know firsthand the risk that such animals can pose to humans. That being said, I do not believe the whale should be punished or be put down.
If you release it into the wild it will probably die. It is acclimated to humans and will be a lethal risk to anybody it comes across. It is too dangerous to keep. It isn't a case of punishment. That is too anthropomorphic a concept. It is just a killer animal that should be humanely put down, IMO.
I am not saying it should be released either because I realize this too. The nurturing of humans unfortunately often makes these animals forget or not develop their natural instincts.
I disagree here. First off, if the trainers know the risk and still want to do it- which I am sure they do- then I really don't see a problem with them continuing what they do. From our (human) standpoint, it is fine if the people risking their lives consent. From the standpoint of animal rights, that is another issue.
If trainers no longer feel comfortable with working with such beasts, which probably won't happen, then the beasts can still be kept in aquariums, etc. where there is less human contact, but they can still live and these water amusement organizations would still have a reason to keep and care for them. It is really up to those directly involved though and not our call (unless you make an animal rights argument, in which case, again its another story.)
Agreed. I was not arguing for or against animal rights, I was simply saying that that is where the discussion could head and I felt that was another topic than what is at hand here concerning this trainer.
While it's still early, it doesn't seem like the whale went on some rampage or frenzy. The whale didn't know any better and had no idea how fragile a person was.
Seaworld only lets the most experienced people handle these animals and they are going to change their policies accordingly. Let's hope it helps to avoid another tragic death.
Seaworld only lets the most experienced people handle these animals and they are going to change their policies accordingly. Let's hope it helps to avoid another tragic death.
Yes, the whale deliberately attacked, just as the tiger attacked those magicians years ago. It can be clearly seen to stop what it normally does and assume an aggressive approach and then attack the human. Just as with "Manticore" the tiger did to those illusionists. They provoke and abuse the animals, and then they have enough and defend themselves against their insane and deranged human captors. The whale simply got justice for its life of captivity and mistreatment as it personally felt fit.
Humans are always trying to deny this Truth, because they want the brutal oppression and maltreatment of animals to continue under various moral guises such as "sea world".
It was not tragic and it was certainly foreseeable. Seaworld's policies are all carefully malevolently designed to maltreat and exploit these whale Superiors under various smokescreens to keep up the illusion of moral decency.
For the same reason we do not permit uranium and pathogens to run loose around people who consent. The Romans used to permit "consenting" human beings kill each other for public amusement, but modern law does not.
No doubt the owners have the right to consider that. Their insurers might forbid it. And in any event how would you like to be a 6,000 pound killer whale alone in a fish bowl for life?
There is no such thing as "animal rights". To advocate animal rights is one of the more common forms of anthropomorphism, but it is legally indefensible. "Rights" are a legal construct. A true right is inalienable, either absolutely or within bounds. No right exists or can be secure unless it first possesses the right to life. No animal possesses that right. Animals are chattels. They can be bought, sold, leased, killed and dismembered at the sole discretion of those who own the rights to their bodies. Wild animals exist at the discretion of the governments whose land they live on, and can be let live, hunted, corralled, destroyed, poisoned, trapped, shot or whatever.
Humans have obligations to each other under laws. The primary obligation of people to animals is to not be cruel. Do not inflict needless pain and suffering. Slaughter houses should kill cleanly. Science is allowed to do whatever it wants if it can justify it to itself in the cause of research. Even if laws are passed to control objectionable science it will still permit pain and suffering if demonstrably justifiable in human interests. Such as the cosmetic industry that deliberately infects animals' eyes with mascara to protect human customers.
Even where animals are given protection they are not given personal rights. Imagine a herd or flock of protected wildlife. Most are periodically culled, or samples are taken for science. Samples are not taken on the basis of personal merit. Nobody asks the trumpeter swan, "Do you have surviving children who will miss you?" Samples are taken on the basis of physical attributes such as size, health or age, and the victims are given no say in the matter. If a favorite is spared, that is a human whim.
So no, there is no such thing as "animal rights". The concept of animal rights is an anthropomorphic human fiction largely developed by Disney-thinking for children. The only reality is the self-imposed human ethic to avoid cruelty, and even that varies widely between cultures. If you doubt it, do some travelling abroad and attend cock-fights, bull fights and dog fights. There are no animal rights, just human obligations.
My daughter works with animals professionally, people that work with these animals go through years of training, they know what they are doing and what they are getting into. It's particularly dangerous to work with large animals (elephants, bulls, whales, horses, etc.) simply because of the size difference. People have been injured because they were in the stall and the animal turned around and "bumped" them into the wall, or a passing whale hit them into the wall of the pool. Add a dangerous environment like a pool and the risk of injury is very high. Even large animal vets get hurt regularly just dealing with farm animals that are more domesticated than animals in zoos and parks.
Some of these animals are dangerous, they are not domesticated, and no amount of animal training will change them into docile puppies. The lady that was killed had been doing that work for decades, she knew the risks.
And Chuck is correct, it would be dangerous to release the whale into the wild since it is acclimated to people and views them as a food source.
Some of these animals are dangerous, they are not domesticated, and no amount of animal training will change them into docile puppies. The lady that was killed had been doing that work for decades, she knew the risks.
And Chuck is correct, it would be dangerous to release the whale into the wild since it is acclimated to people and views them as a food source.
It might not even have done that. The report said it grabbed her by the pony tail, not the head. Its actions might have varied from playful to aggressive or a combination.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...drowns-trainer-in-seaworld-20100225-p5we.html
The evidence clearly indicates that the whale attacked the human abuse-director or "trainer". The movement of the orca was one of precision and purpose.
Witnesses said that the orca was not obeying instruction as usual, was in a clearly agitated state swam at high speed and jumped out of the water and grabbed the woman, and dragged her around in the water. The orca was also said to have "shaken" her.
Humans set up such parks and zoos to gawk at caged, abused animals so they can delude themselves that they are a Superior species, when in fact humans are a deranged, faulty species.
To any sane thinker, the orca's were being seriously abused and exploited and were clearly agitated and tired of the ill-treatment.
Then you should be against the whole animal-"trainer" construct at sea world.
Last edited:
Similar threads
