Posted on 02/25/2010 8:00:20 PM PST by BunnySlippers
I found this video VERY interesting. It now becomes apparent that despite what SeaWorld says the trainer DID get into the water with the Orca. They have denied this happened. And they claim it is against policy. She is smiling widely.
The video ends seconds before he grabs her.
Some news sources have a still of the trainer in the water with the killer whale ... but now the video.
I know many will not agree with me, but I think it is barbaric to treat animals like this.
http://www.wesh.com/video/22671481/index.html
(Excerpt) Read more at wesh.com ...
Also, someone else questioned the wisdom of having the trainers dressed in black/white costumes to look like Orcas.
I agree.
I welcome your posts. :=)
Folks we have an update on the score, for those of you scoring at home its:
Whales: 4
Trainers: 0
(Props. to MarMema for the score correction!)
I’ve seen other articles since I made my post, that confirm that the policy was they weren’t be swimming in the pool with this whale, but that it was certainly standard procedure for them to interacting with him from the “submerged deck” at the edge of the pool. From all the details I’ve read about the accident, it’s pretty clear that Brancheau never left the deck until she was pulled off by the whale. But a former SeaWorld trainer who actually trained Brancheau said she made a “mistake” by lying down in the water right next to the whale and allowing her ponytail to drift towards him. He indicated that the protocol for dealing with Tillikum seemed to have been loosened up since he’d worked there. And it’s very possible that Brancheau was allowed to push the envelope a bit farther, because of her age and experience.
I expect ponytails are history now at SeaWorld, and probably any other marine park that has people directly interacting with orcas. It really looks like everything would have been fine if it hadn’t been for the ponytail. And I’d really love to hear an expert discuss the issue of the orca-costumed trainers — seems to me they’d promote a mindset in a whale that this seems like a great little whale pal. It may have been frustrating to Tillikum that his fun little whale pal never came into the pool to swim around with him. I have no idea to what extent whales pay attention to interaction between humans and other whales, or to what extent Tillikum may have had opportunity to observe other whales swimming around in the company of the little “whale” pals. But knowing how my cats display jealously when one sees me pick up and cuddle another one, it seems possible that Tillikum harbored a yearning to have trainers swim with him.
I saw mentions of the Loro Parque death last night, but that appears to have been an acccidental underwater collision, really not much different from case where somebody falls off a fast-moving pleasure boat and gets hit by it or by another water vehicle following it. None of the articles I found about it seemed to indicate that the whale had done anything out of the ordinary — just swimming fast and bumped into the also-swimming trainer, whose body isn’t equipped to take a hit from a fast-moving 4 ton object.
http://www.wdcs.org/news.php?select=542
As a number of posters have noted, this job is sort of like being an astronaut. You know there’s a way above chance you’ll get killed doing it, but you decide it’s worth it to you to take that risk. Honestly, if tomorrow somebody offered me a steady-paying job working at SeaWorld in direct contact with Tillikum, I’d almost certainly take it — but only because I don’t have any children yet.
Why? This was an experienced trainer who knew what risks she was taking. Her family is emphatic that she wouldn't have wanted the whale to even be isolated, much less killed. Should NASCAR officials get brought up on manslaughter charges when a driver gets killed?
Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a harpoon-free wild home for these creatures. But kudos to the Sea Shepherd people who are risking their lives trying to change that. However, it's a moot point for Tillikum -- he's been in captivity for decades, and wouldn't have a clue how to survive in the wild.
I'm also not at all sure that these whales are miserable in well-managed marine parks. It doesn't strike me as being any further from their natural habitat than the living conditions of humans in the developed world, and most of us aren't yearning to go live in a remote cave with a couple dozen extended family members and struggle to find enough food (nor do most of us have any realistic option to try that lifestyle, even if we really wanted to).
Because that animal had killed a human at least once before, most likely twice before. In the one case the body was found but the man had trespassed and entered the tank after hours.
It’s the same with dog owners. A dog kills, once — okay maybe an accident. Depends on the circumstance. Same dog kills again — likely the owner is liable. Call a grand jury to determine if enough circumstance means an indictment for murder or manslaughter.
In the case of this whale — he had already killed. That’s all that needs to be known in order to justify a grand jury.
It makes no difference that this whale “had killed before”. All the trainers knew this and accepted the risk. And they’re continuing to accept the risk with this same whale even after having their colleague killed by the whale. It’s a free country, and that means people are free to take risks with their lives. Freedom is not a crime.
Freedom does not include the freedom to kill. Liberty takes effort to maintain for we must do that which is Right and avoid that which is Wrong to keep Liberty alive.
Keeping a killer animal is a Wrong. We have both Rights and Wrongs. See Blackstone: “the primary and principal objects of the law are RIGHTS, and WRONGS.”
Also, close up photos of a whale trying to keep a trainer under water 1971:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2870372/Shots-show-71-Shamu-attack.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News
Yes, BUT we make the rules, and the whales do not know the rules. They are living by their rules. And we DO know their rules. They WILL kill when they need or want to. We KNOW that. So I see zero justification for killing this whale, no matter what else becomes of it. He is living his life as God created him.
Anyone getting into the water with this whale knows the rules. His rules are in force in the water.
Freedom is for people, and no person killed any other person (or animal, for that matter). This trainer, like all the others was *exercising* her liberty. HER liberty, which is not yours nor the government’s to take away. You want the government to force private institutions like SeaWorld to stopping allowing people who want to be whale trainers from doing so? Maybe you’d like the government to make private gun ownership illegal too, because somebody might get killed.
I’d say it makes a great deal of difference whether the animal is acting out of anger, rage, frustration... perhaps some kind of triggered prey drive... and whether the animal is just rough-housing and getting too rough. A 12,000 lb animal doesn’t have to lose their control by much to accidentally snap somebody in two, or drown them playing games in the pool.
In that earlier incident, if it’s the one I think it is that’s exactly what they believed to have happened. The whale was holding the trainer carefully in his mouth— without causing injury— and apparently didn’t realize that humans can’t hold their breath as long as an orca can. She was ultimately released, fortunately. But it was pretty clear that the orca had been careful not to bite down on the trainer, and was just holding her there. If rage or prey drive had been behind that the trainer would’ve been a goner.
Working with creatures as large and potentially deadly as these is a dangerous business. They all know the risks. I still don’t have a problem with it.
Doesn’t matter what the whales ‘rules’ are. *It* killed a human, therefore the right thing to do is kill it. That is what our G-d demands of us. We were given that duty — dominion over the animals.
Strange theory. I’m glad I don’t agree.
I am speaking to the case of one particular human-killer animal, which Sea World foolishly and recklessly did not ‘put down’ after it had killed a human. Since the first killing that particular animal has killed two more humans. Because of reckless disregard of an animal caretaker’s first duty — to protect human life — that caretaker has, imo, committed manslaughter.
I do not seek to limit the ability of Sea World or anyone else to train animals. Just that they do so in a way that protects human life from reckless disregard of dangers.
Okay, even if I accept that one such death may be accidental it would not matter were TWO killings prior.
How many trainers and bystanders would a given animal have to kill before it must be put down, then?
Really insightful posits. The fact is, these animals are apparently incredibly sensitive. So much so, as an example, in Newport Beach, at the viewing ares for Keiko/Willy, a large sign greeted visitors with this warning: Warning! Do not make eye contact with Keiko and then nod. The animal may take it as a challenge.
I do not make any comparisons between a dog [domesticated] and a wild animal penned up. Especially those whose names are KILLER whales.
Dogs are routinely put down when they kill as they are when, as a domesticated pet living among humans, lashes out ... out of character, and kills. No one would claim that a killer whale is tame. One would expect it to kill by its very nature ... as God intended. They were not meant to live cooped up in a theme park.
Zoo animals, as opposed to domesticated animals who are not expected to be WILD, are usually kept alive if they kill or maim in a zoo environment.
Would you kill a snake in a zoo if someone walked up to it and touched it? No, because it is following its natural instincts. A snake [or killer whale] is not a pet ... it is will WILD. Those who come close to snakes [or killer whales] beware!
Fortunately, most of us, including these park operators, hold these truths to be self evident.
If operators were allowed to put down Orcas for any reason, that would be barbaric. Keeping them captive shouldn’t meet the criteria for use of that adjective. Indeed, if it was that bad, why would it be so hard to return them to the wild because they more or less refuse to leave?
The way the barbarians have and are plundering the last of the great whales it would be nice if we could keep breeding stock of right whales, fin and others, but sadly they lack the clown value for the masses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.