Orca Identified As 103 Years Old

guises (2423402) writes "The oldest known orca has recently been spotted off western Canada at an age of 103. A female nicknamed 'granny,' photos exist of her from the 1930s, where she can be identified by her distinctive saddle patch. The news has prompted calls for another evaluation of marine mammals in captivity — orcas in captivity usually don't live beyond their 20s."

Comments

Recorded sounds

[Tablizer]

"And get off my kelp!"

Re:Recorded sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been fun if it were later found that this was just a CELP encoding artifact. ;-)

For Immediate Release - SeaWorld, Orlando, FL

[Anonymous Coward]

It is well-known that scientists cannot agree over what time is. Therefore our family here at SeaWorld--including all of our Orcas--cannot be sure that the quoted figure even exists, let alone validate its accuracy for all frames of reference. We feel that it would be prudent for everyone to take a step back and wait for the data to come in before rushing to any negative conclusions.

looking-goog-for-her-age dept

[Anonymous Coward]

typo in the dept name? that's pretty sloppy, even for slashdot...

The only way to resolve this conundrum:

[physicsphairy]

We clearly need to capture this whale and study it.

Re:The only way to resolve this conundrum:

[Jmc23]

as long as the study is carefully constructed so that pretty much all of it can be eaten afterwards.

Wouldn't want to offend our asian brothers! After all, everbody seems to be against carefully conducted whale studies.

Re:The only way to resolve this conundrum:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a Dolphin.

Re:The only way to resolve this conundrum:

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean eat it?

Do the Japs eat Orca?

Re:The only way to resolve this conundrum:

[Anonymous Coward]

Highly doubt it, US is hunting over 300 bowhead whales the next years. Most countries have similar figures and I havent seen orcas on any list yet.

Re:The only way to resolve this conundrum:

[Immerman]

And a dolphin is a subclass of whales. The very first line from your link:

>The killer whale (Orcinus orca), also referred to as the orca whale or orca, and less commonly as the blackfish, is a toothed whale belonging to the oceanic dolphin family

Re:The only way to resolve this conundrum:

[RivenAleem]

More importantly, they could then claim that by having a 103 year old Orca living in captivity, the expected lifespan is much longer than 20 years!

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Jmc23]

...but it's for 'education' purposes!!!

I'm starting to think the only useful things a human can learn about wildlife in captivity is that it is no longer wild, nor alive, and we're despicable creatures for constraining other living beings for the rest of their, now-shortened, lives.

But, hey, at least some 'scientific' proof of how much we're being a bunch of dumbasses. This is the one field where I would expect serious scientists to shut down everything if they have proof they're doing more harm than good.

on old whales

[nadaou]

impressive, since the first thing we do is compare to ourselves as some sort of We're #1! thing.

I always found this story of a 100 year old harpoon being found in the back of a modern whale to be a pretty wild reality check:

http://www.nature.com/news/200...

Re:on old whales

[nadaou]

And since we're talking about dead whales, oblig. explosives

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

And beaching, bro,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Re:on old whales

[ruir]

I find it dangerous to be doing this assumptions. After all, artefacts are passed down by generations, even harpoons. So if I lost my military compass in a boat that I inherited from my father, and that must be now around 60 years old, and a whale eats it, the whale would be given an age of 60 years old?

Re:on old whales

[Anonymous Coward]

The point was found in its neck not its stomach. What, did the whale trip over in a museum?

Re:on old whales

[ruir]

Same argument, put other way for the gentleman with the reading comprehension of a 6 year old: What I am found wearing the family ring from my great-grandfather? Am I 120 years old?

Re:on old whales

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans can easily put on a ring themselves. How exactly can a whale stab itself in the neck with a harpoon? There is already other evidence that indicates that type of whale can live that long or longer, although they are based on their biological features, this just adds to them and makes it more likely the other dating techniques are valid.

Re:on old whales

[laejoh]

And don't forget about the jargon file.

Re:on old whales

[BasilBrush]

Unless a modern whaler has been hunting with an antique harpoon, your analogy isn't too good.

Re:on old whales

[Anonymous Coward]

This is more like you have a bullet embedded deep in a bone of a well known kind that was only used in WWI. The chances that it got there by accident are...

meh, why am I replying to a troll?

Re:on old whales

[Anonymous Coward]

This is almost exactly his point, which is: Someone in more recent years(less than 60 years) could have used that harpoon on a whale. It doesn't have to be a whaler, and it doesn't have to be for the purpose of killing the animal. There are plenty of people out there who like injuring animals just for the sake of it.

There are hunters who have rifles that are old(100+ years), and those rifles are in working condition. Suppose they go out right now and shoot a deer, and the deer runs off and survives for a while. Later it is found by a park ranger, and they investigate the - now old - bullet wound. Does it mean the deer is over 100 years old simply because the bullet in its body was patented over 100 years ago? (The answer is no, by the way).

And like I said before, there are people out there who will injure animals for fun. It's entirely conceivable that a drunk person sees their antique rifle over the mantle, takes it outside and tries to shoot it, and hits an animal in the process, but doesn't bring it down. The same could be true for an old harpoon.

Re:on old whales

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there's no way the WWI munitions escaped WWI, right? And there's definitely no way that someone could, I don't know...create a bullet for an antique gun that has been passed down in their family, right? Because *no one* with an antique gun has any desire to shoot it.

The only thing aging the harpoon in TFA was its patent, not the harpoon itself. The harpoon itself could have been 21 years old and in the whale for 20 years and that would reduce its minimum age from 100 to 20 instantly: - 80 years! Likewise, going back to the old gun thing: Just because matchlock rifles existed during the revolutionary war doesn't mean you can't find brand-spanking-new matchlock rifles in this day and age. Hobbyists collect/make them, and shoot them as well. If you shoot a buck with a matchlock and he gets away, and someone finds him later, should they claim he's over 200 years old because the ammunition matches that of a revolutionary war weapon?

Re:on old whales

[Nidi62]

There are hunters who have rifles that are old(100+ years), and those rifles are in working condition. Suppose they go out right now and shoot a deer, and the deer runs off and survives for a while. Later it is found by a park ranger, and they investigate the - now old - bullet wound. Does it mean the deer is over 100 years old simply because the bullet in its body was patented over 100 years ago? (The answer is no, by the way).

Except the hunters using a 100 year old rifle would still be using modern ammunition, as antique ammunition is quite collectible and loses a lot of it's value when removed from original packaging-not to mention it is much safer, as you really don't want to shoot ammunition that old. What they would see is that the deer was shot with a rifle using a type of round that could be considered antique (100+ years covers everything from a .30-06 1904 Springfield-a "modern" round- to the .30-40 Krag rifle I used to own-which preceded the 1904 Springfield and is considered an "obsolete" caliber round- to my family's Civil War era Lorenz rifle-a clearly "antique round": you can purchase newly made ammunition for all of these weapons) but made from modern materials. As an antique gun owner, your argument is kind of ridiculous.

Re:on old whales

[Nidi62]

Because there's no way the WWI munitions escaped WWI, right? And there's definitely no way that someone could, I don't know...create a bullet for an antique gun that has been passed down in their family, right? Because *no one* with an antique gun has any desire to shoot it.

A bullet created now for an antique gun would have different properties than a contemporarily created bullet and would easily be distinguished from an original bullet. And only an idiot would fire authentically made WWI ammunition because it is unsafe as the quality is unknown and it could have corroded or otherwise rendered itself unsafe and is likely to be worth far more than modern-made ammunition of the same caliber would cost. The only time an antique gun would fire original, contemporary ammunition is if none can be found commercially or is unable to be special-made. And in that case, they are certainly not going to be hunting with it.

Re:on old whales

[BattleApple]

Why does it have to stab itself? Maybe someone threw a 50 year old harpoon at a 3 year old whale 50 years ago

Re:on old whales

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely by that point it would be an antique. Would someone really use an old harpoon that is likely more valuable and less effective than a new harpoon? Sure it is possible, but is it at all likely?

Re:on old whales

[toddestan]

To most people, it's a tool. Do you give much thought to how old a hammer, shovel, or a pair of pliers are? Do you really know how old something is that was handed down to you or bought second-hand?

Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm taking my wife on vacation to a resort. She has always wanted to swim with dolphins, and given the recent hate mongering about captive cetaceans I anticipate it the opportunity will be lost forever in the US within 15 years. So, we definitely made this a must-do activity on this trip. It's unfortunate our kids won't have the same opportunities.

Taking this campaign to its logical conclusion, they will probably eventually call for a closure of all zoos. I mean, if this is cruel for cetaceans, then it must be cruel for primates, big cats, elephants, giraffes, etc. Are there any clear, bright lines of demarcation to say captivity of this animal is fine, but captivity of that animal is cruel? Will zoos be relegated to being nothing more than collections of slugs and insects on display because captivity of any higher animal is "cruel"? Oh, and god forbid you go see animals on safari. That's exploitation as well.

Some of these people are the type that would prevent anyone from visiting Yellowstone in order to "preserve its natural beauty". That's absurd. We also can't turn the entire place into a parking lot to maximize visitor capacity because that would defeat the point. There needs to be a balance. I'm fine with places like Sea World. I wonder how many of these people protesting cetacean captivity are still willing to eat meat? How many are willing to exploit cows in captivity in order to have milk and cheese for their pizza?

Your tasty snack is based on the suffering of dairy cows, who live for only a few short years before they are brutally killed and ground into burger. How can you live with yourself?

Or, you know, you can decide it's fun to swim with captive dolphins because they're cute and playful. YMMV.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or, you know, you can decide it's fun to swim with captive dolphins because they're cute and playful. YMMV."

Dolphins "cute and playful"? Yeah, maybe when they've been subjugated by their human captors.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is this supposed to shock and horrify me?

No because you're obviously a discompassionate sociopath, but congratulations for that.

Someone tamed an animal into being gentle and playful...

If by "tamed" you mean "tortured" by keeping confined and restricting food and company of other dolphins, then yes.

yes, that's some real depravity there.

At least you get that much..

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you must therefore be a hyper-vegan in order to cast stones about exploiting animals. Or, more likely, you're just a hypocrite who exploits some animals but not others based on some sort of specious, arbitrary rationale you chose (like cuteness).

I find your hypocrisy more appalling than anything being done to these animals and consider you depraved for trying to preclude future generations the enjoyment of interacting with these tame animals.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[wonkey_monkey]

I'm taking my wife on vacation to a resort. She has always wanted to swim with dolphins, and given the recent hate mongering about captive cetaceans I anticipate it the opportunity will be lost forever in the US within 15 years. It's unfortunate our kids won't have the same opportunities.

Oh, boo-hoo. Take a boat offshore, bob around in the water for a bit and if any dolphins want to swim with you, they can. There are plenty of places where they do.

Taking this campaign to its logical conclusion, they will probably eventually call for a closure of all zoos.

There are more reasons to run a zoo than simply to entertain the gawking masses.

Oh, and god forbid you go see animals on safari. That's exploitation as well.

Who says that?

Your tasty snack is based on the suffering of dairy cows, who live for only a few short years before they are brutally killed and ground into burger. How can you live with yourself?

While still holding the view that cetaceans shouldn't be kept in captivity for little more than entertainment purposes? Pretty well, actually.

Your basic cow has been domesticated for centuries. Living on a farm in a herd and getting turned into burgers is what a cow is these days. It's not like they're highly intelligent or highly social animals. Release a cow into the wild, and it wouldn't have the capacity to understand that it was anywhere other than on a bigger farm.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and god forbid you go see animals on safari. That's exploitation as well.

Who says that?

There are always people who will be butt-hurt about any human interaction with animals. “The elephant-back safari industry is one of greedy and willing participants in a practice that allows elephants to be subjected to training that is wrong, cruel and exploitative. They pay no attention to the psychological and social needs of these highly intelligent creatures,”, etc, etc. Someone will *always* find a reason to complain about something.

Look at PETA's perspective on wildlife parks and zoos. Can you explain to me how you can support safaris and zoos while decrying cetacean captivity on ethical grounds?

While still holding the view that cetaceans shouldn't be kept in captivity for little more than entertainment purposes? Pretty well, actually.

Your basic cow has been domesticated for centuries. Living on a farm in a herd and getting turned into burgers is what a cow is these days. It's not like they're highly intelligent or highly social animals. Release a cow into the wild, and it wouldn't have the capacity to understand that it was anywhere other than on a bigger farm.

Awesome, so you would be fine with this if we managed to breed stupid dolphins incapable of surviving in the wild? I think there are a few genetic sequences that can be inserted that reliably cause diminished intellect/cortical underdevelopment. I guess we can sell dolphin burgers too, if that makes it more ethical in your mind.

Furthermore, I presume you are aware, of course, that the rejoinder to your argument in favor of exploiting cows is that you are enabling their exploitation by buying the products resulting from their suffering. If no one bought pizza, shoe leather, etc, then there would be no demand and no one would cause the cows to be exploited.

I like pizza. I eat it without guilt. I am going to swim with dolphins without guilt, too. I'm logically consistent like that.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you must therefore be a hyper-vegan in order to cast stones about exploiting animals.

How trite. Did you come up with that all by yourself or did you look it up in your book of cliches?

Or, more likely, you're just a hypocrite who exploits some animals but not others based on some sort of specious, arbitrary rationale you chose (like cuteness).

The *only single criterion* by which I will exploit a creature is if doing so preserves the life of others. It is an exploitation based entirely on survival.

I find your hypocrisy more appalling than anything being done to these animals and consider you depraved for trying to preclude future generations the enjoyment of interacting with these tame animals.

Of course you would think that. Of course you think it's more appalling to treat intelligent animals with compassion when you can instead exploit them for your own entertainment. Of course it's depraved to wish a cruel industry to come to an end so future generations won't get to partake of that cruelty. Of course it is. Of course you would think these things because to you nature is something for you to subjugate at your own whim

You think my leaving a comment on this page is more appalling than actual harm to living creatures because you have a fundamental lack of humanity and that is unbelievably sad.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a nice swim. And while you're incompetently thrashing around in their water remember: dolphins are skilled predators, often cruel to each other and other aquatic life, and now you're in their turf.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you haven't denied being a hypocrite. Protip: just because you think something is cliched doesn't make it false.

You exploit animals. You do so even though you could easily avoid doing such in order to survive, though you like to pretend that eating that burger, eating those eggs, using that honey, and wearing that leather is a matter of life and death for you. If you can preserve your life without exploiting animals yet you do so regardless, what does that make you (by your own purported morals)?

I exploit animals too. The difference is that I don't deny it. I enjoy my pizza without guilt, even though—just like you—I don't need to exploit animals in order to survive. I acknowledge that I could be a vegan, but I don't want to be because animal products are enjoyable. As a logical extension, I will enjoy spending time interacting with tamed cetaceans.

Furthermore, I don't dehumanize those who disagree with me, though we obviously can't say the same about you. You are a pathetic hypocrite, though I still perceive you as a human. A delusional, pathetic hypocrite of a human, but a human nonetheless... potentially capable of higher order reasoning. I could even respect your position (albeit disagreeing with you), if you weren't a logically inconsistent hypocrite falsely claiming moral superiority.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a nice swim. And while you're incompetently thrashing around in their water remember: dolphins are skilled predators, often cruel to each other and other aquatic life, and now you're in their turf.

Excellent! Even better... this will make the experience even edgier. Fun, politically incorrect, and with a remote hint of danger. Thanks for pointing this out!

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I grew up on a farm. Dairy cattle != Beef cattle. Dairy cows are FAR too valuable to dispose of after only 2-3 years. Check your facts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef_cattle)

And have you seen how beef cattle are killed? "Brutal" would be the old way of slitting its throat and letting it bleed out. Modern compressed air systems are just about the most humane way to do it, besides not killing them at all.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you haven't denied being a hypocrite. Protip: just because you think something is cliched doesn't make it false.

I'm honest.

You exploit animals. You do so even though you could easily avoid doing such in order to survive, though you like to pretend that eating that burger, eating those eggs, using that honey, and wearing that leather is a matter of life and death for you.

You mean those things I *don't* do because it's *not* a matter of life and death?

If you can preserve your life without exploiting animals yet you do so regardless, what does that make you (by your own purported morals)?

You think you made a point, but you struck out because you are assuming and projecting too much. I said preserve life, not preserve *my* life. And this is not a matter of any morality which, by the way, I did not purport.

I exploit animals too. The difference is that I don't deny it.

And neither did I

I enjoy my pizza without guilt, even though—just like you—I don't need to exploit animals in order to survive.

A total Non-sequitur but ok...

I acknowledge that I could be a vegan, but I don't want to be because animal products are enjoyable. As a logical extension, I will enjoy spending time interacting with tamed cetaceans.

As I'm sure they will enjoy your company as well. However, it does not logically follow that you would enjoy spending time with "tamed cetaceans" because you enjoy animal products. Just more flawed logic.

Furthermore, I don't dehumanize those who disagree with me, though we obviously can't say the same about you.

I don't dehumanize people either. Pointing out that you are ostensibly a sociopath who lacks humanity was a statement of fact. Do you even know what the word "dehumanize" means? Keeping people captive is "dehumanizing". Treating people as objects is "dehumanizing". Pointing out obvious character flaws is not dehumanizing.

You are a pathetic hypocrite,

Yes but not for any of the reasons you've stated

though I still perceive you as a human.

gee thanks.

A delusional, pathetic hypocrite of a human, but a human nonetheless...

Again with the projecting but that's ok -- takes one to know one I guess.

potentially capable of higher order reasoning. I could even respect your position (albeit disagreeing with you), if you weren't a logically inconsistent hypocrite falsely claiming moral superiority.

I never once claimed moral superiority. Not. Once. I have pointed out thus far uncontested statements of fact. If you were intellectually honest you would have to acknowledge your own illogical arguments and hypocrisy.

It's been fun but I'm not going to waste any more of my life with you. You can continue ranting and raving if you want but I won't bother reading it. We've exploited each other enough for one lifetime.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Talderas]

Anonymous coward bantering.

10/10. Would read again.

My only hope is that these anonymous cowards are just two anonymous cowards and not three or more.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[C0R1D4N]

You could take her to Dolphin cove in Jamaica where the dolphins are wild and can leave any time they want and come back.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your basic cow has been domesticated for centuries. Living on a farm in a herd and getting turned into burgers is what a cow is these days. It's not like they're highly intelligent or highly social animals. Release a cow into the wild, and it wouldn't have the capacity to understand that it was anywhere other than on a bigger farm.

Well this is clearly the answer. We just need to keep Orcas in captivity a few hundred more years until they've been domesticated. Then nobody can complain anymore.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

So how about pigs? Highly intelligent animals.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Optic7]

I'm taking my wife on vacation to a resort. She has always wanted to swim with dolphins, and given the recent hate mongering about captive cetaceans I anticipate it the opportunity will be lost forever in the US within 15 years. So, we definitely made this a must-do activity on this trip. It's unfortunate our kids won't have the same opportunities.

Be careful what you wish for. I'm guessing that you haven't seen one of the many videos of dolphins aggressively trying to have sex with humans? Some people even call it dolphin rape.
Here's one of those videos (for real, not a rickroll): https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (also look at the other related videos on that page of similar dolphin activities. I, for one, would not want to take my wife or any kids to swim with them.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[BattleApple]

My only hope is that these anonymous cowards are just two anonymous cowards and not three or more.

I was thinking it was just one AC arguing with itself.. ugh

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many of these people protesting cetacean captivity are still willing to eat meat? How many are willing to exploit cows in captivity in order to have milk and cheese for their pizza?

Your tasty snack is based on the suffering of dairy cows, who live for only a few short years before they are brutally killed and ground into burger. How can you live with yourself?

Pointing out that someone is a hypocrite does not invalidate their argument. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

If it helps, I'm vegan and I hold the same position. You can't call my a hypocrite.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[jedidiah]

> Dolphins "cute and playful"? Yeah, maybe when they've been subjugated by their human captors.

No. They seem to behave in the wild that way too.

They are much like their Orca cousins in this respect.

Humpbacks are big showoffs too.

This is all stuff you could see for yourself if you actually bothered to interact with these creatures on their own terms in their own environment. Or you could have simply Googled this stuff. These aren't exactly state secrets we're talking about here.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[BattleApple]

There are always people who will be butt-hurt [ifaw.org] about any human interaction with animals

Have you ever actually seen how an elephant is trained? Positive reinforcement doesn't work with elephants. They prefer to be stabbed in the face with a large metal hook

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[mythosaz]

We still get some kosher beef by making sure it bleeds out...

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[thesandtiger]

Slashdot became a lot more fun once I decided to view it like that.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Powercntrl]

I'm taking my wife on vacation to a resort. She has always wanted to swim with dolphins, and given the recent hate mongering about captive cetaceans I anticipate it the opportunity will be lost forever in the US within 15 years.

Don't worry! You'll be able to swim with dolphins, sea turtles or drive an Avatar body on Pandora, all thanks to the Oculus Rift! Who cares if the real animals have all gone extinct, they were smelly and couldn't disco dance anyway.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more concerned that theres only 1...

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[wonkey_monkey]

Can you explain to me how you can support safaris and zoos while decrying cetacean captivity on ethical grounds?

Who said anything about elephant-back safaris until now? When I hear "safari" I think "jeep."

And when did I say I support all zoos?

Awesome, so you would be fine with this if we managed to breed stupid dolphins incapable of surviving in the wild?

Cows have never been highly intelligent or highly social.

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

It does indeed invalidate the argument if they are claiming moral superiority through their hypocrisy.

Of course, if they are claiming I am a sociopath while explicitly acknowledging that they are as well then that's a different story.

I exploit animals, and I have accepted that. You may or may not (it's really quite hard to completely avoid exploiting animals). If practically everyone is exploiting animals, then it is hypocritical for those exploiters to claim moral superiority over other exploiters (or call other exploiters sociopathic).

Re:Want to swim with dolphins? Better do it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you haven't denied being a hypocrite. Protip: just because you think something is cliched doesn't make it false.

I'm honest.

No, honesty would be prefacing your initial argument with your admission that you are a hypocrite, as you finally acknowledged in your last post.

You mean those things I *don't* do because it's *not* a matter of life and death?

Oh, hooray, you're a hyper-vegan. And I don't eat animal flesh, not that it matters.

I exploit animals too. The difference is that I don't deny it.

And neither did I

Congratulations. Now you get to explain why having fun with tamed cetaceans is wrong while your kind of exploitation is fine, or, conversely, why I should share the guilt you harbor for your own exploitations of animals.

As I'm sure they will enjoy your company as well. However, it does not logically follow that you would enjoy spending time with "tamed cetaceans" because you enjoy animal products. Just more flawed logic.

You fail at logic, though you excel at strawman fallacies. I exploit animals without guilt, just like the overwhelming preponderance of humanity does. If I do not believe it is wrong to exploit animals, then why would I believe it is wrong to... exploit animals? Perhaps I may not enjoy the tamed cetaceans, but I certainly won't believe it is wrong (morally or ethically) regardless of my enjoyment.

I don't dehumanize people either. Pointing out that you are ostensibly a sociopath who lacks humanity was a statement of fact. Do you even know what the word "dehumanize" means?.

You really seem to lack the capacity for logic. When you claim that others "have a fundamental lack of humanity", you are, by definition, dehumanizing them. So, despite your irrational attempt to define a term by examples and then mock me about not sharing your flawed "definition", I will just point you to Merriam Webster's definition of dehumanize: "to treat (someone) as though he or she is not a human being"

I never once claimed moral superiority. Not. Once. I have pointed out thus far uncontested statements of fact. If you were intellectually honest you would have to acknowledge your own illogical arguments and hypocrisy.

If you haven't claimed moral superiority, then putatively you are admitting you are a sociopath. I am not a hypocrite, because I embrace the fact that I exploit animals. Most of humanity exploits animals too. My claim is that it is hypocritical and arbitrary to say that taming cetaceans is wrong (or sociopathic) while purporting that all these other "acceptable" forms of animal exploitation are fine. If this doesn't apply to you because you are an admitted hypocrite or sociopath, then excuse me for not giving any weight to your personal assessments of me.

I perceive that rational thought is not your strong suit.

Of course we KNOW this because

[Anonymous Coward]

scientists have photgraphs of every Orca that has ever lived and therefore can prove that no two have ever had the same "paintjob", right? I hate this sort of pseudo-science. Is it the exact same whale? Perhaps it is - I'm perfectly willing to go with that but I dislike the idea that somebody is pushing this as a FACT without the required proof. Perhaps it's not the same beastie ... perhaps it's a descendant of the one in the old photo, or maybe there's a limited number of patterns that an Orca can have; There are clear limits to the pattern varieties of most species. Assuming this is in fact the same Orca, this still does not prove its age with the advertised precision of "103" years. Why not 102? Why not 104?, Why not 97? This whale's color pattern which is being used to "positively" identify it is only that small portion that is visible "above the waterline" (on a creature that's mostly submerged) so it's entirely possible this whale has the same appearance on the small part that's above water as the whale in the old photos, but is colored quite differently in other areas. It's a bit like looking at the top 2 inches of Miley Cyrus and the top two inches of Jusin Bieber and declaring they're both the same person.... and then going on to build a whole set of false conclusions from an initial false judgement

OK.... sorry about that... I may have just destroyed my argument.... has anybody ever seen Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber in the same place at the same time?

Re:Of course we KNOW this because

[ColdWetDog]

Whale watchers have carefully vetted systems to look for unique markings. In humpback whales, it is the underside of the flukes. If I get a decent picture of the ventral flukes on a local whale, I email to our local whale watching experts (with GPS coordinates). On grey whales it is the left side of the dorsal fluke and upper back for some odd reason.

While nobody has actually proven the markings are unique, they seem to work pretty well for long term population studies. Easier than flipper prints.

Re:Of course we KNOW this because

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you RTFA they mention that she has another identifier: a notch on her dorsal fin. Even if the saddle patch was not unique - and I'm better prepared to take the word of the experienced whale spotting captain on this than the skepticism of random internet guy - it seems very unlikely that another orca would have both identical markings and an identical notch in her dorsal fin.

Re:Of course we KNOW this because

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that two-factor authencetacean?

Re:Of course we KNOW this because

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you RTFA they mention that she has another identifier: a notch on her dorsal fin. Even if the saddle patch was not unique - and I'm better prepared to take the word of the experienced whale spotting captain on this than the skepticism of random internet guy - it seems very unlikely that another orca would have both identical markings and an identical notch in her dorsal fin.

Maybe its a younger whale who iiked the fashion ?

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Spy Handler]

I don't think it's the confinement. Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild.

I think it's the water quality. Dog poop and urine don't mix with the air, they don't breathe it in. Marine animals on the other hand, DO breathe their own feces. Which is why it's essential to have a large volume of water per animal, as happens in nature.

I have guppy fish in a 30 gallon tank. They almost never live past 2 years in captivity. In nature however, guppies live 5 years or more.

I've been thinking of doing an experiment for quite a while. Take two groups of guppies, one in a common aquarium environment, say 10 guppies in a 10 gallon tank (1 inch of fish per gallon). The other group would live in a far less dense tank, maybe 5 guppies in a 200 gallon tank. (5 would be the minimum number since guppies are communal fish and they don't do well mentally unless they're in a group). And compare the fish lifespan in the the 2 groups.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Cenan]

This is the one field where I would expect serious scientists to shut down everything if they have proof they're doing more harm than good.

Not likely. Even if they were serious scientists, they're still working within the confines of an amusement park. They have bean counters to answer to, and to them the "science" derived from keeping the animals is a slight PR bonus, not their reason to exist.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Zedrick]

I agree, but unfortunately we live in this universe, and not that alternative one where everything is as it should be.

If people can't go somewhere (not too far away) and see animals, they will soon think CGI-versions of these creatures are good enough, which leads to extinction for the real ones. Unless they are really cute.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Barsteward]

they probably die of boredom being confined in a box

Re:Fuck seaworld

[captainpanic]

Umm... A whale breathes air, as it is a mammal. Your guppy is a fish.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[quantaman]

I don't think it's the confinement. Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild.

I think it's the water quality. Dog poop and urine don't mix with the air, they don't breathe it in. Marine animals on the other hand, DO breathe their own feces. Which is why it's essential to have a large volume of water per animal, as happens in nature.

I have guppy fish in a 30 gallon tank. They almost never live past 2 years in captivity. In nature however, guppies live 5 years or more.

I've been thinking of doing an experiment for quite a while. Take two groups of guppies, one in a common aquarium environment, say 10 guppies in a 10 gallon tank (1 inch of fish per gallon). The other group would live in a far less dense tank, maybe 5 guppies in a 200 gallon tank. (5 would be the minimum number since guppies are communal fish and they don't do well mentally unless they're in a group). And compare the fish lifespan in the the 2 groups.

Dogs have co-evolved with humans for hundreds of years. We'd expect them to be fairly well adapted though they can still get some serious psychological issues.

Cats haven't been around as long, but cats are generally solitary to begin with so might do better with isolation.

Orca are highly social, perhaps moreso than humans. And an aquarium can hardly compare to the ocean in sensory complexity. It's basically like sticking a human in solitary confinement, it's inhumane and they tend to go crazy.

I love the idea of going to an aquarium and seeing Orca swimming around. But I can't imagine a way of doing so that doesn't essentially amount to torturing the poor animals, Seaworld and the like should absolutely be shut down.

Wrong focus for your anger

[captainpanic]

You say that keeping a whale in captivity for education and entertainment is wrong, because it dies sooner than in the wild (which btw is not proven by this single grandmother killer whale). But I am just curious: the beef and pork you eat is also 'grown' in cages. We over eat purely for entertainment (you cannot convince me we need a 400g steak, that is entertainment), and since kids have to learn how to prepare food, it will be used for education too. So how is that different?

Yes, humans are the dominant species on the planet. And yes, we abuse animals sometimes. I do not think there is a problem with Sea World. I think the major problem is that we harrass animals also in the wild. Whales are affected by the noise of ship engines, and all marine life is affected by the pollution we produce. Stop complaining about Sea World, and just try to make this world cleaner. Then you make a real impact.

Re:Wrong focus for your anger

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that keeping a whale in captivity for education and entertainment is wrong, because it dies sooner than in the wild (which btw is not proven by this single grandmother killer whale). But I am just curious: the beef and pork you eat is also 'grown' in cages.

GP never stated that he or she eat meat.
You are making an assumption on an individual based on how the majority is.

Re:Wrong focus for your anger

[captainpanic]

GP never stated that he or she eat meat.
You are making an assumption on an individual based on how the majority is.

True. I should not have made it personal.
Regardless, I still think that since Sea World is a relatively insignificant issue (in the big picture), it receives way too much attention. It would be better if those who criticise it focus their anger on a larger issue than this.

Re:Wrong focus for your anger

[BasilBrush]

because it dies sooner than in the wild (which btw is not proven by this single grandmother killer whale).

Existing scientific observations of Orcas in the wild give their average lifespan as 60 to 70 years. Vs about 20 in captivity. It's not even close.

And to add insult to injury, the staff as SeaWorld are trained to lie about this: they claim the average expectancy in the wild is about 20 years. (ref: the documentary Blackfish has video evidence of this.)

But I am just curious: the beef and pork you eat is also 'grown' in cages.

As I'm sure your mother told you, two wrongs don't make a right. Generally people make a distinction between captive wild animals, and domesticated animals bred as livestock. Whether that is a justifiable distinction is a mater of personal morality.

I do not think there is a problem with Sea World.

Then you should seek out Blackfish and watch it.

Of course I agree that out abuse of the natural environment and the animals in it is a huge problem. But that doesn't let SeaWorld off the hook.

Re:Wrong focus for your anger

[bwwatr]

The staff are probably just trained to repeat SeaWorld's official stance on Orca lifespan, outlined here: http://seaworld.com/en/truth/k... Sounds like they'll need to update their figures now that this granny's been found. Follow the menus to read the rest of the "care" / Blackfish rebuttal section of their web site and decide for yourself.

Re:Wrong focus for your anger

[Anonymous Coward]

Seaworld is actually pretty terrible. Check out the documentary called Blackfish, currently on Netflix.

Re:Wrong focus for your anger

[kilfarsnar]

You say that keeping a whale in captivity for education and entertainment is wrong, because it dies sooner than in the wild (which btw is not proven by this single grandmother killer whale). But I am just curious: the beef and pork you eat is also 'grown' in cages. We over eat purely for entertainment (you cannot convince me we need a 400g steak, that is entertainment), and since kids have to learn how to prepare food, it will be used for education too. So how is that different?

Maybe it's not. But industrialized animal farming is pretty fucked up too.

Re:Wrong focus for your anger

[BasilBrush]

Yes indeed, those are the lies, in a rather longer form.

Reads rather like global warning deniers nonsense doesn't it. "We just don't have enough data." Whereas of course scientists have been studying orcas in the wild for a long time.

Re:Wrong focus for your anger

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally people make a distinction between captive wild animals, and domesticated animals bred as livestock. Whether that is a justifiable distinction is a mater of personal morality.

Generally people used to make this exact same distinction with humans too. The notion of "personal" morality is just a way to shrug off an inconvenient moral argument we would rather pretend is opinion.

Re:Wrong focus for your anger

[Anonymous Coward]

Blackfish, Blackfish, Blackfish. Can anyone sum up some of the points of this movie instead of just saying watch it?

Re:Wrong focus for your anger

[cyn1c77]

Blackfish, Blackfish, Blackfish. Can anyone sum up some of the points of this movie instead of just saying watch it?

Sure we could! But you'll have to check out the documentary called Blackfish, currently on Netflix.

Also, I will need you to properly file your coversheet on your TPS report after you watch Blackfish on Netflix. Yeah.... That'd be great.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[geogob]

Maybe the air in Seaworld locations (such as San Diego) is not as good as somewhere in the north pacific ocean.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Paul Jakma]

Orcas are much, much, much, more intelligent than wolves.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

Dogs have co-evolved with humans for hundreds of years...
Cats haven't been around as long, but cats are generally solitary to begin with so might do better with isolation.

Dogs were first domesticated by humans something like 15,000 years ago. Cats were kept as pets by the Egyptians almost 4,000 years ago.

So, um, your numbers are a bit off ;)

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Spy Handler]

yes but a whale still drinks the poop water and its skin is constantly immersed in it. That can't be good.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[quantaman]

Dogs have co-evolved with humans for hundreds of years...
Cats haven't been around as long, but cats are generally solitary to begin with so might do better with isolation.

Dogs were first domesticated by humans something like 15,000 years ago. Cats were kept as pets by the Egyptians almost 4,000 years ago.

So, um, your numbers are a bit off ;)

The bad news is I write slashdot comments when I've very sleepy.

The good news is that my memory of writing that post happened while I was awake, so I didn't have a dream about posting on slashdot!

Armchair Animal Activists

[Powercntrl]

Here we go again, with the same idiotic line of thinking that brought us "Blackfish". I wonder if these people are trolling or just really this ignorant.

Activist claim: Working with captive cetaceans endangers trainers.
Reality: Cell tower technicians fall to their death all the time (who knew LTE had to be paid for with blood?). Can we at least agree advancing our understanding of marine mammals and inspiring future generations to give a damn might be worth at least as much blood as being able to Tweet about Miley Cyrus twerking? Also, it's probably possible to be accidentally killed in just about any line of work.

Activist claim: Captive cetaceans would have a better life if freed.
Reality: Not even close. Over 300,000 whales, dolphins, and porpoises are killed each as a result of by-catch. Also, pollution.

Activist claim: But think of the animals!
Reality: Yes, think of the animals in the wild, you lazy sorry sack of shit. You know, like the ones in Africa being illegally poached. Oh sure, you might have to travel to a place that's a bit rougher of a neighborhood than Orlando or San Diego to protest that and put yourself at risk of being shot, but think of the animals, amiright?

Activist claim: Seaworld is just an evil profit driven empire, hell bent on the exploitation of animals.
Reality: Humanity has already fucked things up pretty bad for animals in the wild (warning: graphic content). We're past the point of taking a "hands off" approach and hoping things just go back to being peachy keen for our fine feathered and flippered friends. Seaworld exists to educate, inspire and inform people that they need to care about these animals today, or the only place we'll see them tomorrow will be in photographs and videos. They also (unlike most of these armchair activists), actually get off their ass and help animals.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[BitZtream]

Lets lock you in a container thats the same ratio of size compared to your body size as we do for animals in marine theme parks.

If you're willing to live in those conditions, then you can continue your silly arguments, but in a matter of days, possibly hours, you'll be begging to be upgraded to living in Somalia.

Animals in zoos typically have more space by ratio than any marine park so its not even close to a fair comparison there either.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[dave420]

No advancing of marine mammal knowledge happens in these theme parks, apart from discovering that each and every time the animals in question have poorer health (physical & mental), and die sooner.

And yes, of course many die in the wild, but by your reasoning we should keep everyone in captivity, as people die in the wild - doesn't that seem rather bizarre logic?

Seaworld exists to make money. That's it. Their scientific endeavours are of severely limited importance to the field, and while their animal rescuing attempts are honourable, they are rather hypocritical in the face of their own record regarding the treatment of their own animals.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[dywolf]

Just like Zoos, Seaworld does a LOT for education. Seaworld and most reputable zoos also funnel a tremendous amount of money into conservation efforts.

people who would otherwise not even know whales exist (its just something in a book, something they might see...someday...maybe) get to see them up close. to learn about them. to learn about the problems they face in the wild. to learn about what human pressure on the environment is doing to them. no, seaworld isnt ideal for the individuals kept there, much like many zoos in smaller cities arent nearly as good for the animals as the larger refuges or zoos like the San Diego.

But they still do a LOT for public education, getting people to understand that maybe burning down rainforest isnt a good idea, that buying from certain companies or certain products leads indirectly to financing poaching or habitat exploitation.

yes those individuals arent in ideal conditions in many cases. but beacuse of the education opportunities provided by their presence, we can swing public opinion to help and make things better for many times larger wild populations. we can get people to get behind preservation and conservation. to demand better fishing practices, to demand better stewardship.

im an environmentalist and believer in the well treatment of animals, but here is where i diverge from folks who think the zoos and seaworlds of the world should all be shut down: i absolutely reject that these places have no value*. their biggest value is, and always has been, education of the masses who otherwise would know and care nothing. and if we can achieve that goal, i believe the planet will be for it. maybe someday we can reach the point where zoos are no longer necessary, but i dont think we're anywhere near that state of affairs yet.

*that's not to say places dont need improvements. And I believe the "zoo" Reno NV is a joke that ought be shutdown, since it's just a guy with a couple kennels stuffed with lions. there is a difference between a reputable Zoo and someone inspired by PT Barnum.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the pile of logical fallacies, shit-for-brains.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[Anonymous Coward]

If I could get the gear and clearance to go to Africa and shoot poachers to death, I would do so. Even if I would up dying doing it. It'd be a fuckload better than getting liquified in an IED blast for a war that had no fucking point (other than enrichment of a bastardly few)

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[NeutronCowboy]

Unfortunately, Seaworld's version of an orca enclosure is the equivalent of the zoos and circuses of the PT Barnum era. For comparison, the Monterey Bay aquarium has a bigger tank for its shark/turtle/tuna and other large fish exhibit.

Yes, you get to see the animal. Yes, you get to see it do stupid tricks. But that's the only value it has for you, and the only value it has for the animal is that it isn't immediately killed off.

Not much of an endorsement.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[Powercntrl]

No advancing of marine mammal knowledge happens in these theme parks, apart from discovering that each and every time the animals in question have poorer health (physical & mental), and die sooner.

And yes, of course many die in the wild, but by your reasoning we should keep everyone in captivity, as people die in the wild - doesn't that seem rather bizarre logic?

No, you completely misunderstand. There are bigger problems for animals in the wild and if a few have shorter lifespans in captivity because that's what it takes for people to give a shit about the ones in the wild, don't you think it's a worthwhile trade-off?

Of course, you probably believe that educational videos and pictures on Wikipedia can inspire people to care about marine biology just as much as seeing these animals up-close, in real life. Because we all know, the world's problems can easily be solved by an after-school TV special. Then, after the tanks are empty and the parks are out of business, we can save the animals in the wild with a grassroots crowd-funding effort in Bitcoins! That's the ticket!

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[Powercntrl]

But they still do a LOT for public education, getting people to understand that maybe burning down rainforest isnt a good idea, that buying from certain companies or certain products leads indirectly to financing poaching or habitat exploitation.

yes those individuals arent in ideal conditions in many cases. but beacuse of the education opportunities provided by their presence, we can swing public opinion to help and make things better for many times larger wild populations. we can get people to get behind preservation and conservation. to demand better fishing practices, to demand better stewardship.

This.

I live in Orlando and it's absolutely heart wrenching to see the rescued manatees. For anyone ignorant to the situation, asshole boaters frequently ignore the "Manatee Zone" signs and run them over in the wild, then Seaworld has to go help them. Some manatees are injured so badly they'll never be able to return to the wild.

It would be great if we didn't need marine theme parks because public opinion was so strongly for environmental preservation that the animals in the wild were well protected, but sadly that is not even close to being the situation. Worse, you have people who misdirect their anger towards the parks, effectively wanting to "shoot the messenger".

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[__aarzwb9394]

Activist claim: Working with captive cetaceans endangers trainers.

You attempt to refute this by pointing out that other dangerous jobs exist.

Activist claim: Captive cetaceans would have a better life if freed.

You attempt to refute this by saying that life in the wild is not perfectly safe. Well done. Now explain why being caged in a tiny fraction of typical range space is non-traumatic.

Yes, think of the animals in the wild, you lazy sorry sack of shit.

Animals are killed in one part of the world, therefore mistreating for entertainment in another part of the world is fine.

Activist claim: Seaworld is just an evil profit driven empire, hell bent on the exploitation of animals.

Another attempt at refutation by mentioning other bad things.

What we have from you is four red herrings.

Is this the best you can do?

Your use of expletives and resorting to ad hominem demonstrates your problem. You associate a dislike of performing caged animals with politics that you hate. Try and address the issues next time.

Most sensible people realise that Seaworld is not the equivalent of a zoo, it is the equivalent of a circus. We moved on from dancing bears quite a while ago.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[Dixie_Flatline]

Really, I think what you want are marine parks rather than zoos. It's really just not feasible to give these animals enough space to move inside the boundaries of a land-based park. It's insane, really, if you contemplate it. This is a creature that's intelligent and migrates thousands of kilometres a year. Even if you remove the migration component, the amount of space you need to not drive it insane is unbelievable. They're animals that need to be in motion. We just can't provide it to them.

Maybe what we should be doing instead is designating zones of the ocean as inviolable and make sure that we protect the animals and water in those zones as best we can. Then if you want to go to the 'zoo', you take a tour ship out. This is how the safari model works, more or less, and those give a reason for the local people to take care of the area rather than exploit it.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[Powercntrl]

You attempt to refute this by pointing out that other dangerous jobs exist.

We don't eliminate jobs because they carry a higher-than-average risk to the worker. People willingly take jobs fighting wars, climbing cell towers and driving cars at unsafe speeds. Somehow, getting into a tank with a dangerous animal crosses over into the realm of "unreasonable risk"? Give me a break.
Also, just FYI - there's no reason anyone ever needs to die working on a cell phone tower. They could easily design the towers with a mechanism to lower the actual antenna elements. It's just more cost effective to risk human lives than replace/retrofit the towers.

You attempt to refute this by saying that life in the wild is not perfectly safe. Well done. Now explain why being caged in a tiny fraction of typical range space is non-traumatic.

Understand that the situation in the wild, for a significantly larger portion of animals is far more dire than a handful of animals being kept in a tank. Seaworld could kill off and replace their entire captive population each week and they still wouldn't cause as much cetacean death as commercial fishing.
As a car analogy, it's like worrying about your rear-view mirror being loose while your engine is on fire.

Animals are killed in one part of the world, therefore mistreating for entertainment in another part of the world is fine.

Say it with me: "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is worse."
On one hand, you have animals faced with the very real threat of extinction in the wild due to poaching.
The other, you have a statistically insignificant fraction of the wild population being held in captivity for entertainment, research and education.
Which do you consider more dire and in need of immediate attention?

Let's make it a hospital triage situation: One patient comes in complaining of a headache, the other has a bloody stump where their hand used to be, wrapped in a towel. Which patient do you see first?

Most sensible people realise that Seaworld is not the equivalent of a zoo, it is the equivalent of a circus.
We moved on from dancing bears quite a while ago.

And no true Scotsman would disagree with you! See, I can play this game too.

It's easier to direct hate at a theme park than work towards solving the real issues these animals face in the wild. I mean really, how do you clean up the south Pacific garbage patch? How do you stop commercial fishing from killing 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises annually? How can you convince boaters to stop running over manatees? If only there was a place that people could go that would lure them in under the pretense of family entertainment and then they could sneak in some education about what needs to be done to help animals in the wild...

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[Powercntrl]

Maybe what we should be doing instead is designating zones of the ocean as inviolable and make sure that we protect the animals and water in those zones as best we can. Then if you want to go to the 'zoo', you take a tour ship out. This is how the safari model works, more or less, and those give a reason for the local people to take care of the area rather than exploit it.

And if everyone trades in their gasoline car for a Tesla model S, we can solve the oil problem!

Oh wait, no, most people don't have that kind of money. It must be great to live in a fantasy world where every family can easily afford to take a whale watching cruse, where you're more likely to get seasick than actually see a whale. Hey, if the next generation of kids grow up to not give a rat's ass about marine animals as a result, oh well, right? You saved a handful of animals from being kept in tanks while the wild populations went belly up. Give yourself a golf clap.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[__aarzwb9394]

Somehow, getting into a tank with a dangerous animal crosses over into the realm of "unreasonable risk"? Give me a break.

I did not say that. I pointed out your repeated appeals to worse problems. You claim that hazards faced in one job are false because other jobs are hazardous.

You should note that the job of killer whale trainer is sold as "family friendly fun". Few people are mislead into thinking that for example, coal mining is not dangerous and unpleasant.

Although this is an article on cracked, it seems pretty convincing and claims to be written by an insider. Feel free to criticise the source, of course.

You mention the trading of safety for cost reduction in towers, interesting. Please explain how this justifies performing animals.

Let's make it a hospital triage situation: One patient comes in complaining of a headache, the other has a bloody stump where their hand used to be, wrapped in a towel. Which patient do you see first?

You probably see the one that is your own country first. By discouraging the whale and dolphin equivalent of the dancing bear that happens in your own backyard. Appeals to the existence of worse problems elsewhere do not change the existence of problem. You don't even dispute the failings of Seaworld and the like, you want us to ignore them.

Say it with me: "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is worse."

Please move on from appeals to worse problems. No one is convinced.

education about what needs to be done to help animals in the wild.

Children and families are quite likely to get similar bees in their bonnet if they see documentaries about animals in captivity. .

How can you convince boaters to stop running over manatees?

One way is to de-normalise performing animals, so that children might stop seeing large sea animals as our playthings.

I put it to you that Seaworld's mentioning of conservation is greenwash. Nothing else.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[Powercntrl]

You claim that hazards faced in one job are false because other jobs are hazardous.
You should note that the job of killer whale trainer is sold as "family friendly fun". Few people are mislead into thinking that for example, coal mining is not dangerous and unpleasant.

I never claimed working as a whale trainer isn't a dangerous profession to be in. If "killer" in the name doesn't hint to the harm they're capable of inflicting on a human, their sheer size should be enough drive the point home. Claiming the animals present an unreasonable risk to the trainers and therefore shouldn't be kept in captivity is not much different than saying we shouldn't have cell phones because servicing the towers presents an unreasonable risk to the technicians. We shouldn't have electricity because mining coal presents an unreasonable risk to miners, we shouldn't have soldiers, we shouldn't have police, etc...

There may be some great points to debate on animals being kept in captivity, but risk to their human handlers is just an occupational hazard that comes with the territory. I only brought it up in the first place because thedodo.com went there and it seems to crop up every time someone writes an anti-Seaworld article.

You probably see the one that is your own country first. By discouraging the whale and dolphin equivalent of the dancing bear that happens in your own backyard. Appeals to the existence of worse problems elsewhere do not change the existence of problem. You don't even dispute the failings of Seaworld and the like, you want us to ignore them.

You sure it's not just a case of "Let's fix the first world problems first, because the bigger problems are so much more... complicated."? Calling for a ban on captive whales is easy. You can even stay at luxurious resort hotels if you want to protest the theme park in person.

Children and families are quite likely to get similar bees in their bonnet if they see documentaries about animals in captivity.

The video I linked to about the sea birds eating plastic and dying has 24,428 views at last check. Justin Bieber's "As long as you love me" music video has 197,193,040 views in roughly the same period of being on YouTube. If there ever was an "artist" I'd compare to a dancing bear, there you go.

You may not like the "dancing bear spectacle", but it gets people into the park and gives SeaWorld the opportunity to pass on their message of conservation. Seeing these animals perform side-by-side with humans has a far more profound impression than being forced to watch some boring educational video at school.

One way is to de-normalise performing animals, so that children might stop seeing large sea animals as our playthings.

It's not as if they're being forced to brew a cappuccino. They swim and jump - no different than the behaviors they demonstrate in the wild. If you've got a better idea how to get people interested in conservation that can attract as many paying guests as SeaWorld that doesn't involve captive whales, go ahead and do it. Calling for the parks to be shut down would only provide victory from an out-of-sight, out-of-mind perspective. Japan will still continue to slaughter whales, commercial fishing will still kill thousands as bycatch, pollution will claim its toll. With the parks gone, one of the loudest voices for these animals will have been silenced.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah let's just let something really really shitty continue because I guess maybe they are a voice for the animals... ...you know, nevermind they destroyed the southern resident population with their captures. And they continue to tacitly support russian captures of orcas.

Go fuck yourself, Seaworld shill. Go scoot back to whatever little pro-captivity proboard you crawled out from.

Re:Armchair Animal Activists

[Dixie_Flatline]

Maybe if we can't afford to treat the animals properly, we don't deserve to see them.

As we've all hashed it over several times in this story, keeping the animals in a tank that small is basically torture and significantly reduces their lifespan. There's no way to do it properly. We're killing them, and I'm sorry for the kids that don't get to see the animals, but let's be real here: if you've got enough money to travel to San Diego and pay the fee into SeaWorld, you probably have the scratch to go down to the docks and take a quick guided tour on a boat. Whale watching tours aren't actually that expensive, and they guarantee that you'll see whales that day or your money back.

It's not that there's no place for zoos in this world, it's that there's no place for badly run zoos that can't provide the facilities for the animals so that they live a decent life. Bird parks and petting zoos are all fine, but keeping an Orca in captivity is several orders of magnitude different.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good experiment to do, and you will absolutely find that the larger tank leads to better fish health.

You won't have much luck quantifying the cause of the problem, since it is either linked to water quality (as you suggest) or more likely the psychological state of the fish. The 3-second memory comments can be made later, but animal stress is a very real killer that afflicts all animals.

Anyone who keeps fish for any period of time learns (much to the detriment of the fish themselves) that overcrowding leads to death. Also, improper pairings of fish also leads to losses, as the animals badger and harass each other to death. I love aquariums, and have kept them for many years in the past. Yet now I can no longer bring myself to keep fish in captivity, the mortality rate is horrendous, and the quality of live for the poor little guys just doesn't seem fair.

As for keeping orcas, whales and dolphins in captivity. It's a way to make money, and that's it. They should all be shut down. Period.

Marine mammals and Seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

First time I ever went to a Seaworld facility as soon as I looked at the whales and other mammals they have in captivity there, I was immediately struck by how small the containers were for such large animals. I was discussed. I wanted to leave immediately and I have never been back to one of those types of parks since.

Re:Marine mammals and Seaworld

[Culture20]

I was discussed.

What were they saying about you? Maybe how you were really disgusted?

Speciesism.

[I am Jack's username]

Don't worry, it's okay to enslave, break, torture, and slaughter creatures capable of feeling pain and suffering - as long as they're not from the same species as you. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

Dogs are wolves? Whales are poop-breathing fish?

Is this really the state of public education these days?

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Guest316]

[citation needed]

I'd warrant that both are more intelligent than you, even though I know better than to suggest intelligence is a linear scale.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[BasilBrush]

Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild.

Dogs get taken out for walkies at least once per day, or they start to go crazy and become unhealthy. Captive orcas never have the equivalent. It's the equivalent of a dog getting all it's exercise by walking round and round the coffee table. I wouldn't expect such a dog to have the same lifespan as a dog that's been out for walks.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

Dogs have co-evolved with humans for hundreds of years

It's actually in the ballpark of 10,000 years. "Hundreds" of years isn't enough to imply co-evolution.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Guest316]

Apologies for the insult, was pissed about something else when I came across your comment, and "x species is smarter than y species" is one of my pet peeves.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[BasilBrush]

Don't be an asshole. The OP is right. Of course there are varying kinds of intelligence, but Orcas are near relations to dolphins, and both show higher intelligence than wolves or dogs in pretty much any measure.

103 Years Old

[p0p0]

And I bet it was delicious.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'm outraged: Why don't they make boxes that are larger on the inside anyway? That way, you couldn't get bored even if confined to it.

Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how you will keep a large animal captive in a small space, decide what and when it eats, and then expect it to live long and healthy. Pets, in the U.S in particular, at age 10 ritually have their picture taken and put on sites like Reddit with comments "Here's my old girl! She's blind and with arthritis!", when in fact cats and dogs can live and stay healthy to 30 if they are treated well and given proper food (neither the wet gunk sat in a can for 6 months nor the dry lumps called dry-food are good for an animal). It is systematic animal abuse due complete ignorance.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[arth1]

I don't think it's the confinement. Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild.

Wolves have a shorter life expectancy due to humans.
When taking being shot, trapped, poisoned, run over and other direct or indirect human causes of death out of the equation, a typical wolf's lifespan is 13-20 years, which is slightly longer than most domestic dogs' lifespans.

Also note that dog lifespans have gone down since WWII. It's difficult to prove the exact cause, but the change to dry dog food and dogs spending less time outdoors are two of the suspects.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[worf_mo]

Please ignore, posting to undo wrong moderation.

A 103-yeard old granny orca ? Before the CA coast?

[vikingpower]

Now I know where my manager spends her holidays....

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

Marine animals on the other hand, DO breathe their own feces.

Marine MAMMALS do NOT breathe in their own feces. They breath air.

I understand the basic point you're trying to make but it's completely inaccurate in a discussion about orcas since they do not breathe via the water. They surface and breathe air through their blow hole.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Serzen]

The water in these tanks is not only filtered, but runs through protein skimmers and usually UV sterilization, too. The amount of feces (and urine) the animals are drinking or otherwise absorbing is small. Nitrates are A Bad Thing to most marine life.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[jimbolauski]

I have guppy fish in a 30 gallon tank. They almost never live past 2 years in captivity. In nature however, guppies live 5 years or more.

I would say that speaks more to your skill about taking care of fish then anything else. If I omit fry my fish live usually past the upper end of the age limit.

The sea world tank in San Diego is 7 million gallons and has 10 wales, that's approximately 100,000 ft^3 per whale. Further the filtration on the tank runs 30,000 gallons per minute it takes approximately 3 hours to filter 7 million gallons. Water cleanliness is not the issue, the whales and dolphins are stressed from from loud noises of children and not being able to travel, they are fed obscene amounts of antacids to try to minimize the stomach ulcers.

Jeez, I knew Windows Installer was old...

[DoctorBonzo]

but I didn't know it was *that* old...

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

Cats arent really domesticated at all - they chose to live with humans (notice how easily cats can go feral and a feral kitten can be socialised) and the dates are supposed to go back at least 10,000 years.

188 to 212 year old whales documented

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on the analysis of citric acid build-up in the eyeballs of whales, recently took by native american tribes under their heritage titles, some of the victims were over 125 years old, with one specimen dated at 188 to 212 years old! As a youngster whale could have seen Lord Nelson die to win Trafalgar or the Bonaparte Napoleon shipped to exile at St. Helena or the first steamship to cross the ocean.

(BTW, the tribes hunt with heritage equipment, not motor ships with harpoon cannons, so they are only able to fell the weaker, slower whales, often the old ones.)

Re:Fuck seaworld

[dywolf]

Who modded this up?

It has nothing to do with breathing their own excretions:
1- whales breathe air
2- your tank should have a filtration system

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

There's evidence of cats living alongside humans dating back to about 10,000 years ago, about the same time the domestic cat diverged genetically from the African wildcat. The theory is they're self-domesticating, like dogs, too.

AARP got her on the California voting rolls

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a whale of a plan.

The only way to resolve this conundrum:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, we should free it by attaching it to a mexican rocket and sending it to the moon!

Genesis

[Anonymous Coward]

> Dogs were first domesticated by humans something like 15,000 years ago.

But dogs weren.t around 15,000 years ago
Neither were humans
Or the Earth

It says so in the Bible

Re:Genesis

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't disagree with your point but it's rather offtopic; learn to beat a different drum once in a while.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Paul Jakma]

There are numerous examples of highly advanced behaviours in Orcas, e.g. hunting strategies that require significant forward planning and close co-operation to pull off. E.g. washing seals off ice floes by swimming in tight formation to create a large bow wave. They also have complex social structures and behaviours, as with other dolphins and most whales generally. Mothers have been seen to teach calves hunting skills, e.g. pods that beach-hunt mothers have been seen "instructing" calves on how to do it, even pushing them toward the beach. This is clear evidence of culture - a very high-order behaviour. There is also strong evidence that Orcas have languages, differing significantly between different groupings.

In "Blackfish" it was reported that a pod of Orcas, that had had calves taken before, adopted a strategy to try foil the hunters. They split up with one group of adults swimming down one sound, breaching regularly to attract the attention of the hunters and divert them; while another group of mothers swam quietly with the calves down another sound (unfortunately, the hunters had a spotter aircraft). That story, if true, shows incredibly advanced planning, problem solving and organisational abilities.

You could go on and on. There is, to my understanding, *ample* evidence that these are *highly* intelligent animals, and are used to living very social and inter-dependent lives. On the latter social aspect, their needs potentially may even be much greater than ours.

Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

Put a human in a cage with a few inches of room between skin and cage wall. See how long it lives.

It's called prison.

Hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

... Orcas weren't even added until 2008.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/10/23/eve-onlines-rumored-orca-ship-unveiled/

Bear in mind that....

[mark-t]

In most cases, at least here in Canada, marine animals that are in captivity have usually been discovered to be injured, and either would have died if left to their own devices, or worse, spent the rest of their lives suffering. Full rehabilitation takes time, and of course, after being in captivity for any extended period, releasing the creature would also unfortunately be a certain death sentence... so in some ways, it might seem like they are damned if we do take them in, and damned if we don't.

However.... there's one key difference here.

In captivity they will still live longer and/or happier than they would have if left to their own devices... and although I won't argue that being in a million-gallon marine pool no substitute for swimming in the open ocean, it's not like we are trying to make their lives uncomfortable. Further, while they are in captivity, it gives us an otherwise impossible opportunity to learn far more about them than what we already know. I don't advocate mistreatment of any creature in the name of scientific research, but in the end, such aquatic centres or aquariums do not mistreat their charges... they care for them, and by all appearances, the creatures do usually appear to at least be content, as if they realize that we are trying our best, however much like flailing in the dark it might seem to people who would advocate the closure of these places, to genuinely help them, and to make their lives as better as we know how.

Re:Bear in mind that....

[Dixie_Flatline]

The research that we get from animals in captivity is usually useless, frankly. It's like trying to understand human behaviour by going to a jail. Even insects and fish are affected by this; I keep species of snails in my tank that have never been bred in captivity.

All you can learn from animals in captivity is how they behave in captivity.

I understand that the handlers and the scientists TRY. They really do. But more often than not, they also quit and move on because they can't handle the conditions the animals are in, or they're fired because they're becoming a nuisance for advocating for the animals. Just read any of the stories that have come out of MarineLand in Ontario. It's brutal. Honestly, completely brutal.

Allow me to introduce folks to the bell curve

[RogueWarrior65]

Need I say more?

Re:Allow me to introduce folks to the bell curve

[iggymanz]

yes, there is one more thing that needs to be said. here is a second bell curve, looks very much like your bell curve, but it isn't the same one.

Re:Fucks

[Wookact]

103 years is almost as old as America? Umm. Wrong.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"I don't think it's the confinement. Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild."

Through the process of artificial selection, dogs evolved into creatures that could tolerate dog houses. Could you say the same thing for the individual whales that were captured and confined. Maybe after a few hundred generations, we could breed domesticated whales that can wear collars and bark. But for now it's torture keeping them in virtual life imprisonment.

Hell, the Japanese who kill whales to eat them are much more merciful. At least they don't make them suffer for long.

Yeah, and I saw those old photos of Nick Cage

[Culture20]

You know, the ones where he and a bunch of other famous people apparently "traveled back in time"? Unless they have more than a saddle patch to go on (a distinctive harpoon mark or tail gash), this could just be a look-a-like for the Orca from 103 years ago, just like the Nicholas Cage look-a-like.

Re:Yeah, and I saw those old photos of Nick Cage

[Strider-]

The saddle patch is accepted by the scientists in the field to be a unique identifier. No two whales have ever been found to have identical saddle patches, and there is enough variation to indicate they are unique. So is it possible? yes. Likely? No.

Add to this the fact that the data from these old photos lines up with her offspring history, and it's a pretty solid case. In 1971, she was photographed with a male offspring who was already fully grown, so at least 20 years old. She was not seen with any other younger offspring, indicating that he was probably her last. Orcas go through the whale equivalent of menopause at age 40, so 20+40 gives her an age of 60 at the time, and thus 1911 as a birth year.

Anyhow, combine the two pieces of data (the 1930s photo, showing her fully grown) and the offspring data, and it's pretty compelling that she was born roughly 103 years ago, give or take a few.

K. S. Kyosuke = "Run, Forrest: RUN!"

[Anonymous Coward]

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran

[Anonymous Coward]

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Look at this thread

[GameboyRMH]

I hope that one day we'll be as concerned for the welfare of other human beings as we are for that of orca whales.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[RivenAleem]

I know what you are getting at, and please don't mistake me for a troll, but they are not *highly* intelligent. You could call them *relatively* intelligent, compared to other animals, but you make one statement that completely eclipses any measure of intelligence possessed by Orca "(unfortunately, the hunters had a spotter aircraft)" When compared to humans, all other animals are a thick as bricks.

That doesn't mean we should treat them like shit, though. I don't condone how many animals are treated, but I also don't like when people try to class any particular group as *highly* intelligent when the reality is not quite the same.

It was recently discovered, and almost celebrated, that apes could determine which cup contained more juice by judging only the flow of juice into it (the cups were opaque). It showed they had a heretofore unseen grasp on quantitative reasoning.

A small human child can be easily confused by taking a biscuit and breaking it in 1/2 thus now having 2 biscuits if an argument over who has more biscuits breaks out. Or you can take different numbers of sweets, say 7 and 9 and by spacing out the 7 so they make a longer line than a more closely packed 9 you can confuse a child, because the parts of their brain responsible for quantitative reasoning hasn't devoted, but none of this would ever work on an adult.

Animals, for all the intelligence people try to attribute to them, barely measure up to an underdeveloped human child.

It is still our responsibility to treat them with respect regardless, just as we'd take care of a mentally handicapped person, and do our best to give them as normal a life as possible, and not simply lock them away so we don't have to deal with them.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Wycliffe]

I think it's the water quality. Dog poop and urine don't mix with the air, they don't breathe it in. Marine animals on the other hand, DO breathe their own feces. Which is why it's essential to have a large volume of water per animal, as happens in nature.

First off, Marine MAMMALS don't breath water. They come to the surface to breath.
Secondly, if it was primarily water quality then aquariums that are located next to the ocean and are constantly getting
fresh water from the ocean should see significantly different life expectancies than ones inland which must filter their
own water.

I've been thinking of doing an experiment for quite a while. Take two groups of guppies, one in a common aquarium environment, say 10 guppies in a 10 gallon tank (1 inch of fish per gallon). The other group would live in a far less dense tank, maybe 5 guppies in a 200 gallon tank. (5 would be the minimum number since guppies are communal fish and they don't do well mentally unless they're in a group). And compare the fish lifespan in the the 2 groups.

A more accurate experiment would be to have two identical tanks with the exact same number of fish but have one tank have a hidden sump tank.
Here is an example of one: http://splurgebook.files.wordp... It basically allows you to double or triple your volume
of water without changing the size of your display tank. This is what pet stores do and why they can have 100 fish in a 10 gallon tank without them
all dying.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[operagost]

200 gallons is huge for a small fish. It's like one of us dying of boredom being confined to the Earth.

Somewhat related

[xanthines-R-yummy]

As someone who used to work with research mice A LOT, I can tell you that captive mice (yes, the normal "wild-type" mice) are considered very old after 18 months, but in the wild they live around 4 years. My theory is that the real wild-type mice, ie the ones out in the field, get lots of excercise and have reduced caloric intake. The captive research mice have all the food and water they could ever want 24/7 and live in tiny boxes with no exercise wheel. Yes, the captive mice don't get diabetes or atherosclerosis, but they're still not living as long...

Either that, or they're so inbred it makes GoT seem tame!

Re:Fuck seaworld

[jimbolauski]

Not just a filtration system but frequent water changes as well. Fish waste and uneaten food become ammonia the ammonia is turned into nitrites by bacteria then the nitrites are turned into nitrates by another bacteria, these nitrates are not as toxic as ammonia or nitrites but a at 40ppm fish are defiantly stressed.

Getting in first

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not shown up on this comment yet, so when he does : "APK, seek professional help"

How do you determine an Orca's age?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, you cut it in half and count the rings of course.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Smauler]

Being intelligent does not have any correlation to being able to be confined. Great white sharks, for example, cannot be kept in captivity. At all. They die after a couple of weeks, at best, generally. The world record is 44 days.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[ShanghaiBill]

There are numerous examples of highly advanced behaviours in Orcas

Here is a Youtube video of orcas not only using sophisticated behavior to knock a crab eater seal off an iceflow, but also repeating the procedure over and over, in what appears to be a training session for juvenile orcas.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Smauler]

Also note that dog lifespans have gone down since WWII. It's difficult to prove the exact cause, but the change to dry dog food and dogs spending less time outdoors are two of the suspects.

Breed specifications are the other reason. German Shepherds used to look like that. Now they look like this.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would counting ability help an animal with no hands? The Orcas would say your ability to predict the motions of a school of fish is infantile too.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” - Einstein

Re:Fuck seaworld

[cusco]

Very likely the inbreeding promoted by acceptance of the AKC standards also plays a part.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[wvmarle]

An animal which travels over 100 miles in a day in the wild is confined to an area slightly larger than itself. Put a human in a cage with a few inches of room between skin and cage wall. See how long it lives

That's done all the time. And then they're let out an hour a day or so to walk around a slightly larger space (like the Orca's get to a bigger pool to perform tricks), and get some exercise.

This is what's called "prisons". Humans generally don't seem to like it, but they also don't live that much shorter inside a prison than outside (it's suggested that it cuts lifetime to about a quarter of natural lifetime, which for humans would mean most prisoners should be dead within 20 years behind bars).

Re:Fuck seaworld

[xfade551]

I seem to recall seeing a special (can't remember if it was Discovery, National Geographic, or the Science Channel) on that same great white that was kept captive for 44 days. It wasn't so much that the white shark couldn't be kept alive, it was the fact that --despite being theorectically well-fed-- it ate two of the other sharks in the tank (both large species). After it ate the second shark, they decided to release it for the good of the rest of the aquarium.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Smauler]

Yes... that is one of the problems with great whites, they eat everything else. However, even with eating everything else in the tank, they can't be kept alive for long.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Rigel47]

Amen. I've been to Sea World (regrettably) and it made me want to puke. These majestic animals trapped in small pools being forced to flap about while thumping techno music plays and a sleazy DJ whoops the simpletons in the crowd into a frenzy because "omg, I'm getting wet!"

Re:Fuck seaworld

[jedidiah]

It only takes about 30 generations of selective breeding to completely domesticate a wild canine. So hundreds of years of "co-evolution" is more than enough. It's not the amount of time, it's the population diversity and the selection pressure.

Evolution is not instant soup. You don't just "add time" as if you were adding water.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love common core, huh?

Re:Fuck seaworld

[jedidiah]

> Dogs are wolves? Whales are poop-breathing fish?
>
> Is this really the state of public education these days?

Clearly not someone that was ever forced to read any Jack London.

Yes. Dogs are devolved wolves. This is more readily apparent in some breeds. Some dogs are still crossbred with wild wolf stock to this day.

There is also an originating species that has been defined for the domesticated cat.

speaking of "running away"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's APK who always changes the subject when anyone actually tackles him on what an abomination his malware is. How about you address the legitmate criticism of your "application"?

Re:speaking of "running away"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what I saw. Ksk called apk names and when challenged KSK ran.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Guest316]

Yeah, the ad hominem was uncalled for. That doesn't make him right though. Cognition is a complex field, and "my species can beat up your species" serves no purpose in understanding either species.

And btw, orcas aren't near relations to dolphins, they are dolphins.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Guest316]

I wasn't trying to imply that orcas aren't intelligent. My objection was over the irrelevant ranking.

Re: Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they taste as good as dolphins with a slice of rye and a side of mayo?

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Algae_94]

We put humans in smallish cages all the time (not exactly inches between skin and wall). Some for the rest of their natural lives. It seems that the biggest factor in shortening their life spans is the other humans in the other cages that they interact with.

I'm not saying Sea World should be caging whales, but I'm saying its gonna be hard to get people to stop doing something that they do to each other. They'll just come up with some whale crimes to charge them with before locking them up.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[cyn1c77]

Wolves which range hundreds of miles are kept in captivity by humans in small areas (dogs), and they live far longer with humans than in the wild.

Dogs get taken out for walkies at least once per day, or they start to go crazy and become unhealthy. Captive orcas never have the equivalent. It's the equivalent of a dog getting all it's exercise by walking round and round the coffee table. I wouldn't expect such a dog to have the same lifespan as a dog that's been out for walks.

Along those lines, if I let my dog off leash to run in the woods for a while, she comes back to me at the end of the day. I assume that means that she is happier to live with me than to live alone in the woods.

Why not let the captive orca's have a free swim every week or so and see if they come back?

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Dixie_Flatline]

No, I think that planning and collaborating count as 'highly intelligent'. Human children are bad at nearly all the things that were mentioned (long term planning, teaching, general communication, etc.)

Our inability to measure animal intelligence by our human-centric values doesn't indicate that they're not intelligent, it indicates that we know less than we think about how to quantify that sort of thing. By nearly every measure, those orcas would find us USELESS in the water. Orca scientists would lament our ability to think effectively in 3 dimensions and do all sorts of things that they're cognitively evolved to do.

Human hubris keeps us from recognising that other animals have exceptional intelligence because we're so concerned about measuring their abilities against ours. Our accomplishments as a species are undeniable, but to a certain extent, our dominance on the planet is a bit of an accident of timing and luck. If you've read Guns, Germs and Steel, you'll understand the parallel I'm trying to draw--sometimes the winner isn't necessarily the smartest or best, but the ones that had some luck early on and have circumstance on their side.

In any case, we almost certainly agree that keeping animals of this level of intelligence--whether we agree precisely on the degree or not--in captivity is immoral. It's effectively torture and cruelty; however you measure human intelligence, we should be able to recognise THAT.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Em Adespoton]

Breed specifications are the other reason. German Shepherds used to look like that. Now they look like this.

I think I know what you're trying to say, but the only thing I get from those photos is that German Shepherds are now multicoloured instead of black and white. While hip placement and angle is something that's degenerated over time, the second image on the "old" page could be of the dog on the "new" page just standing slightly differently.

Then again, it would be interesting to study what happens if we have a pod of Orcas living in one location where the pod leader has to get up early every day and swim an hour in to the aquarium, where she sits in a tank all day counting people.

Maybe in the evening it could swim home to its pod for a quick meal, and then go jump in the endless pool?

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Em Adespoton]

Stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria; stress is often caused by the ulcers. If they're feeding them antacids, they could be making the problem worse.
Of course, the bacteria thrive in a highly acidic environment, and we mammals tend to concentrate the acid in our stomachs when stressed, so there's a tricky relationship there.

But they'd do better to feed them a targeted antibiotic I'd think. Won't help the stress, but it would help the ulcers.

As for the noise stress, a lot of that noise that stresses out aquatic mammals is in ranges not heard by the human ear -- we do a reasonable job at keeping those levels somewhat reasonable, but humans are horrible polluters in the higher and lower frequencies.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[RivenAleem]

While I question my own personal ability to thin effectively in 3 dimensions, I'm going to go with "well I've never been put to the test on it". I'm going to make a broad assumption that your average air force pilot would have little difficulty with such challenges an Orca might pose him/her. And yes, a small child will not be able to do many of the things these Orca are capable of, but the same may be said of young Orca. My point is that even in an under developed state, there are many ways in which a small child is a lot smarter than many animals, even adult ones. Our ability to grasp languages would be an example. Or to use tools (I'm thinking building legos or solving jig-saw puzzles).

More primitive humans, did most certainly display planning and collaboration for hunting (taking turns to run animals to death either by exhaustion or by chasing them off a cliff). Just because we don't appear to do that now, given how we've completely tamed our food supply, doesn't stop us measuring their abilities against ours.

It really just adds to my argument (in my opinion). You simply cannot compare their intelligence to ours as Human cognitive processes are completely alien (now) to other animals.

But I would rather we stray no further off-topic. I'd really not want someone to think "dumb animals, who cares what happens to them" since we already know exactly what will happen if, say, the bees die out. We really should be looking after every animal, particularly any that we might have a hand in driving to extinction, not just for possible selfish benefit, but because I don't think we have the right to abuse them for our pleasure.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[RivenAleem]

My ability to predict the motions of a school of fish, perhaps, but a marine biologist, less so. A marine biologist with GPS trackers attached to several fish and satellite imagery or sonar and now doesn't the Orca look stupid.

Now one person can track and predict the motions of not just one school of fish, but potentially many many schools all across the oceans/world so that I don't have to. This leaves me to worry about writing technical manuals for production operators making the sterile injectable cancer treatment drug that someone else designed from the molecule up.

Humans, by virtue of the extremely malleable and powerful brains can specialise in so many tasks that yes, judging them on something they have not trained for can make them appear stupid.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Curate]

The obvious solution is to use a Bag of Holding. However, good luck finding one that's waterproof. :(

Apk doesn't need help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk didn't toss names and be challenged run away. KSK did http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Paul Jakma]

Thank you for comment with some impressive nitpicking that "highly intelligent" should be "relatively intelligent". Also very impressive how you make an argument in your comment that these animals barely rank alongside human children, and back it up with an example of how these animals *outperform* children.

BTW, did you know that Chimpanzees can perform basic arithmetic much *faster* than pretty much *any* human, child or adult? Does that mean we barely measure up to chimpanzees?

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Dixie_Flatline]

True enough; intelligence is certainly not a specific measure of worth. The only reason it's worth bringing up in this case is because something that's smart understands how bad the situation is. I don't like it when bees die (and frankly, the issue of bee intelligence isn't solved either; they've got quite the vocabulary, and there's evidence of voting and democracy in hives), but I think on an individual level, they're likely unable to comprehend their situation. But I can't really prove that. :)

So, yeah. We agree.

Re:Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

If we gave the Orca a specialized tool for counting, they'd do a better job than a regular human can.
If we don't give humans a specialized tool for tracking fish, they'd do a much worse job than an Orca.

All you've done is define quantitative reasoning AND tool use as the metrics for intelligence.

Re: Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean they are called KILLER whales. not sea pandas.

Re: Fuck seaworld:Orca are not fish

[Anonymous Coward]

Orcas are air breathing mammals, not fish. Their being confined to a relatively tiny area, with little stimulus, quite probably contributes to their equivalent of depression, which I would guess doesn't help promote a long life. To the poster that reference "Wolves", dogs may have descended from wolves, but there is between 20,000 and 100,000 years of selective breeding for the very traits that allow them to be pets, and live relatively sedentary lives in our homes.

Re:Fucks

[fuzzy2k]

2014 - 1776 = 238, so 103 = ~ 238 This must be the bew math I keep hearing about.

Re: Fuck seaworld

[Anonymous Coward]

Orcas are fucking mammals. They don't breath water dumbass

Re:Fuck seaworld

[RivenAleem]

You are possibly right, I'll take you on your word, given how you don't cite a source, but my underlying point, is that it's all beside the point. We shouldn't be thinking "these are intelligent creatures, we shouldn't be keeping them in captivity for our enjoyment" and instead, "we really shouldn't be keeping ANY potentially endangered creatures in captivity, who are doing fine in the wild".

I'm all for domesticated animals being reared in captivity for food, where they are provided for and generally lead un-bothered lives right up until they are slaughtered for food. I am however against animals being unduly punished for enjoyment/entertainment.

Given how there is such great disparity between individual members of the human race as far as intelligence goes, any method of comparing us to them is a bit moot :)

Re:Fuck seaworld

[RockDoctor]

I have guppy fish in a 30 gallon tank. They almost never live past 2 years in captivity. In nature however, guppies live 5 years or more.

And have you reconsidered if you should actually be keeping guppies, since it's obviously so harmful to them? Should you be continuing to replace them as they die (whether it be by purchase, or by not separating out the sexes and letting your population die out)?

Let's put that in a better known pet context. Say that you have been keeping dogs for years, and that dogs live on average to 10 years old (I've never had a dog ; this is just a guess). But you dogs mostly die before they're 4.

How long ago do you think you'd have been investigated for animal cruelty? Do you think you'd have deserved the jail time for your obvious abuse of the pets?

Not so comfortable thinking that way, is it?

Avoiding the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

When challenged that you change the subject in response to criticism of your malware, what do you do? Why, you change the subject of course!

Why is your software sooo sloow?

Re:Fuck seaworld

[melchoir55]

Dogs aren't wolves. A wolf will kill you if it thinks it can and it's hungry. Very few dogs are dangerous. Further, dogs kept in tiny cages and never allowed to leave probably wouldn't actually live longer than their wild counterparts, though I'm speculating.

Nonetheless, I agree with your point that confinement is probably much more damaging to a water breathing animal than it is to an air breathing animal.