Blackfish is a Lie

[theguy67]

I do see Wellington's point. Obviously parts of Black Fish were manipulated, and faked, but the question of Sea World's honesty is still a valid one. However, I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Sure, marine parks such as Sea World do have dark pasts, and when they screw up I don't blame them for sweeping stuff under the rug. I think the good Sea World has done still out weighs the bad, and Black Fish hasn't done much good. If anything, that program only made things worse by widening the divide.

There's a group out there that sees any thing with walls as a prison. Many animal activists fall in to this group. When it comes to animals, its very easy to play on someone's emotions.

Also @Tom . The reason ( I think) "no one seems to want to do anything about it" is because of sensationalism. Like I said above about playing on people's emotions. There's nothing sensational about animals NOT suffering. You'd have to go in a round-about way which removes the shock factor. Essentially "whale's aren't suffering, but black fish did x,y,and z, only to cause this effect. Starts to sound like a conspiracy theory. Most people lose interest at this point, and many arrive at the question @wellington asked. Sometimes its hard to know who to listen to and they just give up.

 

[theguy67]

Another question I have is about the former trainers that were speaking out. Why did they turn against Sea World?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts...s-belong-in-the-ocean-not-seaworld-180954333/ This article briefly mentions one, as well as a book he wrote. Maybe his book would shed some light...

This is a tricky subject for me, because I'm still on the fence about Sea World having orcas. Do I think whales can be kept in captivity? Yes, but with much more room. That is probably not very cost effective, which is unfortunate.

 

[Tom]

I did watch your video. I don't see proof that it's fake. I see Sea World saying it's fake. Where's the proof, other then Sea World's words?
Sea Worlds words won't change minds/opinions, but proof will, an independents, with no stake in the game proof.
If you stole my tv and you told the police it was yours, when I'm saying it's mine, the police are going to want proof to determine who is telling the truth. Receipt, serial number, a picture of it in the house from the past, something. Small matter, so not a lot at stake really compared to the Blackfish story. The Blackfish story has bigger stakes up for grabs. Bigger stacks makes one or both sides pull out every trick possible to be the winner. With technology today, just about anything can be made to look true. However, with this technology, is also technology to prove which is fake/tampered with and which as never been altered. Cheap, I'm sure not. However, with such big stakes, it would be worth the wager for the hiring of the independent to settle it once and for all with proof, not just words.

If you are equating the honesty and integrity of Seaworld with that of animal rightists, then this battle is already lost.

 

[Tom]

Also @Tom . The reason ( I think) "no one seems to want to do anything about it" is because of sensationalism. Like I said above about playing on people's emotions. There's nothing sensational about animals NOT suffering. You'd have to go in a round-about way which removes the shock factor. Essentially "whale's aren't suffering, but black fish did x,y,and z, only to cause this effect. Starts to sound like a conspiracy theory. Most people lose interest at this point, and many arrive at the question @wellington asked. Sometimes its hard to know who to listen to and they just give up.

All good points, and a very well done explanation of how this drama usually plays out.

Each time it goes the way you've described, however, people who did nothing wrong, and everything right, lose. They lose their jobs, their livelihood, their professional reputation, their faith in the legal system, their faith in humanity even. All this because of an unfounded accusation.

The bullyies with the agenda and all the money behind them simply make a false accusation. Their lies revolve around some remote element of truth and they show sad film footage with sad music, and their victim is crucified before a defense can even be mounted. When a defense is mounted, then its the muddy waters you've described in your post, no one knows who to believe, but the damage is already done. The victim of the slanderous remarks has already lost and lost big time.

Its wrong and it needs to be put to a stop. Its a witch hunt, but this isn't Salem.

 

[Tom]

Another question I have is about the former trainers that were speaking out. Why did they turn against Sea World?

In any group of thousands of people, there are going to be nut jobs. I support Law Enforcement and overall they are some of the best people in our country. But among their ranks tens of thousands, there are a few rotten apples. Its unavoidable.

Same thing with SeaWorld. Who knows what is going on in the minds of these people. Maybe they've watched one to many animals rights commercials with the Sarah Mclachlan music and their brains turned to mush. Seriously though, maybe they've been brainwashed by one of these AR groups. Maybe they were an AR with an agenda before they went to work for SeaWorld. Perhaps they went in with a hidden agenda. Think this is preposterous? PETA used to place ads offering to pay for people's education, if they would promise to go undercover for them after. Friends of mine have been the victims of this infiltration. They also funded large numbers of people who when on to get hired by government agencies that control animal regulations and enforcement. Over the last couple of decades, these infiltrators with an agenda have worked their way up and been promoted to positions of power and authority. They abuse this power and authority to push their AR agenda every chance they get. Its sickening, and very little can or has been done about it.

Here's a different question that might shed some light: Why are there only one or two speaking out? There have been hundreds of orca trainers over the decades. I know some of them. If things were so bad, why don't all of them speak out. None of the ones I know are shy or soft-spoken in any way. People are entitled to feel the way they wanna feel. Doesn't mean it makes sense. Heck look at all the AR people on this very forum, a forum all about keeping wild exotic animals in captivity. What they say about AR is in direct contrast with what they are doing in their backyard every single day. They get on the internet machine, decry SeaWorld as horrible animal abusers, laud the people who made this preposterous film, and then go outside and admire their pet tortoise in their back yard. Talk about a complete mental disconnect...

 

[KevinGG]

As much as animal rights groups may lie, they are not all liars and not all of the work done is wrong. This seems to be an ongoing thing, and one that is getting boring. Both sides continually show a disinterest in finding the truth and more in perpetuating an agenda.

I disagree with @Tom in his “a few bad apples” comment in regard to police. Over and over again, we have seen examples of a culture that holds great bias, is unskillful and unlawful itself, kill thousands of citizens every year and more. This is not to say they are exclusively bad. In addition to the above, they continually risk their lives to help and protect people and are successful in doing so. I have more than one police officer within my family and friends and i respect and love them. (We should probably veer away from this to stay within forum rules and on topic) A critique is not evidence of disrespect. It takes great respect and love to be able to question a system or an institution or an individual, because it allows one to see them entirely. One cannot love something they are not willing to see all of. Nothing is exclusively good or bad.

Seaworld is no exception to this. And if ones opinion is that Seaworld, and it’s orca program, have nothing to improve, have never acted inappropriately, then that person is diluted. Seaworld is a for-profit park and is designed for people as much as animals. Of course there are inherent problems in this, but I haven’t seen a great deal of work done by Seaworld to improve, as much as deny any problems or wrongdoing. Because of this I don’t find myself upset at the end of their orca programs. More people may not speak out at Seaworld due to fear of a job loss or a culture that punishes those who subvert. This wouldn’t be revolutionary, especially within a field wherein all facilities are overseen by the AZA.

Blackfish was undoubtedly one sided. Seaworld is undoubtedly one sided. (A segment titled “Green Tyranny” is definitely one sided) As are AR groups and animal facilities (there are many that lie inbetween by the way.) We have to be more intelligent and more wise than to choose one or the other, but rather find an honest area based on facts, not sales pitches. Many of us decry poor conditions at certain tortoise breeding facilities and pet stores, but can see that others are okay and some (few) are great. It is not a conversation of only “should we or shouldn’t we keep animals”. It is one of “which animals” and “how are they kept” and “where do they come from” etc. We should look and think deeper.

 

[wellington]

If you are equating the honesty and integrity of Seaworld with that of animal rightists, then this battle is already lost.

Tom, if you think Sea World wouldn't stoop so low to clear their name and to try and save the thousands they are losing, then you are too close to the situation, being in the field, and so against anyone standing up for animal rights, to see things clearly. I am in no way defending Peta, never would, after learning the truth about them. However, not everyone in the field of animals treat animals the way you and I do. Veterinarians, rescues, zoos, aquariums, have all at one time or more over the years, some very recent, have abused animals in one way or another. Not the practice of the institutions, but, the actions of an employee(s) and the institution takes the heat. Don't forget, before your time in the animal field, animals in your business were not treated well. It was the animal rights people that demanded appropriate care and well being of actor animals.
Not all animal rights people or groups wants to put you out of a job, in fact it's not about you, it's about fair and appropriate treatment and collection of animals. They just want animals to be treated as they should be and yes, some don't want us to have animals at all it seems.
It wasn't that many years ago, that Sea World was plucking baby Orcas from their mothers.
A he said she said proves nothing!

 

[Tom]

Don't forget, before your time in the animal field, animals in your business were not treated well. It was the animal rights people that demanded appropriate care and well being of actor animals.

Here you've missed a very important distinction, and its a missed distinction that is still carried on until this day with most of society. I hope I can explain the difference here.

The groups and people that made a difference in the past and improved the care and conditions of animals were "Animal Welfare" groups. These are people like you and me who want to see animals treated not only humanely, as a minimum standard, but treated well. I think most of society, except for a few sick individuals, fits into this category.

The group that we are discussing here is NOT an animal welfare group. Seeing animals treated well is not their goal, although they've learned that deceiving people into believe that helping animals is their goal gets them paid. Animal rightists, and the people they dupe into going along with them, have a much bigger agenda, and lying cheating and stealing to achieve their agenda fits right into their moral code. The leaders of these groups are bad people. I've met them. I've interacted wit them.

A little bit of research will make this distinction clear to anyone that cares to look into it.

 

[theguy67]

To me the distinction is clear. I like to visualize it as a spectrum. Peta being on an extreme end, and those advocating for animal welfare closer to the middle. I could possibly see how animal rights groups evolved from the early animal welfare groups. It seems every time an activist group is needed and formed, a minority of extremists emerge and take part of the movement into a wild direction. You can use your imagination and see others, as that's a whole other can of worms we probably shouldn't open.

The distinction is important. Although it wasn't clear in his statement, @wellington is probably aware of this. The issue remains (at least for him - I'm assuming you're male? lol) that he has trouble with who or where to get the truth from. I've already accepted that I will probably never have the truth, unless I go directly to the source. Now I could go to a secondary source, like Tom. BUT, I don't know Tom. (Just using you as an example) Everything he's saying is most likely true, but I can't know that to 100% certainty. So I can understand why it becomes frustrating when you are being pulled two different directions, and I don't think hiring an independent to find this "truth" would really work.

 

[wellington]

Here you've missed a very important distinction, and its a missed distinction that is still carried on until this day with most of society. I hope I can explain the difference here.

The groups and people that made a difference in the past and improved the care and conditions of animals were "Animal Welfare" groups. These are people like you and me who want to see animals treated not only humanely, as a minimum standard, but treated well. I think most of society, except for a few sick individuals, fits into this category.

The group that we are discussing here is NOT an animal welfare group. Seeing animals treated well is not their goal, although they've learned that deceiving people into believe that helping animals is their goal gets them paid. Animal rightists, and the people they dupe into going along with them, have a much bigger agenda, and lying cheating and stealing to achieve their agenda fits right into their moral code. The leaders of these groups are bad people. I've met them. I've interacted wit them.

A little bit of research will make this distinction clear to anyone that cares to look into it.

I agree, this particular group does play dirty. Most animal groups do not.
I get that. I also get too, that many corporations play dirty too, specially when under fire and losing thousands.
So, you and all understand. I'm for Sea World. I hope they are being honest about their present practices and the past. I just believe in proof then he said she said. I think it would change a whole lot more minds, not only about Sea World, but about the animal group involved.

 

[wellington]

To me the distinction is clear. I like to visualize it as a spectrum. Peta being on an extreme end, and those advocating for animal welfare closer to the middle. I could possibly see how animal rights groups evolved from the early animal welfare groups. It seems every time an activist group is needed and formed, a minority of extremists emerge and take part of the movement into a wild direction. You can use your imagination and see others, as that's a whole other can of worms we probably shouldn't open.

The distinction is important. Although it wasn't clear in his statement, @wellington is probably aware of this. The issue remains (at least for him - I'm assuming you're male? lol) that he has trouble with who or where to get the truth from. I've already accepted that I will probably never have the truth, unless I go directly to the source. Now I could go to a secondary source, like Tom. BUT, I don't know Tom. (Just using you as an example) Everything he's saying is most likely true, but I can't know that to 100% certainty. So I can understand why it becomes frustrating when you are being pulled two different directions, and I don't think hiring an independent to find this "truth" would really work.

LOL, no I'm not male, but that's okay. Real name is Barb.
I don't really believe something just because someone said it. I do know Tom, a stand up guy! I would and do believe him. However, it was Tom when I joined this forum that backed up his words with proof. That was my reason for reaching out to him more then the forum. (This was in the very beginning, before I knew or trusted anyone)

 

[theguy67]

LOL, no I'm not male, but that's okay. Real name is Barb.
I don't really believe something just because someone said it. I do know Tom, a stand up guy! I would and do believe him. However, it was Tom when I joined this forum that backed up his words with proof. That was my reason for reaching out to him more then the forum. (This was in the very beginning, before I knew or trusted anyone)

LOL whoops. Well I'm not super active on here. Sometimes I look at usernames at create the character in my head.

And I was just using Tom as an example. The hardest part in all of this is developing tools to sift through all of the information we are faced with.