Why Do We Keep Animals in Captivity?

I see your point and also find the use of captive animals to perform in a manner not found in nature distasteful. Hopefully the killer whale in question will be released. With its track record--he has killed people before, which makes one wonder what SeaWorld management could possibly have been thinking--it is doubtful that this orca will be deemed 'useful' for their purposes any longer. Destroying it would serve no purpose; release should be the only option.

This has some bearing on another issue that's been in the U.S. news recently: people keeping wild animals as pets. It's such a common sense thing that I'm at a loss to understand why people don't get it. A wild animal, be it a chimpanzee, tiger, or wombat, is exactly that--a wild animal. You can name it and bottle feed it and make little hats for it, but it will retain its feral instincts and provide the world with more horror stories of idiots being ripped to shreds by animals wrongfully caged.

However, I take some issue with your premise. Would you free all zoo-kept animals? They, too, are kept in captivity for the entertainment and education of society. And zookeepers, as well as members of the public who don't think that 'keep out' signs pertain to them, are also killed by zoo animals.

Zoos and aquaria should be lauded for their conservation and genetic preservation value. I would not lump them into the same category as SeaWorld-type theme parks.

Sue,

I'm giving you a GA for presenting a balanced approach. While there are clearly animal abuses all over the world, there is an aspect of domestication. Certain animals take to domestication and others don't. The orca in question was obtained in the wild - almost every other captive orca are born in captivity.

I do not agree with many of the things that are done to animals, but we are more important than them, and we should demonstrate this by stewardship rather than dominion.

Mike

Hello Ozz,

How you can tell that the orca may not survive in the wild. Do you tell us that animals don't have the will to survive when easy supply ceases? They don't fight, they just stop to eat what is available in nature, find easily or hardly? I think animals like humans want to stay alive as long as possible. One positive suggestion for the orca: Being freed, joining other orcas, this animal will be well accepted in an other group and will be helped to learn and become independent. Is this a possibility?

I don't accept for "good" every negative comments, and being "judged bad" or "not good" all positives. This is not a championship for good or bad answer but different or disruptive opinions have a place too. However, I accept your saying for "one possibility" but only "one".

If you have the answer, I think, everyone would like to know, Gil.

Maybe animals much like humans are driven to attempt to survive, and you must also recognize that humans when not trained to survive in the wilderness with predators and limited food and water supplies that they must provide for themselves (in other words urbanized humans) tend to fair very poorly under survival conditions in the wilderness. As an example humans, which would be a best case for learning and intelligent use of nature to their benefit, tend to die fairly regularly in the wilderness just from getting lost on camping expeditions and starve or die of thirst, fall into rivers or lakes (or even 4 foot deep canals) and drown, attacked by bears, crocodiles or tigers,and any number of other predicaments they do not have the experience or knowledge to defend against. In addition you will see these urbanized human when they move to more rural environments start to modify the environments to be more reflective of the urban environment they left (even when they left the urban environment to get away from those things). They seek the environment or modify their environment to what they are used, much more often then what they seek the environments they claim to desire. Thus the Orca may not have the facilities to provide adequate defense against outside attackers, knowledge of wilderness techniques to address disease or other infections/parasitic attacks, knowledge and experience on how to properly hunt and obtain food in the area, avoidance knowledge of dangers like humans and machines, and any number of social issues that could lead to being attacked. Take a human who has never been in a fight and drop him in a UFC match and see how he fairs (and in the wilderness many times it is to the death), or one who has always been catered to and ask him to go out in the woods and get dinner.

Hi RCE,

You talk about one or a few individuals. Statistics and realities don't built up on or by a few. We humans survived with more animals, man eating or not, than we have today. We probably and already killed more than half of them. Extinction is the word!

You take human population for uneducated and ignorant. We are smart, the "smarter" and a group of few hundred thousands of those "smart" will arrive to destination. I guarrantee you!

Just a few word from you! Take the attacks. We have people, doctors or other scientifics who know about all kinds of diseases you mention. Take with the "smart" droup and they help many to pass through the parasitic/infectious difficulties. It's a possible scenario, isn't it? Yours is possible, so mine has some values too!

The last question: Who is the "best hunter" on Earth? Answer to us, Gil.

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Are you conceiving of Orcas becoming like humans and having Doctors and Scientists to alleviate disease and parasitic infections?

As far as extinction goes, orders of magnitude more species went extinct long before humans or any mammals large than a rodent were alive.Extinction is actually the resultant ends of evolution at work. Pressures from outside natural forces, living or non-living, drive evolutionary change. Also, evolution occurs in species where there are pressures in their existing environment but their are niches that have been left open due to environmental changes or the extinction of other species. The surviving species step in to fill the niche over time evolving to be better suited to that niches. Polar Bear are a very recent evolutionary change to Brown Bears, about 100,000 yrs, where they became better suited to fill a niche hunting on the expanse of polar ice where meat was more abundant. In the short period of time we have been a force in the evolution of species on this planet, I really doubt that mankind has driven half the species that ever lived on this planet to extinction. Additionally, extinctions could have already been on the horizon for many species , such as the largest mammals of the Pleistocene, as the environmental conditions changed, and we were just presented another pressure on an already unstable species, which were overwhelmed and unable to adapt already.

Hi RCE,

You don't want to understand others and by handling words the way you do, you try to be good and let the others the bad opinion. Everyone reading your and my comments will understand what you do. You explain that there is no extinction of many animals by human activities. Some tuna will be by international law don't allow the capture of them. You don't ask why? How come? What extinction, actual extinction of animals are the result of "evolution at work"? You reading papers to reinforce your opinion but you are out of realities because your conviction about what's happening around us, really doesn't touch you.

I really don't catch your sentence: "Are you conceiving of Orcas becoming like humans and having Doctors and Scientists to alleviate disease and parasitic infections?". You want to tell people that I said: Orca becomes a human? How you can tell others that I said that? We are smart enough to catch your sayings and mine.

I prefer to be a disruptive with open eyes and opinion than someone closed, Gil.

Actually what i claimed was that humanity was not the cause for the extinction of most of the species that have ever lived on this planet. This is not a tenuous position, as you don't seem to clearly understand the geologic time line for life on this planet versus the period of human existence. There have been many more species come in to existence on this planet that went extinct before man ever came on the seen than there were species on the planet say 2000 years ago or 50,000 years ago. Why do they not all exist today? Were they all wiped out by man?

I am surprised that tuna don't allow by International Law, though not surprised that they would try to avoid, the capture of them. Most species attempt to avoid capture. It is surprising that any Tuna were invited to legislate any international laws, just the communication would seem overwhelming, let alone the limitations on legislating anything given the impaired intellectual capacity of Tuna.

As far as extinction, well the idea that i am educated by reading and have some understanding of the concept of evolutionary processes is a good thing in many cases, but i did not identify any convictions in my belief systems for a basis. I only identified severe critical failings in your arguments or a lack of understanding of the conceptual processes you are claiming support the argument or underpin it. You can not claim the evolution as a basis, and then underpin the argument in what are really underlying religious tenets. The basic concept of man being above the other life forms or outside of their structure and that we must provide and care for the life on this planet is a religious tenet. Evolutionary theory would indicate humanity is just one of the animals, and thus we provide evolutionary pressures on all the other species that in some way are involved with us. Thus they evolve to benefit from the inter-relationship with the species that are newly encountered in their environment, they destroyor remove the interloping species from their environment, or they go extinct under the new pressures. There is nothing to evolutionary theory that would be indicative of humanity caring for any other species beyiond the direct benefits that the care can bring to humanity from that survival of the other species, and actually caring for another species at greater expense to humanity than that species brings back in return would violate the basic concepts of evolutionary theory for the progression of evolution in a species. Preservation of another species without direct benefit is contradictory to evolution. Without evolutionary pressure to bear, nothing evolves and remains static and preserved , until some cataclysm occurs that ma have been aveerted through evolution earlier. The ice ages presented either a huge threat to survival or opportunity depending on how the brown bearsthat was changing evolved under the pressure brought by climate change in their environments. Obviously the bear evolved rapidly to make it an opportunity and became Polar Bears in relatively few centuries. Rats continue to evolove to survie and thrive in the enviornoment of man, though they obviously predate man, so they took advantage of what could have been either a threat or a opportunity, and gained greatly from it.

Hello RCE,

In your first paragraph: What you want to tell us? So, after the information you get from somewhere, not after your personal opinion, there is no extinction of any but we have creation of large amount of new creatures. Aha, yes. Certain chemical modification of plants and criss-crossing of animals, it's fine! Also, some white wales, very soon, will overpopulate the oceans and we get flooded because the volume of the wales creates increase of the level of the oceans. Ohlala! This is what you want to tell us? Sorry! I choose the wales because they are big enough to be visible.

Concerning the tuna, read the today's newspapers. It says; If we continue to catch them at the rhythm we do today, they will disappear soon. This information is reported by other people than me. Sorry, sometimes, I also rely on other people brain too. Yes, international law will protect tuna from fishing the way we do today. Oh, I forget the elephants. No, you forget to tell me; The kangaroos will be OK for years!

The next paragraph, you confirm that you are right and others are wrong, and me for sure. You don't allow others' opinion than what you tell us. You tell to everyone that nobody, individuals, groups, governments or international organizations told that it's paramount to do something drastic because we cannot continue that way we do. If I understand, no one of us read newspapers, hear radio, and watch TV. Thanks!

Don't explane the evolutionary explanation of life or existance of any group. You explain so well that you are involved with, guarranteed!

Last question: Did you see a polar bear alive or dead? International law don't allow to hunt certain animals or in limited number. We can fish only three (3) 12" or more long of rainbow trouts during the summer season, nothing before or after. This is the law! It's finally over! Thanks to, Gil.

As far as whales go, well the whole paragraph doesn't make sense. It really isn't clear what you are attempting to state or the rational behind it. I am also not clear on why you believe there is no extinction, and this whole thing about chemical modification of plants and criss crossing of animals? I am guessing,as it seems to imply, that you mean the evolution of plants and animals through breeding and biochemical modifications, which would be one of the occurrences attributable to evolutionary changes.

The protection of Tuna by conservation, which limits the take to a sustainable level for humans to continue use, is a justifiable postion based on the benefit to humanity of having a sustained food source, rather than a rapidly depleted food source. Preserving Tuna, such that no one make farm any of the many numerous pecies of Tuna for food at all and takes are limited to accidental or incidental kills that occur due to other encounters, is not eally justifiable unless you can identify another benefit to humanity. I have never eaten an elephants or kangaroos so i am not sure if that same position is applicable to elephants or kangaroos. Elephants at least in asia are a valuable labor force, so i can see a relationship that developed between man and elephant that preserves the species for as long as they provide some benefit. I am not so sure about kangaroos. But I can tell you this, if the choice was your children or a kangaroo, I am guessing you would choose a better life for your children first. And, I am fairly positive you would eat any endangered species rather than starve to death. This is important concept of human survival, as people in urban centers of 1st world nations, or their those financially supported by neighboring 1st world nations, have the luxury of not really considering the possibility of starvation as an imminent reality of their own.

As far as others opinions they are fine. However, if they want to implement their opinions and impose them on others they should be able to justify them in a rational composed argument well supported iwith logic, otherwise it is a religious belief. The evolutionary theory concepts really do not support preservation of any specific species or protection from evolutionary pressure such that they can remain static and not evolve to co-exist in the changing environments without some benefits to the species providing the protection. Humanity is one of the many animals that survive on this planet, and we present another form of pressure on all other species we are in contact with, just like every other species on the planet. Preservationist beliefs systems are not rooted in evolutionary theory, they are rooted in religion and the basic religious tenet of mankind caring for the animals or some aesthetic appeal that the species they seek to preserve has for them. A good example might be the people seeking to preserve wild habitats for the mustangs in places like Arizona. They are preserving a native species as Mustangs were introduced and would comprise an invasive species competing with native species for resources, much like Rainbow Trout anywehere beyond the pacific drainage streams of the Western North America. Watching TV, Reading or any other means of communication is only useful if you have the capacity to learn for the knowledge presented, selectively isolate and refute invalid arguments in the presentations due to any number of logical errors in the rationale, and don't selectively adapt or isolate portions of an argument to suit your own overwhelming bias. In other words, you must be able to understand the discussion, understand the construction of a rational argument, and carry no outside bias towards the findings that obscures your ability to perceive the rational argument or its logical errors.

FYI, Rainbow Trout/Steelhead are native only to western North America. They are not protected by International Law, they are protected by local fish and game laws. They are not an indegenous species to the atlantic drainage west of the rockies, and in some cases are actually an invasive species introduced for fishing that can overwhelm some native species, cutthroat trout, in many cases.

Hi RCE,

I'm happy to "encounter" you, that way I can learn something. I use your words, that way you will catch me. No, you don't catch me with a net, you will understand me. Sorry, I wasn't come out from "your school" with high degree of education.

Today, you can read the Californian news that a restaurant went against "your law" and "international law" by serving "wale meat in suchi". It's funny! We cannot kill wales! These people outside tells you what to do. It's something!

I don't eat elephant or kangaroo too. However, in Africa, ivory is valueable so they kill elephants to sell the ivory. I saw the pictures in the newspaper in Toronto. Ah, it's true, Toronto is somewhere else, worth nothing! About kangaroos, they over-populate Australia in certain locations. Let the trouble to them! It's convenient!

Are you a farmer? Because the extra knowledge about it!!! So, I understand that you cannot see what's happening all around the world. Lots of green around you, lucky! You have to go out and contact other things than farm products and farming operations. Let cows with hormons alone!

What's "valuable labor force"? Slavery is over! Ah, you talk about "unions" as valueable... Explain because by using sophisticated words, you are the one who can understand them. You are "fairly positive" what I would like to eat. Offer me something and after that I will tell you if I accept it or put in the garbage.

Don't tell us bad things about urban people. Sorry, there is no concept of human survival for "people in urban centres of 1st world nations". No, I don't concider an starvation being imminent reality of their own. It's well said, isn't it?

Where you found that sentence? "The evolutionary theory concepts really do not support preservation of any specific species or protection from evolutionary pressure such that they can remain static and not evolve to co-exist in the changing environments without some benefits to the species providing the protection." It contains more than the "BIBLE". Changing environment is the four seasons? There is absolutely no "protection" against "evolutionary pressure" and definitely nothing remain static. Static says not evolving, isn't it?

It's funny but I have no any pressure by any "polar bear" and any other animal located outside of Canada. Definitely, I never talk directly to a "preservationalst", "evolutionary theory" follower with or without "basic religious" convictions. I don't like the words "tenet" as "of mankind caring for the animals or some aesthetic appeal".

My rainbow trout was told because when you catch one, you have to be sure that the length of the fish is passing the limit of 12 inches. If it's shorter, you have to put back in the water. Other way, you can it only 12" or longer rainbow trout in our place. Also, you need a permit to fish. Nothing is free! What you mean? I never said that "international laws" protect rainbow trouts! A lawyer told me that I was right.

Finally, I discover that you are absolutely right and I am perfectly wrong! No! No! I don't cry! I want to freed the orca but you oppose to that. Why? Wait for answer and up to that, I wish you a happy day, Gil.

quote "I never said that "international laws" protect rainbow trouts! A lawyer told me that I was right." unquote

Not sure if you said it on not but a check of the CITES regulations, (Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species) reveals that Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is not on any endangered, threatened or protected lists.

CITES is the only real "international" law dealing with the protection of animals.

Hi Apothicus,

This was someone else without naming, said that I said rainbow trout is under "international law" protection or something like that. It's a confusion only!!!

I just want to tell that we cannot catch rainbow trout all year round and the size must be longer than 12 inches. Permit is necessary! Also, in certain areas, limit of the number is only three (3). Rainbow trout is not endangered species! I did not mentionned that too.

Wales cannot be served as sushi. Wales are protected by "international law" or CITES but the newspaper mention only my term without CITES.

Thanks for the note and stay put, Gil.

I disagree. The orca is familiar with people and will go where there are people. Turning the orca loose will put other people in danger rather then join a up with other orcas.

Hi,

When one individual, human or animal, join a new and unknown group, at least two cases are possible. First, the individual is rejected and the second, the individual is accepted to be part of the group. I can agree or disagree on any subject but reality shows different outcomes. Reflect and let us know if these cases are realistic with this or another orca, Gil.

This is my reasoning. The whale has been fed by people. By association, when the whale sees people he's going to think they have food and will feed him and approach.

Regardless if he's accepted by another group of whales or not, he sees an easy source for food.

Because he does not fear people, like his wild family, he will think nothing of approaching the beach and not intending to hurt anyone but wanting to play with the unsuspecting swimmers.

This whale is familiar with the San Diego climate and may return to that location, where there are lots of beaches with people. Killer whales are known to swim up on beaches to catch seals and work their way back into the water.

The same thing occurs with bears that have been found going through the trash cans in campgrounds, they can be taken back into the deep wilds but they always return to the campgrounds.

I would say either put the orca down or keep him on display in a public aquarium somewhere becuase the risk of him causing grief on a populated beach somewhere.

Hi Guest,

You are right with your observations about the animals' comportment around and with humans. I just explain another life experiences and possibilities. When a human immigrates from its country to another. She/he has difficulties as adaptation to the new habits and style of life, isn't it? But, finally, adaptation realized and everything is fine. However, some people never accepts the new style of life and becomes rejected or being a rejector and can become a trouble for the society.

My comments are just describing another possibilities for everyone, including the orca, Gil.

I agree that some animals are not suited for certain situations. They are just not intended to "perform" and if they must be captive, should have a large (or otherwise suitable) habitat and be observed from a safe distance.

However, I do not think all animals should be left to the wild. What about endangered animals that would become extinct? What about sick or injured animals that would die? Many of these animals can live safely in captivity where they can be studied and kept healthy. People can learn how to help them and keep other animals from suffering similar fates.

Most often wild animals suffer because humans do something to bother them. We, in turn, should help them out - even if it involves moving them to captivity to prevent death.

"I suggest that every city dwelling animal rights loving loving twit go out and watch real animals in the real world for a while and then come back here and tell me that in nature animals are polite kind and respectful to each other."

Could you please point out where someone actually suggested this? I thought the point of the OP was just the opposite, leave the wild animals where they are and let nature take its course.

Apothicus,

You are absolutely right!

This is my main point. Just leave the animals where they belong: in their natural habitat.

In cities we do experience crimes and abuses, but this does not mean that we should not live together.

Abe

Hi Abe,

Are we, mankind, in our natural habitat?

It will be hard to tell people to live some other way they want to live, where they want to live. We treat animals that way. We have a small carpet for a dog or a comfortable $125 bed for a cat in a corner. We force them to do what we want. Can we push people, human to do the same? Be obedient? For sure we can't do it! We have crimes and abuses because we want something that we cannot get easily or free, so we take the hard way and we do it. Animals do the same! They bite us time to time!

However, we live together, human beings with another human, and we include animals with us, Gil.

Oh I believe he is reading into the implications from the statements that initiated this blog, such as "Animals, just like us, humans, need freedom and kindness to survive".

Technically, Orcas are one of the most brutal animals in the Sea, and they need to be brutal to survive as this is their means of readily collecting sufficient food source to support their large masses. As for animals in General, I am sure that Bear Guy would be able to support a new perspective on the kindness of animals in the wild. Orcas and other dolphins species are one of a few predatory animals, which like feral cats, kill and injury other animals in the wild for entertainment or training. So they do not differ from us all that much, and we place humans in confined areas with limited space and hazardous materials for much of their 45 years of working life so a few people can live more comfortably, animals rights activists would be some of those people who get to live more comfortably allowing them the opportunity to complain I am sure the people in places like Darfur have more immediate considerations that some Orca in a park).

Something I would suggest be considered is the fact that any person who believes in evolution must therefore also believe that there is continuity between us and the ancestors of every opther living thing on the planet at some point in the past, and that humans are just another species of animal. We, as a species, just happen to be the most overall capable species, and can readily dominate all other species. I never see anyone questioning the morality of Orcas swimming onto beaches to flip seal pups into the sea to play with a while before they decide to eat them, or not. The reason Orcas even survive is that they present no particularly great risk to humans, if they did we would have eliminated the species long ago, and we wanted to keep them around. Bear in mind the world for such large animals is a living zoo we preserve for them. When in reality from a more animals perspective they are just another resource we could utilize, much like an Orca might utilize seals.

Ah .... must have missed that in the OP. Animals need kindness to survive? Animals need food and there is no kindness in their methods of obtaining it. In that I will whole heartedly agree with tcmtech, it is a brutal world outside our fences.

Hay you do have a sense of humor.

PSST that one of your natural instincts popping out but don't worry I won't tell anyone.

Haha, I dare you to walk out there try pet that Raccoon with out training it to be more people friendly. I also suspect you might not conceive of this disney fairyland environment in the same manner if that squirrel was a mountain lion or a bear. Why is a disease vector squirrel looking for an opportunity to stealth in and grab some free food a good thing to have around, but a grizzly bear sitting out there watching you doing the same thing as the squirrel so bad?

I haven't tried petting them - I don't know where you got that. They aren't trying to take food, they're just there and mildly curious about me, as I am interested to watch them, that's all.

Hi Tech,

You put the right words to the right place by saying: "Its survival of the fittest". I wish that all animal lovers or "some clueless oversensitive emotionally sheltered humans", the way they love them, is a monumental error. A dog "respectfully kept on a leash, over-fed a cat that this animal don't react when a mice pass in front of its noze, and I can follow this way!

Yes, in the nature it's the "total jungle". No one respects another race. The bigger eat the smallers without asking questions! Also, many very small is so armed that the bigger pass around without touching. The big knows that the small is deadly dangerous.

However, in the same race, protection is valid and used. I forget the title of the movie, the male jaguar attacks the giant anaconda, and the female jag helps the male in difficulties. It was a movie but the same race help to protect themselves. We do the same, isn't it?

"That's how real nature determines who" eats "and who becomes dinner". Sorry for the modifications but we have to get out what's the "truth". I still maintain that the orca in question must be freed to the wild, Gil.

I'm in the middle of the road on this blog. I fully believe in the humane treatment of all animals. I also believe that animals were put on this earth to serve man. They can be for food, entertainment, research, education, companionship or work. Many people think of animals from an emotional point-of-view. They interpret animal behavior many times as human behavior. That just isn't so. A dog may seem to be laughing and happy, but these are human expressions, not animal. We are all part of the animal kingdom. What is the difference between eating a chicken or a cow? Activists would try to tell you that chickens and cows have feelings, the same as humans. Most, if not all the animals in zoos, would probably be dead to disease, hunters or other animal predators if left in the wild to fend for themselves.

"I also believe that animals were put on this earth to serve man. "

Was that the tooth fairy or the easter bunny that put them there?

Hi Thicus,

You promote slavery! watch yourself, the orca can bite again, Gil.

Hi S,

The Seaworld accident is a 100% success or disaster at your choice. One animal against one human being. If we concider that this is not the first fatality with this particular orca, we exceed 100% to 200% in favour of the animal. This is not a "rare exception".

The rest of your comment are good and I still learning about relationship between huge animals and small human beings.

You or I don't like captivity. So does the orca. So, why we keep in captivity? Oh, it's money and profits. It's business!

S, we like big as cows, we like taste as steaks and other well prepared food. The orca can be a good "sushi" a day in the future. Yah! When he will be not obedient anymore, Gil.

Showbusiness is a tough business.

As in other businesses people sometimes get hurt, or even killed doing it.

So far Hockey and Boxing Football and Luge still go on.

Sometimes people fall off stage into the pit, and get broken up. (Ann Margeret did that.)

Show Business is dangerous too, if not more than many industries.

Typically I have found safety procedures in Show Business, and Aviation to be some of the very best.

Still things will go wrong.

Certainly it is a good idea when working with barely domesticatible animals to have an Understudy, as in live Theater, the headliner may be sick, die, or go crazy now and then.

It has been important to the progress of mankind to be able to get animals like dogs and horses to do things with us, on cue.

(Cats seem to like me, but I have no idea how to train them to do anything on cue.)

I am under a great deal of stress, and so are a great number of people I know, or know of. I am feeling particularly insecure about food, and sad I had to sell my shotgun, for if you have a shotgun, you can likely kill animals for food.

It is important that overcrowded animals get all they want to eat.

Actually I do sort of like the circus. I like live theater too.

Not much fond of football, so what is wrong with me?

Hi Trans,

I help you with a few dangerous example concerning your "Show Business is dangerous too, if not more than many industries". Elvis's overdose. He wasn't alone. Micheal hidden death and many more.

Who can make some recommendations about this orca? No one act really. It's like the governments. Lots of talk and no action but everyone is waiting.

Let free in the ocean. He comes from there? No?

It will a vengeance to kill it, Gil.

Basically this was a show business event.

Not a zoo or preservation accident, but a show business event.

As it is that category, well there is no reason really to even think it is anything other than a fatal show.

Sure we don't go to the coliseum with certainty that we will see people die.

-Got nascar, and football for bloodsports and injury to watch. can't even fault the blood sport players myself.

Really, how many die a year racing cars?

I don't even pretend to have any definitive moral or ethical stand.

It is show business, and whereas an overworked actor just gets more money. A wild animal bites your head off, literally.

I do feel sad for the family that lost their family member. I have known people who knew that their loved ones did dangerous work because they liked that work, and from the little I have read it appears that the lady knew her work was dangerous.

I'll honor the unrepentant who do what they like as much as those who work to make doing your job not a death sentence.

I do suggest that in this category of show business it will be a cold day in hell when even the best fed wild animal is fully predictable.

Hell, I'm not even fully predictable, and I'm not wild, or badly fed.

When I was younger I was dangerous 'cause I was young.

Now that I'm older, I'm oddly dangerous since I'm older.

I do imagine being an old killer whale, and getting fed up with the show.

I also imagine getting good at the show and wanting to keep going.

Bottom line, this was a show business event. At some point wild animals don't like to perform on cue as trained to do, whereas domesticated animals are better about it, but even they will balk sometimes.

Hi Ed,

They become extinct because "we" kill them by over-fishing or by accidents when we want to catch smaller fishes with large nets like sharks and dolphins...

Owning wild animals can be risky because we don't understand their reactions to certain life situations (ours or theirs but most often both of us').

Also, most often times, we treat animals like we want to treat another humans but it doesn't work and when it doesn't work, we have the accident like with the orca.

If "the SeaWorld incident was preventable, and never should have happened", what was the solution to preserve the trainer's life? I agree that it was preventable like "most of the accidents" but the solutions come out of the drawer later or never.

The "approval of condemnations" is extremely popular and get large support.

We all are free to walk where we want, communicate with anyone at choice, and do what we can anywhere. What are stay for the orca? Transfer to another "piscine"? Get freedom to the ocean? Punished someway? Killed to learn what not to do? Wait for solution for the survivor, the orca, Gil.

I train and perform with my dogs. While my dogs are domesticated, they too are animals. I'm sure my dogs, and many times myself, sometimes would prefer hanging out in the yard drinking beer (me) and chasing squirrels (them) instead of performing in adverse environments. But, I can tell you first hand the people I've interacted with and educated about the welfare of dogs. I'd like to think the knowledge shared has benefited the canine.

Over the years, I've had the privilege to meet many trainers that have been involved with captive wildlife and have used those animals for entertainment purposes. Nearly all the trainers that I've met have, or in process of getting, Phd's in Behavior or Biology. Volumes of valuable and transferable animal research has been done and paid for by a general admission ticket.

In my world of dog training, much, if not all, of the positive methods of training come from the work of these trainers. Karen Pryor's clicker training, a revolution in animal training, is a direct result of her work with a marine aquarium.

I would strongly advise anyone who thinks these animals are mistreated to educate themselves. Using your logic, I think I could make an argument about the inhumane cruelty of keeping a dog, cat, or goldfish as a house pet. Is that where you want to go?

Troy

My dear K9Einstein,

In my post I am not saying that the domesticated animals like dogs and cats should be released. I had a dog and I have cats at home (they spend the time alone outside the house, but always return to be fed and to have good night sleep), but I always make sure they are not abused at all.

I am talking about those institutions like SeaWorld where the animals live a miserable life, where physical, psychological and emotional torture takes place every day.

Do you know how the circus animals are treated? Do you know that once in a circus they spend the rest of their life in abusive captivity?

Abe

Almost like schools and college where we learn to hurt and abuse each other.

What differentiates the Dogs you have in captivity from the animals in Sea World. The word domesticated, is just a word we arbitrarily utilize to distinguish bettween the animals you think should be held in captivity and those you do not. What qualities make an animal domestic. Bear in mind that ferral cats are exceeding effective predators and survive in the wild far more proficiently than many native species ( I believe australians can attest to this). Other domestic animals that are extremely proficient when released include Dogs, pig, and rabbits. Ferral dogs are extremely proficient at surviving, and can even survive in anthropogenic environments.

Based on evolutionary theory they are far more adaptable to environmental changes than many of the "wild" species (I am assuming Rats are designated by you as "wild", and they are exceedingly adaptive). Of course this would assume you believe in evolutionary theory. Then you must believe in the concept that species must adapt to pressures brought to bear by other species through predation, competition, etc. or go extinct.

As far as the conditions these animals survive in, you may want to consider the restrictions you place on your animals behaviors that are contrary to their natural behaviors. One example might be limitations on where and when your animals can deficate, or who they are allowed to jump on/touch. You probably severely constrain your own animals behaviors far more than you would like to consider, and these are animals far more suitable to survive and proliferate. Consider you emotionally torture your pets to the point that they are permenantly mentally/emotionally twisted to a behavior you find more suitable for living with you and other human beings, this is standard training, house training and breaking dogs of behaviors we deem unsuitable, biting people, chasing cars, hunting cats, deficating in houses, climbing on furniture, jumping up on people, digging through the garbage, barking at suspicious noises to frequently, killing any number of different animals we don't want them to hunt down and kill, etc..

"We should boycott all circus that use live animals." Mistreating animals is wrong but a circus with dead animals is more wrong.

I guess we should cancel schools too since they are "torture house" for humans. Being a professor your are like the trainers. Molding young humans to do things against their nature, brain washing them. Set the children free let them run wild it's the teachers/professors and schools fault that this kids do dangerous things, commit suicide, do drugs, etc. The teachers/professors, "the trainers" of our children should be imprisoned and the "torture houses" schools/colleges should all be abolished so our children can run wild and free.

Hi John,

Interesting comments with positive values!

We talking animals animals and we forget humen animals. This is the human nature. We have wars from day one to today. Also, we are surprised when one single human is treated the way she was killed by the orca. We know when a dog bites a human, this animal will bite a human again. That's a fact. Why no one reflected about the first killing of the same orca? We do miss the important points? We put away a human murderer. What do we do with a killing animal?

John, your words about the schooling system for our youngs is hiding something true but we have to discipline them some way, and school is the best. I disagree like you on the system used up to now. Many intelligent brains come out from schools without motivation to exploit their natural knowledge, good judgment, and talent. I maintain the sentence for true: Nobody is perfect and perfection doesn't exist. However, someone need to tell me a better method to create a better society. I believe, in general, in the actual schools and the educational systems. We and I could suggest a better way to educate our youngs but it will be a drop in the ocean.

Linus Pauling stopped the two big atomic powers to use the atmospher as testing field but he cannot stop a small individual, size and power included, North-Korean to do it. We are limited and sometimes we are not good like animals, Gil.

Dear Bakerjohn,

I teach my students, but I do not keep them for the rest of their lives in captivity just obeying to my diktats.

Really, your comment is very childish.

Abe

do you release your domestic pets to run wild wherever they want and do what comes natural to them?

As far as human beings, first, in many 1st world societies children are not allowed a choice about attending school or not, it is a legal mandate much imprisonment for criminal behavior. Second, we as humans have constructed constraints to the behaviors of individual humans beings. We maintain and enforce these are artificial constructs through the act of, or threat of increasing, taxation of gathered resources, constraints through imprisonment, and if we feel like it execution for extreme failure to comply. We use our laws and governance as a means of constraint on a human beings behaviors, which would be natural were theyn not educated and trained through use of systems of emotional tortures and rewards. As a teacher you facilitate the emotional and mental torture of children daily, and consider it a good experience to learn something about existing in your society and gain knowledge of the environment. How do you respond when a child decides not to learn your subject matter, do you release him to run wild, or censure him in some manner. You twist the childrens minds to make them suitable for the woprk environment when they reach a socially acceptable age so they can attempt to receive resources from there routine efforts on behalf of an employer to survive. Much like feeding the wild animals as a routine practice until they become dependant and can not fend for themselves. the difference being that for the majority of humans are supplied at or near a level that just keeps them alive without much accomplishment, while a very few hold a majority of the resources. Thus in reality only a very few humans actually have much potential for freedom. However, even these people tend to be so twisted by their "education" and "experiences" that they continue trying to gather more resources in pursuit of greater potential to be free of our social constraints. As a good means of seeing how we constrain humans, look back at the children you taught in the past, what do they want to be as children and how does this change for them as they grow up and start trying to find a fit for their skills and a way to break free of some of the social constraints that bind them. How many peoples dream in life do you think was to be a garbage man, a car salesman, etc.. Why can't they all be super wealthy and free to generally do as they please when they like some of these trustfund daughters.

Yes but you teach them to conform to certain behaviors which are against their natural instincts. Very must like a circus or an animal theme park. All schools, colleges, teachers, and professors brain wash our children to act in a certain way all of which is against their natural instincts. What's the difference between the tricks you teach your students and the tricks they teach these animals? Why shouldn't we be allowed to run around and let those instincts take over?

Because if we did we would still be living in caves?

There is a button for "good answer" where is the one for "dumb question"?

You must be the life of the party. Let me guess you where a bow tie and suit every where you go? No fun and games for you I guess. Truely sorry for you boring life. But there is always time enough for you to let the wild side out.

Hi John,

Why these personnel attacks? In your comment no one word about the question. If you don't know the answer, just read what you have in front of you on the screen, that's all! So, the orca tasted the human blood and the animal will remember it? It will bite again or not? This is the question! Also, what we do with ourselves and the animal?

Life is boring when you know what is a "boring life", Gil.

Hi Gil

No personal attacks. Just stating that most human have a need to act "wild" from time to time and revert back to their natural wild self. I like to fish, hunt, play sports, and some times just run around with my kid. You know break all the rules that we had drilled in to us from school. Where the the blog I was replying to stated that was dumb so I figured he/.she was kind of a stick in the mud when it comes to fun. Kind of strange considering he/she has a kitten dressed up as his/her icon, but what ever floats your boat.

I personally think the whale was just letting his wild side show let off some steam, after being keep in school all day.

John

Hi John,

I applause your comment. You need to do what you want to do, the most often possible, not in front of everyone, only for yourself or for yours. Your "entourage" will appreciate as I do.

I was, am, and will be for ever a "devient" or "disruptive"! I don't follow others. I carve my things around me; my life, my work, and my personnel enjoyment. If I follow others I will be like anyone without definition, good or bad, depanding of the entourage I have that give me examples to follow. I want to be "me". I am not saying that is the best solution, for me or for the rest of the world but is my solution and I can tell that: It's the fault of Joe Blue! Everything I do is the consequence of my actions.

Same for the orca at Seaworld! She/he, I don't know, want to do certain things her/his way and probably someone, the trainer did something against the animal's will. Just an example: during one exercise the compensation is three fishes. The next time only two. The animal can ask what's wrong with me? And, the animal act according its understanding.

John, continue to be different! It's better than be as everyone, Gil.

Why? Because I started it with my "dumb question" remark. Its the old "fight or flight" reflex. Completely natural.

BJ, if I missed the humour I appologize. I'm at work and don't look at much in that manner when here. Bowtie must be cutting off the circulation to the funny bone.

See work like school we must conform but every once in a while we can excape.

I like the tie I don't think the cat does though. Unlike when my daughter tried to dress up our cat. The wild side of the cat came out that day.

It has been said that the cat, of all the "domesticated" animals, is the closest to its wild relatives. I would believe it. I have had the pleasure of playing with jaguar and lion "kittens" until they grew too big for that to be safe. I can tell you a lion cub plays with you exactly the same way a kitten does, its just a 90 lb kitten. I'll have to try and get those pics off an old hard drive to post them.

It has been my observation that while dogs are domesticated, cats are civilized. Which means that, where a dog will do what you tell it to do whether it wants to or not, a cat will look you straight in the face and tell you to go to hell.

Hi Thicus,

I thank you for your first sentence. It teach me the relationship between we, human and the animals. I never have any idea so close to this relationship but is there. Excellent!

The nexts are questionnable or critical in timing. For each individual animal you have to know and know "exactly" the moment "they grew too big for that to be safe". In many cases, it's really risky to let these babies grew up with you and don't having the good timing. Good appetite!

My understanding of the orca's case followed with my suggestion are: Because the orca already tasted the human blood, and having excellent memory, can bite again. Let free to the ocean which is the animal's natural environment, Gil.

Gil

I don't think there was any biting or blood letting this time. He simple dragged the trainer around in the water and would let her up for air. But I could be wrong.

John

Are you suggesting that now the Orca has a taste for human flesh and may like it that it would be safer to release it into the oceans to teach the other Orcas to eat humans? Or even just to go from a confined environment where it has a extremely limited capacity to eat humans, loose to feed along our beaches? You should consider that this Orca is just a really fancy really extemely over cared for pet (believe me you do not treat your household pets any where the care Sea World does for this Orca, you may just like to believe you do). So how would you handle a Dog that has shown a propensity to bite people, and kill them. Would you set that dog loose in the wild outside of town somewhere? Would you then suspect that Dog of posing a potential risk to other people who may cross it path, even incidentally? I wonder how people might respond if Orcas started swimming up onto beaches and feeding on people like they feed on seals? And, if Orcas are that intelligent, could you put the entire species at risk by allowing one bad seed to convey even rudimentary information to feed on humans, or kill humans? As a general rule throughout the rest of our society, when an animal eats a human being, even wild grizzly bears feeding on a insane enviroactivist who has invaded their territory/feeding grounds, we kill that animal, even the best of pet Dogs.

Hi Rce,

You mention: "As a general rule throughout the rest of our society, when an animal eats a human being, even wild grizzly bears feeding on a insane enviroactivist who has invaded their territory/feeding grounds, we kill that animal, even the best of pet Dogs."

You have the solution, so tell them and let do it, Gil.

If we were still living in caves would that be natural, would we be living in conformance with our natural instincts. It seems to me that you have indicated that animals should be afforded this opportunity but human beings must survive under the restraints that you would seek to eliminate from animals that are readily subordinate to humanity. If living in a natural environment by ones naturalinstincts is an improved living conditions, why should humans be so constrained but subordinate animals not so?

Hi Michel,

Don't worry, you can restrict your animals liberty to your judgment. You are free in our society. This isn't my or your society, this is ours! Everyone included!

In a long prophetic discours we cannot read the words orca, Seaworld or the woman who was pulled under the water to death in the "piscine". You are the victim! Not the woman in Florida!? Do you catch it? Finally!

Every blog is turning in personnel attacks. You get criticezed when you don't want someone name you and idiot and a moron. People just pass their time in front of the screen us you and me do, and pitch critical reflexions to someone or many.

Now, I am immunized against those words and wish the same to you, Gil.

Excellent in everything but one regard, these animals are not murderers!!!

I have long been disgusted with zoos and the like.

It says a lot for humanity's callousness when one finds diversion in watching this and also in the plethora of pets who are treated as family whilst humans in the world struggle.

Animals; pets, domestic, or wild are valuable, but watching animals forced to do things unnatural or being treated other than what they are is an abomination.

If zoos and shows are acceptable, why draw the line at beastiality; another horrid practice against animals.

Hi Gag,

I agree with you the orca is not a "murderer". I specified a "killing animal".

Yes, we treat animals they way we want to treat them. They need to be obedient.

I remember, when I was young, during the WWII, the small dog, "puli", directed a hord of bigger animals from house to land and did the reverse before the night. These dogs are teached to do that but they are born to what they do, and very well. This animal work is not a punishment, it's an agreable work for these dogs.

Another thing, I see many people with allergy, practically cannot talk, and possess cat or cats. Good for them! Silly people! When you tell them that their allergy is coming from cats, they tell you: Are you crazy?! These animals are gentle and clean. What's you answer to that?!

No harm but we cannot change the 6 and plus billion people in this Earth who think differently than "us" (the minority), Gil.

Hate to burst your bubble but the orca at Seaworld are not captured from the wild. They are bred in captivity and have been for years. I was present at the birth of an orca at Seaworld Orlando. Quite interesting (a bit gory too). Yes they do make a profit from their activities but Seaworld is a research institution that conducts meaningful research. They are also a manatee rescue institution with an excellent record for nursing injured manatees back to health and returning them to the wild. This work if funded from park proceeds. So, before you go all completely PETA brain washed do some research and get a clue about what you are actually talking about.

It has been reported that this particular Orca was captured in the wild as a calf.

Research, like the Japanese Whalers?

And, if we as technical and scientific types don't ask about survival of the fittest, survival of species, and yes evolution, how can we justify "saving" endangered species.

We cannot possibly know what mechanism is in play to make the changes; man, nature, or the animals themselves.

We sure do have an atrocious habit of sticking our noses in all things environmental and natural and upsetting the balance.

Hate to burst your bubble but Tilikum, the orca responsible for three human deaths, was captured off the coast of Iceland. And I have nothing to say about PETA.

Hello Sue,

Nobody cares where this orca comes from! This animal already killed, and after my opinion, it will kill again. Animals remember tastes, and human blood tastes well for many of them. The past we cannot change. The future can be modified, isn't it?

Wish you a good reflection about the taste of human blood and how to remember it but don't bite, Gil.

Hello Gil,

I was merely refuting the assumption of Guest in post #16 that SeaWorld's orcas are all bred in captivity. This one was not.

And while I've ingested many bizarre things in my life, thanks, no, I don't care to reflect "about the taste of human blood".

Hello Sue,

First, I don't care where the orca comes from. The animal killed one or two human beings. The future of the animal is the important, and wish the best "human" solution for Tillium.

Second, I have a question: Did you never get a small cut on your finger? Because, every human has the same gesture, "sucking the blood", human blood to eliminate infection. It's teached! Me, I remember, I did a few times. Probably, I put my hands somewhere unsafe places!?

Sue, what's your suggestion for the orca? Let us know and waiting, Gil.

I know you don't care where he came from, I was responding to....oh, never mind.

What's my suggestion for the orca? Send it to Toronto.

Seriously, my initial reaction was to lobby for its release. Having read further into the matter, it's clear the animal will not be able to survive in the wild, for several reasons. He doesn't have enough viable teeth to ensure hunting success, and he's been in captivity so long that his handlers question his ability to survive as a member of a pod.

So, he'll have to remain in an aquarium. Preferably in Toronto.

At it would be cooler there then Florida.

Hi Sue,

Are you waiting for my answer to your comments? Thanks for your patience but cool down!

You will send me another answer concerning the small cuts on your fingers, yes or no? Not for the taste. The taste is a personnel perception and it doesn't concerne the future of the orca. We want to know if you did, like most of us, with the small blidings?

Seriously, you wanted to lobby for its release but you discover that you don't have the power, like most of us. In the nature, humans and animals can survive surprisingly by themselves. It's already confirmed! These big animals don't bite like we do. Orcas, wales and other big marin carnivores, they swallow small fishes to planctons by hundreds at one time, and digest. Don't worry about the dents and dentures.

The yesterday's discours of the trone did not mentionned the reception of any orca in the area of Toronto but we wait for a submission but our decision will be to let free in the ocean. Again, if you send us an aquarium or better a big, safe and secure pod this animal, we will concider it valueable.

I really enjoy your precise and serious actions to know all those details you mention in your comments. Congratulations, good and valueable work! Wait for other info, Gil.

Hello Sue,

It's me again because I made an unforgivable spelling error by missnaming the orca. I correct the orca's name from the uncorrect "Tillium" to the correct "Tilikum". I hope this small error of mine doesn't create big problems somewhere and mostly in the life of the concerned orca? Thanks for your kindness!

Still, it's not important where the orca comes. The important is: Where will be in the future? I really care about it. Wait for new about the orca in Florida, Gil.

To the extent possible, we should view conditions from the animal's point of view and assess our treatment of it on that basis, influenced by our self-appointed position at the top of the food chain. (If you think you know better than I what an animal is thinking or feeling, then you're going to have to prove it somehow. I'm no orca whisperer, but I've got the same empathetic skills generic-you do.)

That orca may or may not be appreciating his conditions. I suspect not, because as a wild capture he knows, or presumably has some vague primitive recollection, what it is to be free in the wild world. The trainer killing may be mere instinct, or it might some form of higher-thinking acting out. We don't know.

The captive-bred orcas, OTOH, may be perfectly content with their life of doing silly tricks for food. Sure, they're not going to get the same kind of exercise as they do in the open ocean, and their pools are downright sterile otherwise. But contrasted with the effort the typical wild animal has to exert for its daily protein, it can be argued that a captive-bred animal has a terrific life. Again, we just can't be sure.

We cannot know whether releasing Tillikum is the right thing to do. The only purely humane solution is to construct a 1000-square mile preserve complete with protective borders, natural climate, natural prey and natural competing predators for him to live a natural life without our long interference on his normal development causing premature death or other trouble.

I said "purely humane," not "practial."

Hi Lynn,

Yesterday, Monday March 2d, I watched TVO program about "wale sharks". In the oceans, they feed them and tag them, take some DNA samples, etc... They, the scientists, work with those animals in a free water, never capture one and put it in a small "piscine" to show paying visitors. Was good to see it!

Their number is declining becuase they are gentle, and accept human around them. We saw one who came to eat at the same point.

I have a question here: Why do we eat so much meat, including fish? We became carnivoric? We can hear on the air that certain fish is declining or disappearing but no one does something to stop to catch the last. At the end of the story we stay, all human without animals and we will stay carnivor. Holala! What a carnage it will be??

Shoot! I will be not here to see that, Gil.

Gil,

Humans are natural omnivores, with various preferences for vegetable versus meat. Some get by on almost pure vegetable diets, others need/prefer more meat.

This is going to become more problematic in the future as natural resources dwindle. Feel-good stories about sustainable fishing practices are very few, and we have a serious problem to deal with in the future as fishery after fishery crashes. Of course, climate change could acidify the oceans and make us all learn to like jellyfish.

So there's one great reason to keep animals in captivity. But it's currently beyond us to create a sustainable ocean farm.

"Humans are natural omnivores, with various preferences for vegetable versus meat."

Not true! Check your teeth in the mirror. Teeth in humans are designed to tear and grind flesh, vegetables and anything edible.

Actually our teeth aren't really designed to eat large quantities of grains and vegetables. Animals with those types of teeth, will grow their entire lives, like horses. This is to compensate for the rapid wear due to grinding of the strong fibers of vegetative matter and grains. Thus their teeth will not wear out too early and lead to an early death. Just a little over 100 years ago teeth problems were still a leading cause of death. Consider just 5000 years ago, very current even in human history, a lack of teeth could mean starvation. Plus the fact that we have to process grains to really consume much of them, and we can not even come close to efficiently digesting vegetative materials and would not even come close to consuming sufficient nutrients, should be suggestive of our naturally prefered diet.

TRUE ....... I'm a dedicated carnivore who has had to defend himself against the growing crowd of leaf eaters. I just point to the teeth, designed for tearing and rending of flesh, not grinding of grains.

Before commenting let's make sure we're using the same words and meanings.

Humans are naturally omnivores, neither "carnivores" nor "herbivores." Yes, our teeth are designed to tear and grind, whether it's apple or gristle. Our ancestors got by on whatever they could find that was nutritious, and we have the same DNA. Just as I don't believe it's possible to be a 100% healthy 100% vegetarian, I don't think it's possible to be 100% healthy eating only animal flesh.

Back on topic, though I get some perverse enjoyment when Mother Nature kicks humanity's ass, I do think we should exercise superiority over animals in many ways for many reasons. Entertainment to me is an acceptable reason as long as, like I've said, the animal is treated humanely. And, to correctly assess humaneness one must try to evaluate the animal's conditions without anthropomorphism.

It is true that in the modern 1st and 2nd world a relatively wealthy person can survive on a vegan diet, due in large part to nutritional supplements derived by our industrial societies to overcome the variety of dietary nutritional shortfalls we had in the past (Protein Deficiency being one of the first dietary issues our societies tried to overcome with dietary supplements). It is also true you would die if you only consumed meats, with no fruits in your diet. However, you could survive just as well consuming fruits and meats a a purely vegetarian could with modern suppements assuming the typical financial limitations and capacity for resource allocation our societies can provide. In the end there is no particular morality to support not consuming one living animal in preference to one living plant. Given unlimited resources you could actually survive on mineral supplements and chemicals, where no living thing must be consumed. The thing to consider is that we do not obtain the resources from vegetative matter as efficiently as we do meat, you therefore need to consume greater quantities and harvest more plants (killing them unless it is a fruit).

And consider the plight of species if we no longer need them for fodd sources, cattle are one of the most prolific speies on the planet, but they devour huge amounts of vegetation where we could plant green food. Cattle become a nuissance species that invades our crops and eats our foods, in such cases they would, like coyotes need to be substantially controls to limit the herds maybe even to the brink of extinction.

Hi Lynn,

I am not an anthropologist just an ordinary human. After my understanding of human evolution in time: We started in the middle of Africa, isn't it? Why at this place? Probably, this is my argument, this was the only place on Earth, at that time, the rest was frozen, filled with snow and ice, and the temperature was colder than today. Probably!? The living world, human, animals, and vegetables were concentrated to a small part of the globe for accessability. I'm close or not? We also know that we invaded the world from Africa to Europe, to the Middle-East, and later Asia. In that order or not! Many times later, we know, around 12 to 15,000 years ago, if my information is acceptable, we went to Americas from Asia through the Bering Sea and Islands. Let me know if I am right or totally misdirected by my brain?!

Also, when the first "homo-erectus" started to nourish the body, the environment was filled with animals, easy to catch and eat them than animals show how to eat other animals. Human learn by eyes! They catched the trick and followed the theory of survivor for the fittest, and finally we are here. Animals also show to humans that time to time we have to eat some vegetables, so we did and still do. The best comes from human! The mixture, good or bad, veggies and meats, and finally veggies, proteins with carbohydrates. However, because we are the fittest, we over-eat and get sick like many of us. Again, we are smart and we created and perfected surgeries and producing and marketing pills for everything. What's the next step???

In certain hidden areas of the Earth, we have lots, very concentrated, over 100 years old people. Certain eat only veggies with one or two eggs per week but never meat. Anothers survive so long with lots of proteins and veggies. In the big Norths, many eat only fish and other protein supply foods and live longtime. In the other hand, a few hundred years ago, in the South, with tempered weather, many get and died by scurvy but at the same time, in the North, without veggies survived and scurvy was rare or unknown.

I go back to our topic, the future of the orca. Like I already said: this animal already tasted human blood, so in the future will return to agress another human. Probably the best solution for the animal and for us is to let free in the ocean, tagged or not but free, Gil.

Ummm many errors in this , but the most immediate one is the concept of veggies as the main means of addressing scurvy, actually fruits provide a better source for vitamin C and are more palatable to both humans and primates. If you just ate fruits and meats you would survive quite comfortably, once your digestive tract became accustomed, or re-acquainted might be more appropriate, to the diet.

Also, evidence suggests that humans migrations left Central africa likely because on the droughts that eventually lead to the desertification of the Sahara, then migrated to the middle east then Asia, and eventually worked their way into europe, while neaderthals had migrated early on, homosapiens sapiens arrive much later from the east.The Ice Ages were cyclic with a number of intermediate period near as warm as our current period. and prior to the ice ages it was likely much warmer than today. Just 125,000 years ago the average temperature may have been as much as 3 to 6 degrees C warm than currrent. (There is a reason that climate change "scientists" limits research to a period of about 10,000 year , which is the midst of an glaciation period). l;ong period stable average Temperatures were likely much warmer for over millenia just 3 million years ago.

Also, Africa was not the only place on earth with a tropical climate during the ice ages, India, Southern Asia, Northern Australia and the much vaster Island plans that lie between, South america and Central america all had good climates. Southern Asia has native indigenous primate that are also highly evolved and intelligent like Chimpanzees, but humans were just a species derivative of some ancient primate which was also closely related to bonobos. If you really want to get some idea of human ancestors look at bonobo behavior in the wilds of the Congo region. Their is some evidence indicating that chimapanzees in Central Africa are using more sophisticated tools over time, and may not have derived these tools through imitation of humans, but rather precedent to human involvement. I suspect if you really research you would discover a strong link between environmental pressures and our evolution to solving more sophisticated problem, and thus developing more evolved tools to address those problems. We are still weaker and slower than most great apes, and not that many millenia ago we were much smaller too. So in reality we may have been weaker than the others in the area, developed tools to survive, began migrating away fromm the impending desert which we could not overcome, which lead to development of the processes and tools needed to adequately migrate relatively rapidly and survive, which lead to opportunities to migrate to seek other better environments. Chimps will eat meat ravenously if they can catch it, they just don't seem to hunt very effectively. When they catch birds or monkeys (yes they actually have monkey hunts) they devour them. It is just much harder in their native environments to hunt, rather than gathering and eating fruits, which tend to be abundant and nearly everpresent in some form or another through much of the tropics.

As far as the arrival of humans in the new world, there is some evidence that they may have arived as far south as Chile/Peru over 10,000 years ago, and may have come across the bering straigths in waves, even much further back than 20,000 years.

Hello Lynn,

I agree with you that we are "humans are natural omnivores" but we have the tendancy to deviate to carnivorous humen, just check the quantity of obeses you have around you. Eliminate starving people. Take only the part of the world population "with various preferences for vegetable versus meat". What percentage we get? Meat eaters dominate our society! I was one of them for years and forced to loose 22 kilos or 48 pounds. I felt, with my 196 cm or 6'51/2" tall, obese without being one. In the past, some 10,000 years ago, we eat meat because we don't have agriculture but we have animals around us in excess. Hunting was before harvesting, isn't it?

I have no solution for the orca but we cannot keep in this "piscine". Tagged and released could be captured later if its comportment is turning bad for someone. Who knows?

I like veggies, beans, and grains but time to time I eat some chicken, lamb, pork, horse (Exclusively when I am in Montreal) or fish, NEVER BEEF.

Concerning jellyfishes, we already start to study what is good for us in them, Gil.

Actually, worldwide the main form of nutritional defiicency is protein deficiency froma shortage of meat in peoples diets. Obesity doesn't really have so much to do with meat in our diets, otherwise the diets based on reducing carbohydrates would not be effective. Additionally, you can consume to much meat, when the ratio of carbohydrates to protien become inbalanced you can not survive for long in extreme environments such as the arctic. Obesity has more to do with excessive consumption particularly of fats and carbohydrates, derived from plants almost exclusively, these include, sugars and starches found in high quantities in many natural foods as well as added to human processed foods. you could actually consume as much meat as you want and not gain a substanital amount of body fat, as long as you keep the intake of fats and carbohydrates constrained. However, along with our consumption of meat we tend to load up on fats and carbohydrates as components of the meal, things like fruits, grains, bread, tubers, sugar, starch, etc. are almost always associated with the meat intake in our diet. Consider a sandwich or hamburger, tomatoes full of sugar, bread with starches, sauces with sugar and starches, onions with sugar, cheese is pretty much straight fatty materials (the protein in the milk was removed as the whey). If you just ate 1/2 lb of plain cooked hamburger meat instead of a quarter pounder with cheese, you would not really gain much weight in body fat.

The other side of the eqution is the lack of recurrent exercise and availability of food products. Our curent societal demand require less physical exercise as part of our daily routine, and we have more available and cheaper to consume. Simply we can readily eat more and physically work less.

Wow, there are obviously a few people here for whom school was a less than enlightening experience. Torture? Twisted? How these words get included in references to our first world education system is beyond me.

Can't even begin to come up with appropriate posts to respond to those. I suspect there be trolls about.

I guess you never listen to your kid when he/she came home from school. They act like its torture. They are being trained and brain washed into following certain aspects of society right? What's the first thing your kid whats to do when he/she gets home? They what to let off some steam run around like a pack of wolves, howl at the moon, let their natural instincts off early man and nature take over. As we grow up all that brain washing finally works on most of us and we conform to it we become engineers, scientists, fathers, mothers, professors, we follow the rules we were trained. But guess what every once in a while I let my natural instincts take over and I run around my yard with my kids and howl at the moon too because in my heart I'm an wild human animal.

I believe that's what happen here. Killer whales are extremely intelligent animals in this cause he was being trained or brain washed into doing unnatural activities and that day that instant he decide to howl at the moon and let his instincts take over.

Hi John,

Absolutely right! The orca is an intelligent animal.

Imagine that I will go for a long trip with my car. I meditate an dfind certain places where is no gas station for 500 km on the highway. What I take? I fill a pail with gasoline and put in the tronk.

The orca is thinking about the future. Its future. One day I can be on a plate on a table as a nicely prepared "orca sushi". The orca says: Before this happens I will take my "sushi" first.

What you think about this intelligent "orca thinking"? It's not from me, Gil.

Gil

I think this whale was think. "I sick and tired of doing this stupid tricks. Hey what's that the human over there is waving. Is it something for me? Time to have some fun. First I'll bring the long stringy thing to the bottom of the tank. Then I'll throw it in the air, and maybe I'll even pass it to one of my buddies. Oh no one of those humans was with the stringy thing I'm in trouble now, back to my tack with out any fish. Boy will that human be mad."

John

You should consider what school represents to children, as they don't really go voluntarily do they? It is a social environment that favors the most charismatic, attractive, or athletic and thus the socially popular persons, and oppresses the more intelligent. While all the while claiming to be a evironment for learning and intellectual pursuit. It is a experince of how to fit into our society as an adult and find your niche, not a voluntary learning experience, like a university might be. chuildren are forced by threat to attend schools, and their parents are forced by other legal threats to in turn force children to attend schools.

As far as their minds, a child left in the nature to be raised by a isoalted small hunter gatherer group, would have different behaviors and knowledge from what we force our children to learn. Such children would behave in manner that would be socially unacceptable to us. This really goes to the concept of torture as a training tool to mold someones mind. Something relatively mundane like waterboarding is torture when done to the enemy, but the training in ice cold polluted muddy water by special forces is necessary to strengthen the resolve, skills and comprehension of the limits of their abilities. (I will guarantee you that more special forces training exercises lead to more deaths and greater physical harm to the trainees than any tortures at guantanamo did). However, both are intended to modify ones mental state and change a persons perception and priorities to fulfill our needs. It is a questio of perception. As long as we perceive that there was some freedom of choice in the decision, even if the freedom was tenuous and we perceive that it will better incorporate an individual into our societal norms or provide greater benefit to our society (without causing undo emotional or psychological stress to our social elites), we allow it to be called training and education, otherwise it is torture or brainwashing.