UPDATE! This afternoon I learned of a most curious incident: A whale named Tilikum at SeaWorld in Orlando killed a female trainer today. I know that I’m not supposed to say this (and I’m equally sure it needs to be said): Capturing wild animals, “training” them to do tricks for an audience using motivational tools like pain, hunger and fear is bound to lead to tragedy. As horrible as this is for the trainer, her friends and her family, it’s far from the first incident of its kind. I hope it will be a wake-up call to people that using animals for entertainment is just not right.
This morning I spied a really groovy piece of street art: The word “Vegan” scrawled on the side of a building in fancy graffitti font*:
I smiled to myself and began wondering why I don’t know any people that go around drawing dietary diatribes on Division Street. Then I remembered that many vegan activists identify as such merely so they can lord their holier-than-thou attitude over everyone else. Either that or they’re just college students still gifted with the charming delusion that their stupid little opinions matter, who’ll grow up to inherit Daddy’s money, join the corporate world and in all likelihood begin plowing their SUVs through flocks of endangered seabirds for fun.
Which is what Charles Belgard did, as reported by NPR this morning in connection with his too-light-in-my-opinion sentence of 45 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. My hope is that, for 21-year-old Belgard, who is the sort of person that breaks speed limits on the beach and thinks killing is AWESOME, $1,000 is a LOT of money. That and an angry seabird or 400 peck his squinty little eyeballs out a la Hitchcock’s “The Birds.”
*Portland people: It’s on 39th and Division.
Related posts: The Rogue Vegan Strikes Again; Vegan Vandalism Pandemic
Graffiti folk often use words independently of their definitions to identify themselves. Often times the only criteria are the letters themselves. It is very possible that this person simply enjoyed the combination of letters and "threw it up", as they say. Sometimes, the graffiti community will even "steal" words from their lexical confines and make them their own. There is also a reasonable argument that the words constitute an acronym; an acronym that just so happens to spell out the word vegan. This may also be evidence of a holier-than-thou attitude made public via a proclivity towards criminal mischief. Any conclusion we draw would be presumptuous, in my humble opinion.
Good points, all, Patrick! I know next to nothing about the world of graffiti, as evidenced by the fact that I keep a giant piece of graffiti art on my wall and have no idea what it says. (You can see it in the background of the fourth photo here.)My curiosity is continually piqued by the words that get "thrown up" in my 'hood. My favorite repeated tag in my area so far? "Feces." Out of context, on random walls within a ten-block radius of where I live. What's not to love?
Is it OK if I have a dog?
By me? Sure! By some people? Apparently not. 'Course, domesticated animals don't fare too well without human care, so I am very pro-responsible pet ownership.
It's a KILLER WHALE! C'mon people!
If my cat were that big I would TOTALLY be dead. And she can't even do any tricks
What r they going to do to the whale? Its not his fault, its his instinct and he didn't ask to be put in a big ass fish bowl and be forced to do tricks just to eat! If anything he did it under protest, I'd like to see the tables turned and those people in the tank doing tricks for food!
It is the same as all trained predators. Their instinct is to kill, their training is abnormal thought process.My dog's instinct is to nap and poop, so I have little to fear.
lol
Juice – If my cat were that big, I would have to get the world's biggest cat box, the purring would create shockwaves.Vera – I don't know, but that same question occurred to me. I'll try to find out, but I hope that the SeaWorld folks will show a little compassion.Steuss – Your dog and I sound like we have a lot in common.Jenyoseph – I always thought the "killer" part was a misnomer, but that could've just been my bleeding heart liberal upbringing. More investigation needed!
Yeah, "killer" is by no means a misnomer. They feed on animal protein (i.e. slabs and mouthfuls of dead meat), and to get it they need to kill.They get it from sea lions, walruses, fish, other dolphins, seals, and have even been known to chew the heads off of live great white sharks so they can get into the body cavity and munch on the liver. Those… See More fuckers are apex predators and, in my opinion, every apex predator should have the word "killer" affixed to its name so people might not fuck with them so much. Though that didn't stop people from fucking with the whales, obviously…
The whale is going into "suspension" which I assume is what happened after it killed a couple other people before this incident.
Daniel – Do humans count as apex predators? If so, I hereby reinstate one of my old workplace nicknames of "Killer." Oh yes, I'm bad.
Jenyoseph & Vera – The news coverage I can find says the orca show was suspended, but trainers will continue to work with Tilikum, and are "re-examining their procedures," whatever that means: http://tinyurl.com/ydlduheLet's hope their procedural reexamination includes relocating all their whales to a nice sea sanctuary where they have lots of room to swim around, aren't beaten and don't have to entertain crowds of screaming featherless bipeds.
I'm not entirely sure that we do count as an apex predator. Maybe apex scavengers. Or apex domesticators. But throw your average human into the wild and they find it very, very difficult to be a predator.
That's why I find it oh-so-silly when people point to their incisors as a reason why they are evolutionarily required to eat meat. We are squishy shells of our former fierce selves, and completely incapable of taking down big game without the aid of some serious toolage. Therefore, homo sapiens should be dubbed "apex tools."
While I totally concur about the problematic notion of keeping an apex predator for entertainment value (especially in such extremely unnatural living conditions), I am curious as to your sources for this statement: ""training" them to do tricks for an audience using motivational tools like pain, hunger and fear".I am not a SeaWorld trainer (obvs) but I have a fair bit of experience training animals of both predator and prey persuasions. While there are various methods that rely on the motivators you mention, they are largely ineffective when compared with exclusively positive reinforcement only…this holds especially true with predator species. They're just too damn smart to respond well to negative reinforcement. This, in addition to issues of animal welfare, is why I choose to train exclusively with positive reinforcement. My understanding is that cetacean and pinniped trainers do the same – seals and whales are far smarter than dogs or horses (the animals with which I have experience) and they are even less trainable under negative reinforcement.
I don't have official SeaWorld training method sources, just my own fears that the outwardly happy world of animals living in captivity is not all that happy. I don't doubt that there are trainers out there (like yourself!) who use only positive reinforcement, I just don't think this is always the case. I haven't a lot of faith in the human race's ability to treat animals (or other human beings, for that matter) with the kindness and respect they deserve.That said, I wrote this post under the influence of a documentary called "Earthlings."I actually meant to do a post about it after seeing it, but I got distracted. I recommend it highly to everyone in the world, but I have to issue a (very) strong warning that it's extremely disturbing. It took all the strength I have to even be able to sit through the whole thing (I had to try twice). Some folks call it "The Vegan-Maker," and I cried my little heart out through the whole thing.
Thanks for the link. I will check out the documentary. Sorry if I sounded defensive – that was not my intention. Nor did I mean to come across as a SeaWorld apologist cause I'm with you on the issues with keeping these animals in captivity.OTOH, operant conditioning using exclusively positive reinforcement has become a widespread training method (dog owners will recognize this as "clicker training") precisely because of it's systematic use in training marine mammals. (At least, this is my understanding from my reading of the history of this field.) Because these animals are so smart and because they can basically bugger off (no leashes and we can't stay underwater as long) if they're not wanting to participate, negative reinforcement techniques just won't work. (Not to mention the fact that they're cruel.)Does this excuse the practice of keeping these animals in unsuitable environments? Of course not. But I think that it's important to focus the blame where it belongs (on keeping these animals in captivity in the first place) so the root problems may be accurately addressed rather than shifting the focus to issues that may or may not be present (such as negative reinforcement in training).That being said, I totally understand your discomfort with the whole situation and I think you are absolutely right to be questioning it.
Oh, no, you didn't sound defensive.
In fact, I'm tempted to defer to you in all matters of animal-training best practices, what with you being a bonified sciencey-type-person.You're right in that the whole question would be moot if we just stopped keeping animals in captivity for entertainment. Childhood visits to the zoo always made me uncomfortable and sad for this reason, much to the bafflement of my adult chaperones, who were expecting glee.
Yeah, I have really mixed feelings about zoos. On the one hand, some of them do an excellent job providing the animals with what they need and they do an excellent job with public outreach/education re: environmental/conservation issues. Many of them are directly involved in conservation efforts and taking in animals that were raised in captivity and are no longer suitable for rehab and release.In other cases, meeting a species basic needs is just not possible, and that's not good for the critters. My local zoo is a mixed bag: they have a snow leopard and this city has a sub-tropical climate. I find this to be infuriating. They also have a pair of grizzly bears, which I found equally appalling until I learned that these animals were confiscated by law enforcement from someone who was keeping them illegally and they were sick and mistreated and malnourished and the zoo said, sure send them here, we can help. Cause you know county animal control wasn't going to be able to handle it. The same zoo is doing some really awesome stuff with public outreach and conservation: they're sponsoring and promoting a program to give shepherd dogs to nomadic herders so as to minimize local predator extermination, and they are working with researchers to build a tissue bank from the species they keep in order to strengthen the gene pool among captive animals (and hopefully of reintroduced animals into dwindling populations) which is pretty awesome. A lot of the stuff I see at zoos that squicks me out is inadequate habitat…and this is almost always a problem of the zoo having insufficient resources to make an upgrade. Are there some species that we probably just shouldn't keep in zoos? Sure, but what do we do then for the individuals who are already there – they are rarely good candidates for rehab and release. (Incidently, neither are most of the critters at SeaWorld which is a damn shame.)