Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

by HoratioTarr Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:47 pm

First topic message reminder :

A thousand tourists hold their breath as a giant killer whale leaps skyward, the sun gleaming off its smooth back.
As if auditioning for a Disney movie, the two-and-a-half ton leviathan performs an elegant backflip before landing with a thunderous splash.

It's a Thursday afternoon, but SeaWorld in San Diego, California, is packed with visitors, many of them British, all drawn by the undisputed star attractions: ten huge killer whales performing two shows daily.

It is once the sun-burnt crowds have drifted away that SeaWorld's killer whales, or orcas, are herded off to backstage pools where, with little room to dive, they swim listlessly in circles, often banging their heads against the concrete sides in boredom or frustration.

Or worse, as last week's death of disease-ravaged Kasatka made clear. 'Euthanised' after falling incurably sick in her artificial environment, she is the third SeaWorld killer whale to die this year alone.

And this, in the outspoken words of Kasatka's former trainer, is 'a disgrace to humanity'.

John Hargrove, a SeaWorld expert turned whistleblower, is in tears as he describes the orca's fate to The Mail on Sunday.
'What continues to go on in parks like SeaWorld is an abomination,' he says.

'They claim captive orcas help educate people, and for years I bought into it. But Kasatka lived in misery, in barbaric and horrific conditions, and died in agony. She lived out her days in a house of horrors – and I was complicit in selling the lie to the public.'

Hargrove has already played a central part in Blackfish, an award-winning documentary which gained near cult status after its release in 2013, and caused SeaWorld's shares and attendance figures to plummet.

Viewers were shaken by one horrific scene in which Kasatka is shown dragging trainer Ken Peters to the bottom of a tank in 2006, nearly drowning him. SeaWorld lambasted the film, calling it 'inaccurate and misleading'.
Yet it has helped drive a growing international movement to ban the captivity of whales and dolphins, and Hargrove, for one, is unshakeable in his convictions.

'In the wild, these magnificent creatures live to 80, 100 years old,' he continues. 'I have to speak out because if it stops just one person paying to go to a park where orcas are tortured to perform circus tricks, then Kasatka's death won't have been in vain.'
While capturing wild orcas has been banned by many Western countries, including the US, Russia and China continue to hunt and trap them. Globally, 50 million people visit marine parks with captive orcas. Thanks to films such as Blackfish, SeaWorld and other aquatic parks have been forced to change – although the message that 'cuddly' cetaceans are not pets is yet to reach the wider public, as shown by the needless death of a baby dolphin in Spain last week.

New legislation in California means mothers and calves can no longer be separated and captive breeding has ended.
SeaWorld, which also has parks in Orlando, Florida, and San Antonio, Texas, owns 21 orcas and attracts 10 million visitors each year, including thousands from the UK.
They pay up to £75 to watch the killer whales pirouette to music and 'beach' themselves on the concrete sides of the pool.
In January, an orca called Tilikum, notorious for killing his female trainer, died after a long battle with a lung infection.
Then last month, Kyara, a three-month-old orca that was born under the park's now-defunct breeding programme, died from pneumonia.
Now it has been announced that Kasatka, too, was put down last Tuesday. At 41, she was half the age she might have lived to in the ocean.
'In the wild, orcas rarely show aggression towards humans. But I lost count of the attacks I witnessed and suffered first-hand,' Hargrove says.

'I've been butted against the side of the pool, grabbed by my torso and dragged down. I'm amazed I'm still alive.'
Kasatka, too, had become violent in captivity, as the Blackfish film demonstrated.
'She was one of the most dangerous animals I met,' continues Hargrove, who suffered broken ribs, fingers, toes and facial fractures during his time as a trainer.

'These animals are trapped, frustrated, unhappy. Of course they take it out on humans they come into contact with. Being in a tank for years on end wrecks them mentally.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4805122/Former-SeaWorld-trainer-lifts-lid-three-whales-die.html

by Victorismyhero Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:40 am

nor have the authors of that piece. Since there is NO SUCH thing as a "moraly just world". That concept is so subjective and individual that it cannot be used in such an argument.
basicaly

In their opinion, in their vision of the world this would be moraly just...it does NOT therefore automatically follow that it is the universal case.

by nicko Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:43 am

There are many Dogs trained to help the blind, the disabled etc, what about Police dogs who help to catch criminals. There are old peoples homes where dogs/cats are brought to give pleasure to people who have nothing to do but sit in their chairs all day. they love to pet them.

Something I do know about and have had personal experience about, War dogs, we had a Labrador who could smell VC a mile away and saved hundreds from ambush. Mine would cuddle round me if we stopped for the night. As an aside, the Yanks would not let us bring our Dogs home, they said they had to be given to the Army of the Republic so they could use them ! I was one of the Grunts who cried when we had to get on the plane and watched our Dogs being led away, I have never forgotten Prince, my big black friend.he's long dead now of course, I well up writing this.

by Guest Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:48 am

Lord Foul wrote:nor have the authors of that piece. Since there is NO SUCH thing as a "moraly just world". That concept is so subjective and individual that it cannot be used in such an argument.
basicaly

In their opinion, in their vision of the world this would be moraly just...it does NOT therefore automatically follow that it is the universal case.

Piss poor reasoning.

You are trying to excuse the fact its still morally wrong to keep pets

It has nothing do do with a morally just world, but what is morally right, based on animal rights.

They do not have real animal rights and are property, when kept by owners.

by Guest Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:52 am

nicko wrote:There are many Dogs trained to help the blind, the disabled etc, what about Police dogs who help to catch criminals. There are old peoples homes where dogs/cats are brought to give pleasure to people who have nothing to do but sit in their chairs all day. they love to pet them.

Something I do know about and have had personal experience about, War dogs, we had a Labrador who could smell VC a mile away and saved hundreds from ambush. Mine would cuddle round me if we stopped for the night. As an aside, the Yanks would not let us bring our Dogs home, they said they had to be given to the Army of the Republic so they could use them ! I was one of the Grunts who cried when we had to get on the plane and watched our Dogs being led away, I have never forgotten Prince, my big black friend.he's long dead now of course, I well up writing this.

So all of the above, is for human needs then Nicko?

by Victorismyhero Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:33 am

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:nor have the authors of that piece. Since there is NO SUCH thing as a "moraly just world". That concept is so subjective and individual that it cannot be used in such an argument.
basicaly

In their opinion, in their vision of the world this would be moraly just...it does NOT therefore automatically follow that it is the universal case.

Piss poor reasoning.

You are trying to excuse the fact its still morally wrong to keep pets

It has nothing do do with a morally just world, but what is morally right, based on animal rights.

They do not have real animal rights and are property, when kept by owners.

do they have rights, any rights, when "in nature" red of tooth and claw...?

you whole argument is false and based on emotive "walt disney reasoning"

and in many countries animals DO have rights, although not codifed as such

the law in this country for instance provides that animals, especially "pet" animals shall be kept in suitable conditions, have accesss to food and water, shall be kept free from unnecessary pain and suffering, and in some cases, be kept with others of their kind.

that those laws are inadequately enforced, does not change the fact they exist.

It is NOT wrong, ethically , to keep pets (implying domesticated ), in good conditions in any reasonable view.
It is likely that it is also not wrong to keep certain wild (implying imprinted) animals under certain conditions, provided that you know and understand their needs, and can provide for those needs.

90% of the animal rights movement are just another bunch of brain dead morons trying to impose their warped view (religion) on everyone else. the sensible 10% havnt a chance bless em.

by Victorismyhero Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:38 am

try convincing my cat he's a "slave" or "exploited" or whatever

the cat of forum doom, who sits by me every night whilst I'm on the puter yet is free to come and go as he wants, who is there running to me the instant my van is parked on the drive, and sits wrapped around my shoulders. etc etc etc....

yer right...I quite aware of who the "slave" actually is.

by Guest Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:40 am

Lord Foul wrote:try convincing my cat he's a "slave" or "exploited" or whatever

the cat of forum doom, who sits by me every night whilst I'm on the puter yet is free to come and go as he wants, who is there running to me the instant my van is parked on the drive, and sits wrapped around my shoulders. etc etc etc....

yer right...I quite aware of who the "slave" actually is.

The cat has no awareness of freedom, as it was born from a system that breeds cats to cater for human needs.

Again I am personally not against people having pets, the point is, as i said, just about everyone is hypocritical when it comes to animals

by Victorismyhero Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:43 am

and again you cannot seperate the "morally just world" argument and mere morally right, its the same argument in different clothes. Again what is morally right is entirely subjective and depends on the POV of the arguee. there is NO such thing as "absolute" moral.

And anyone claiming "morallity" as their cause, is a bit suspect to say the least....generally deranged fanatics and the religiously incapacitated.

by Guest Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:46 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Piss poor reasoning.

You are trying to excuse the fact its still morally wrong to keep pets

It has nothing do do with a morally just world, but what is morally right, based on animal rights.

They do not have real animal rights and are property, when kept by owners.

do they have rights, any rights, when "in nature" red of tooth and claw...?

you whole argument is false and based on emotive "walt disney reasoning"

and in many countries animals DO have rights, although not codifed as such

the law in this country for instance provides that animals, especially "pet" animals shall be kept in suitable conditions, have accesss to food and water, shall be kept free from unnecessary pain and suffering, and in some cases, be kept with others of their kind.

that those laws are inadequately enforced, does not change the fact they exist.

It is NOT wrong, ethically , to keep pets (implying domesticated ), in good conditions in any reasonable view.
It is likely that it is also not wrong to keep certain wild (implying imprinted) animals under certain conditions, provided that you know and understand their needs, and can provide for those needs.

90% of the animal rights movement are just another bunch of brain dead morons trying to impose their warped view (religion) on everyone else. the sensible 10% havnt a chance bless em.

1) Irrational and emotive answer

2) Same again

3) Some rights is not the basic animal right, freedom.

4) If you read the article it does not deny that pets are generally kept humanely. Which is odd really and an associate to how humans be treated. Where it fundamentally denies the animal the life it should have been born into. One that it was free within, in the wild

5) It is ethically wrong because it is catering to your needs and not rights of the animal, when it should have been born into the wild. Again because you have grown up where such a practice is normalized, you think its acceptable. Failing to grasp you still deny that animal its basic animal right. One to be free.

6) Then you end with more misdirection and emotive drivel. This is not about animals rights groups but the fundamental right all animals should have.

by Guest Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:48 am

Lord Foul wrote:and again you cannot seperate the "morally just world" argument and mere morally right, its the same argument in different clothes. Again what is morally right is entirely subjective and depends on the POV of the arguee. there is NO such thing as "absolute" moral.

And anyone claiming "morallity" as their cause, is a bit suspect to say the least....generally deranged fanatics and the religiously incapacitated.

So you believe that they the concept of universal human rights is then defunct and there is then no purpose to combat slavery then?

Morals are certainly subjective, but if we hold standards for ourselves based on freedom, then the same should apply to animals.

So either you stand by the basic human rights or you do not?

By association, the same applies to animals

by Victorismyhero Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:55 am

well as regards the O/P there is no hypocrisy involved,

As I said earlier in
"It is likely that it is also not wrong to keep certain wild (implying imprinted) animals under certain conditions, provided that you know and understand their needs, and can provide for those needs."

now its is obvious to anyone with a working brain cell or two that within the physical constraints of an operating "zoo"/"water world" etc you are NOT going to be able to provide the required needs of a damn great killer whale. I mean firstly you gonna need at least 1000 sq miles of ocean, with everything else ...like seals etc to eat.....(what about the seals "rights") then you need a mate, and some pals....and thats just the basics.....

the way these orcas are kept is entirely inadequate to provide for their needs. And THAT is what matters, not the "concept of captivity", since that is beyond the reasoning of even tgheir intelligence but ARE THEIR NEEDS met?

Beyond that the ethics of keeping pets is a blind, and a smoke screen. and morals ONLY comes into it (in a vague way) when you consider the conditions under which you keep them.

by Victorismyhero Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:01 pm

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:and again you cannot seperate the "morally just world" argument and mere morally right, its the same argument in different clothes. Again what is morally right is entirely subjective and depends on the POV of the arguee. there is NO such thing as "absolute" moral.

And anyone claiming "morallity" as their cause, is a bit suspect to say the least....generally deranged fanatics and the religiously incapacitated.

So you believe that they the concept of universal human rights is then defunct and there is then no purpose to combat slavery then?

I beleive in its present form it is seriously flawed...There is no such animal as "universal rights" since again this is subjective according to culture etc.

Morals are certainly subjective, but if we hold standards for ourselves based on freedom, then the same should apply to animals.

that is a false argument, there is no comparison between humans and animals (except some of the simians), in either intelligence or what that intelligence brings in terms of expectations.

So either you stand by the basic human rights or you do not?

By association, the same applies to animals

by Guest Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Lord Foul wrote:well as regards the O/P there is no hypocrisy involved,

As I said earlier in
"It is likely that it is also not wrong to keep certain wild (implying imprinted) animals under certain conditions, provided that you know and understand their needs, and can provide for those needs."

now its is obvious to anyone with a working brain cell or two that within the physical constraints of an operating "zoo"/"water world" etc you are NOT going to be able to provide the required needs of a damn great killer whale. I mean firstly you gonna need at least 1000 sq miles of ocean, with everything else ...like seals etc to eat.....(what about the seals "rights") then you need a mate, and some pals....and thats just the basics.....

the way these orcas are kept is entirely inadequate to provide for their needs. And THAT is what matters, not the "concept of captivity", since that is beyond the reasoning of even tgheir intelligence but ARE THEIR NEEDS met?

Beyond that the ethics of keeping pets is a blind, and a smoke screen. and morals ONLY comes into it (in a vague way) when you consider the conditions under which you keep them.

So yet more emotive replies still failing to see that no matter how much you disagree, it would still be wrong to keep pets.

You can continue to offer up a load of Huff and puff, but it will not change the facts

by Victorismyhero Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:32 pm

straw man didge....

no emotive argument in there, just plain obvious facts.

I think you are doing more huffing and puffing. since you cannot sustain your argument without veering all over the place into irrelevencies.

the fact that you are argueing animal rights have some sort of equivalency with human rights is purely an emotive response, is incorrect and unsustaianable. especially when you consider that the red herring of human rights (in this paticular argument) is highly flawed in and of itself.

by Guest Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:48 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So you believe that they the concept of universal human rights is then defunct and there is then no purpose to combat slavery then?

I beleive in its present form it is seriously flawed...There is no such animal as "universal rights" since again this is subjective according to culture etc.

Morals are certainly subjective, but if we hold standards for ourselves based on freedom, then the same should apply to animals.

that is a false argument, there is no comparison between humans and animals (except some of the simians), in either intelligence or what that intelligence brings in terms of expectations.

So either you stand by the basic human rights or you do not?

By association, the same applies to animals

So you do not believe in human rights.
You claim its flawed but offer up no reasoning to this.
Its not a false argument, as we are all living breathing animals
So basically you now use the inferior argument based on intelligence?
Who else has used that on humans to deny them human rights?
You are digging yourself a hole here, you wont be able to climb back out of

by Guest Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:49 pm

Lord Foul wrote:straw man didge....

no emotive argument in there, just plain obvious facts.

You offered no facts, just a view to think you can and should enslave animals for your own needs.

by 'Wolfie Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:22 pm

Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity' - Page 2 1763903427

Poor ol' Didgerii Dodger...

Going by the puerile and circuitous 'arguments' that he falls back on here..

Looks a lot like the poor li'l gimlet probably hasn't really known the companionship, the support, the pleasure of the unconditional friendship, that many "pets" have shared with their humans.

Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity' - Page 2 2089010162

by nicko Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:43 pm

Dogs have Masters, Cats have servants , and no one can prove otherwise !!

by 'Wolfie Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:48 pm

"A house isn't a home without a cat.."
.

by Guest Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:00 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Poor ol' Didgerii Dodger...

Going by the puerile and circuitous 'arguments' that he falls back on here..

Looks a lot like the poor li'l gimlet probably hasn't really known the companionship, the support, the pleasure of the unconditional friendship, that many "pets" have shared with their humans.

Looks like yet more misdirection to me from Wolf again.

Again I am not personally against people having pets.

Its about the hypocrisy of people on animals

by Victorismyhero Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:35 pm

the hypocrisy is the claim that animals have some sort of equivalency to humans.

actually, I treat my animals better than I do some so called humans. Twisted Evil

and,,,if push came to shove, I'd save my animals before some so called humans...

by Victorismyhero Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:42 pm

And the slave master relationship you posit is sheer balderdash

and the reason is OBVIOUS Rolling Eyes

I mean I suppose I could offer the dogs a salary instead of giving them food warmth and medical services...but then again I dont suppose for the life of me they would know what the hell to do with it Laughing

you DO know what symbiosis is dont you?

they live with me and I gain security and companionship, oh and a "picker up" for my shooting......and in return they get food, a warm bed, excercise, pals, and the chance to sneak in and sleep at the foot of my bed....I'd say they got a decent bargain out of that....especially since thats mostly what they aspire to....

by Guest Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:49 pm

Lord Foul wrote:And the slave master relationship you posit is sheer balderdash

and the reason is OBVIOUS

I mean I suppose I could offer the dogs a salary instead of giving them food warmth and medical services...but then again I dont suppose for the life of me they would know what the hell to do with it you DO know what symbiosis is dont you?

they live with me and I gain security and companionship, oh and a "picker up" for my shooting......and in return they get food, a warm bed, excercise, pals, and the chance to sneak in and sleep at the foot of my bed....I'd say they got a decent bargain out of that....especially since thats mostly what they aspire to....

You are still missing the main points that its for your needs, and if born free into the wild. The dog would go its own way.

So its not balderdash

As I say because we have domesticated animals for our needs, we fail to see if in fact it can be wrong

by nicko Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:13 pm

The only thing that's wrong, is if the animal is ill treated.

by magica Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:54 pm

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:And the slave master relationship you posit is sheer balderdash

and the reason is OBVIOUS

I mean I suppose I could offer the dogs a salary instead of giving them food warmth and medical services...but then again I dont suppose for the life of me they would know what the hell to do with it you DO know what symbiosis is dont you?

they live with me and I gain security and companionship, oh and a "picker up" for my shooting......and in return they get food, a warm bed, excercise, pals, and the chance to sneak in and sleep at the foot of my bed....I'd say they got a decent bargain out of that....especially since thats mostly what they aspire to....

You are still missing the main points that its for your needs, and if born free into the wild. The dog would go its own way.

So its not balderdash

As I say because we have domesticated animals for our needs, we fail to see if in fact it can be wrong

In Turkey dogs live in the woods, after the holiday season they're all shot as no one is there to feed them.

What you're saying Thor doesn't make sense. In the same instance, should we not have babies as we tell them what to do, bring them up the right way. Does that mean we are their masters and them our slaves?

I can't get your reason or argument on this at all. Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity' - Page 2 2190311264

by eddie Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:58 pm

Didge even if I agreed with your argument about cats and dogs - which I don't - it is still blatantly obvious to me that the majority of people who get cats and dogs as pets do so because they want to shower them with love.
So lucky them. Hardly comparable to a creature trapped in too-small-a-space and treated badly.

by Miffs2 Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:20 pm

nicko wrote:Dogs have Masters, Cats have servants , and no one can prove otherwise !!

Having one of each, I can confirm this is completely true!

by nicko Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:21 am

Two mice laid out on the Kitchen floor this Morning, I told him I was having a Bacon sandwich,-----------I had to share it with him !

by 'Wolfie Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:05 am

nicko wrote:
Two mice laid out on the Kitchen floor this Morning, I told him I was having a Bacon sandwich,-----------I had to share it with him !

Two mice for a piece of bacon..

Sounds like a fair swap to me !

by Guest Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:31 am

eddie wrote:Didge even if I agreed with your argument about cats and dogs - which I don't - it is still blatantly obvious to me that the majority of people who get cats and dogs as pets do so because they want to shower them with love.
So lucky them. Hardly comparable to a creature trapped in too-small-a-space and treated badly.

So what you are saying is that if people showered their slaves with love, this would make slavery acceptable to you then Eddie?

As to how pets are loved?

https://media.rspca.org.uk/media/facts

by nicko Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:06 pm

Didge, do you, or have you ever had a "Pet"?

by Guest Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:09 pm

nicko wrote:Didge, do you, or have you ever had a "Pet"?

Grew up with 5 cats Nicko

Most summers, the family stayed at my Uncles farm in Ireland, growing up.

So I have been around animals growing up

by nicko Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:37 pm

Did they feed them, take them to Vets if needed, were they allowed to run free? See what i'm getting at?

by Guest Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:45 pm

nicko wrote:Did they feed them, take them to Vets if needed, were they allowed to run free? See what i'm getting at?

Not really.

My mother gave them away to new homes, when she found out I was allergic to them, when I had tests done when 8.

It was my parents that wanted pets

I had no say in the matter.

by veya_victaous Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:25 am

that we spend money on them. often a lot.

we had a pet rats as kids (as well as a dog) and one got cancer when me and my middle brother where old enough to have part time jobs, anyway a pet rat was about $8 we spent over $300 in vet bills to get rid of the cancer. people go to significant lengths for their pets.

by Sponsored content

Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'

Re: Death by 50m camera clicks: As THREE SeaWorld killer whales die in a year, a former trainer says when the show is over, the gentle giant's lives are a 'disgrace to humanity'