(41 Answered)
Reason 42
Ventre: “Dorsal collapse happens in less than 1 percent of wild killer whales. We know this.” This is false. There is no scientific evidence to support this claim of less than 1 percent. To the contrary, there is scientific evidence that nearly one-quarter of adult male southern resident killer whales in the wild have collapsing, collapsed or bent dorsal fins. Evidence: 1. Ingrid Visser Paper (1998).
Dr. Astrid van Ginneken, Dr Naomi Rose and Dr Ingrid Visser can all agree with Ventre’s statement. There is no “scientific evidence that nearly one-quarter of adult male southern resident killer whales in the wild have collapsing, collapsed or bent dorsal fins”. However, there is scientific evidence that 23% (7/30 males) of one small population (125 individuals) of New Zealand orcas had dorsal fin abnormalities, but only 1 of the 125 (0.8%) individuals had a collapsed dorsal fin. This is the study SeaWorld tries to quote but fails miserably. (:
Determination: Invalid / Debunked
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Evidence:
Quote 1: “Dorsal collapse happens in less than 1 percent of wild killer whales. We know this. All of the captive males, 100 percent have collapsed dorsal fins.”
Source: Prolific body scars and collapsing dorsal fins on killer whales (Orcinus Orca) in New Zealand waters
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reason 43
Marino: “A lot of violence that you don’t ever see in the wild.” This is false. There is scientific evidence of orca-on-orca raking in the wild.
Marino did not say that orcas do not rake each other in the wild. She’s referring to hyper-aggression (like she mentions in the actual quote) and detrimental violence such as prolific raking, biting, and ramming that has led to serious injuries and death in captivity.
Determination: Invalid / Debunked
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Evidence:
Quote 1: “Well, what can happen as a result of them being thrown in with other whales that they haven’t grown up with, that are not part of their culture, is there’s hyper-aggression, a lot of violence, a lot of killing in captivity that you don’t ever see in the wild.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reason 44
Single example of a whale dying in captivity from whale-on-whale aggression with implication that this does not occur in the wild. This implication is false. There is scientific documentation of whale-on-whale orca aggression in the wild.
Again, Blackfish doesn’t state or imply that whale-on-whale aggression doesn’t occur in the wild. It implies that orcas do not die as a result of whale-on-whale aggression within their own social group in the wild, which is true.
Determination: Invalid / Debunked
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Evidence:
Quote 1 (Jett): Sometimes, this aggression became very severe, and in fact whales have died in captivity because of this aggression.
Quote 2 (Ventre): I think it was 1988, Kandu trying to assert her dominance over Corky rammed Corky. It fractured her jaw, which cut an artery in her head, and then she bled out. And that’s got to be a hard way to go down.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reason 45
Video footage of John Sillick whale incident in 1987 (26 years ago).
Jett: “I saw that there was just a lot of things that weren’t right and there was a lot of Mis-information.”
Berg: “John Sillick was the guy who in 1987 was crushed between two whales at SeaWorld of San Diego . .. and the SeaWorld party line was that was a trainer error.”
Gomersall: It was John’s fault and he was supposed to get off that whale. And for years I believed that and I told people that.”
Ventre: “We weren’t told much about it. Other than it was trainer error. . .”
Gomersall: “Years later you look at the footage and you go, you know what, he didn’t do anything wrong.”
The footage is misleading because it does not show what occurred in the stadium prior to the incident, it does not explain the rehearsed routine for the behavior, and it fails to disclose that the trainer failed to get off the whale after the first perimeter. These omissions enable the cast to falsely claim that SeaWorld is guilty of “misinformation,” that Mr. Sillick “didn’t do anything wrong,” and that the incident was an act of aggression
Not one of the quotes SeaWorld selects from the trainers claim the incident with John Silick was an act of aggression. None of the trainers ever claim definitively that it was an act of aggression. Dean Gomersall suggests “That whale just went to the wrong spot, or it could have been aggression”, he does not definitively claim it was aggression. SeaWorld’s responses to the trainer’s quotes prove what they’re saying – that SeaWorld believes the incident was due to trainer error. SeaWorld just proved that their selected comments were accurate yet it’s listed as “misleading/inaccurate content.” Nice one, SeaWorld.
Determination: Invalid / Debunked
Reason 46
Home video footage of incident between trainer Tamarie Tollison and Orkid. The Film misleadingly portrays this incident as an act of whale aggression, when the incident could have been avoided entirely had the trainer followed SeaWorld’s protocols.
Regardless of whether the situation could’ve been avoided or not, it was still an act of whale aggression. Orkid/Splash bit Tollison, pulled her into the pool and fractured her arm. By claiming “the Film misleadingly portrays this incident as an act of whale aggression”, SeaWorld are suggesting it wasn’t an act of aggression which is absurd. It was one of the worst non-fatal acts of orca-on-human aggression ever recorded, suggesting otherwise is shameful and ignorant on SeaWorld’s part.
Determination: Invalid / Debunked
Reason 47
Footage of employee at SeaWorld San Diego riding a killer whale while wearing a bikini. This occurred in 1971 – 42 years ago – at a time when SeaWorld was owned by the original owners (the first of three prior owners), and prior to the current safety protocols that have long been in place. This employee was a secretary, not a trainer, and the event was a publicity stunt/photo opportunity. No such incident could possibly occur at SeaWorld today.
There’s nothing misleading or inaccurate about including this footage. SeaWorld allowed an inexperienced person to swim with one of their orcas in 1971, and they repeated this stunt in 2006 when Peter Alexander, an NBS reporter, swam with an orca at SeaWorld San Diego after 2 days of “training”, despite the introduction of aforementioned safety protocols…
Determination: Invalid / Debunked
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Evidence:
Link 1: https://freedomfororcas.tumblr.com/post/54222221903/peter-alexander-swims-with-corky-despite-never
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reason 48
Berg: “I believe that it’s 70 plus maybe even more, just killer whale/trainer accidents.” Visual: documents purporting to be incident reports. This is inaccurate and highly misleading. The Film makes it appear that the depicted documents are incident reports relating solely to SeaWorld.
Samantha Berg does not say that the documents solely relate to SeaWorld nor does the film make it appear that the documents solely relate to SeaWorld. The film includes a close up of these reports and it’s very easy to see “Marineland of the Pacific, USA” noted on the documents. Even if Berg was referring just to SeaWorld her statement would not be inaccurate as SeaWorld submitted reports on more than 70 incidents for the OSHA hearings.
Determination: Invalid / Debunked
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Evidence:
Link 1: https://inherentlywild.co.uk/aggressive-incidents/
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reason 49
Video of John Hargrove with bloody face. Film implies that Hargrove was injured by a whale. This footage is misleading because Hargrove’s injury had nothing whatsoever to do with any whale. Hargrove was doing a footpush into a stage slide and when he slid across the stage, he hit his head on the concrete slideover because he didn’t perform the maneuverer correctly. In the correct maneuverer, the trainer would keep his head up as he enters the slideover area. Hargrove basically dove into the concrete, injuring himself.
This is comical. The film implies that Hargrove was injured by a whale because he was injured as a result of performing a stunt with a whale. Claiming that “Hargrove’s injury had nothing whatsoever to do with any whale” is a blatant lie.
Determination: Lie
Reason 50
Ken Peters incident. Duffus: “The whale jumped over [the net] and came right after him.” As can be seen in the video, Duffus’ statement is not accurate. The whale (Kasatka) crossed over but did not jump over the net, and did not “come after” Peters once Peters crossed the net. The whale did not even swim all the way to the slideout.
This is incredibly petty. She may not have “jumped” but she definitely crossed the net. SeaWorld just admitted Kasatka crossed the net but then claims she “did not come after Peters once Peters crossed the net” which is a blatant lie. Kasatka only crossed the net, like SeaWorld admits, after Peters did because she was coming after him. She had no reason to cross the net other than to try and get to Peters. Clearly, Peters viewed Kasatka crossing the net as an attempt to come after him as he got up and attempted to exit the slideout despite injuries to his feet.
Determination: Agree, Lie & Invalid / Debunked
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Evidence:
Quote 1: For some reason, the whale just took a different approach to what it was going to do with a very senior, very experienced trainer, Ken Peters, and dragged him to the bottom of the pool and held him in the bottom, let him go, picked him up, took him down again. And these periods he was taken down were pretty close to the mark, you know, a minute, a minute 20. When he was at the surface, he didn’t panic. He didn’t thrash. He didn’t scream. Maybe he’s just built that way, but he stroked the whale. And the whale let go of one foot and grabbed the other. That’s a pretty deep pool. And he took him right down.
I think that’s to two atmospheres pressure. Apparently, Mr. Peters is an experienced scuba diver. And I think that knowledge probably contributed to how he was able to be hauled down there that quickly and stay calm and know what to do. He knew what he was doing because when — you can see him actually in the film. The depth is so good, you can see him ventilating. You can see him ventilating really hard. So, he knows about swimming and diving and being underwater. He may have been assuming he was going under again. I did not walk away unimpressed by his calm demeanour during that whole affair. I would be scared shitless.
He was near to the end. Presumably, Ken Peters had a relationship with this whale. Maybe he did. And maybe that’s what saved him, but Peters got the whale to let him go. And they strung a net across, and Ken Peters pulled himself over the float line, swam like a demon to a slide-out because the whale was coming right behind him. The whale jumped over it and came right after him. He tried to stand up and run, of course, but his feet were damaged. He just fell. He scrambled. And they take this as a prime example of their training working. And they say, well, just stand back and stay calm. And that did work. They claim this is a victory of how they do business, and maybe so, but it can also be interpreted as a hair’s breadth away from another fatality.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________