the price, indeed!

As soon as I read the title, I knew PETA and the 9th circuit was going to be in this one.

The picture says it all. Orcas travel in a pod and are social animals (much like the group of trainers) but the whale in the picture is alone and its dorsal fin shows signs of stress (they don't flop over like that in the wild)

Even if you like your house very much you'd go stir crazy if you could never leave (now think about a creature that's built to swim from Alaska to Mexico and sticking it in your swimming pool)

Kuromi- you bring up a interesting point, though I think "slave" is a but harsh. I would go so far as to say something is enslaved only if it is consciously aware of its enslavement. Meaning unless these animals know their "rights and freedoms" are limited, can we really call them enslaved.

Also, nobody knows how these animals feel. They could be having the time of their lives for all we know. People use the rationalization of "I wouldn't like being stuck in a glass tank, therefore, these animals must not either."We humans have developed an extraordinary luxury by having a complex level of awareness and feeling. Other animals do not. You really can't compare them to us, emotionally.

Can a court really review a complaint if the complainant is not a willing participant?

The official complaint submitted in October to the U.S. District Court for Southern California lists five SeaWorld orcas as collective plaintiffs in the case, according to the complaint. Three of those whales live in the San Diego SeaWorld park. The other two live in the Orlando location.

Are we supposed to believe that the whales from one coast called the whales from the other coast to determine how the complaint should be structured and who would represent them?

Fine Peta $250,000 for wasting the courts time and then place those who perpetrated this fraud in contempt of court with a punishment of 50 hours (each) of community service to the whales.

This case should be dismissed, PETA fined for the cost of the lawsuit and the attorneys sanctioned and imprisoned for contempt for brining a totally frivolous lawsuit.

PETA is not interested in the welfare of animals, they are only interested in the welfare ($$$$$) of PETA.

peanut - Where exactly is the 9th circuit involved? They don't even select the judges that sit below them, let alone have discretion over cases that have yet to reach their docket.

...what about your dogs and cats... birds, fish and other pets?

Not interesting at all. Sorry, but the Constitution does not grant animals right. They are animals. This judge is a nut to let it get this far.

What next, go hunting (I don't hunt), get life in prison? Oops, ate a burger...that's life too.

Peta hates animals. There purpose is to segregate animals from people, including and especially pets. You don't see any of these loudmouth strippers on Paul Watson's boat, do you? Of course you don't. If they had their way, within a generation, humans would have no interaction with animals, which would mean they would have no use for animals, and so on.

@TheCompany, trust me... they're NOT having "the time of their lives." Do some research on Hugo, the orca from the Miami Seaquarium back in the 70's. He basically committed suicide because he was so miserable in that tank.

And @Steve2570999, you're mostly right about the dorsal fin... it's caused by the constant circular swimming in their prisons... I mean tanks... rather than free-ocean swimming.

I'm all for animal rights, but I generally think PETA is a bunch of nuts. But I have to admit this is a pretty creative lawsuit. At least this time they're not giving little kids nightmares about hot dogs.

He basically committed suicide because he was so miserable in that tank.

Whether animals can commit suicide is a debated topic in biology. It is thought that they cannot because that requires a very abstract level of thinking. They would have to understand that they are alive, and additionally would have to contemplate and perform an action that the animal knows would end its life. Again, most animals cannot think that complex.

The particular whale you are talking about, Hugo, died of a brain aneurism which could explain his aggressive behavior and potential emotional instability. But I am not familiar with the circumstances so I don't know.

Also you cannot point to one instance and form a generalization. Whales, like people, have different tolerances to different stresses.

I have no idea how this case should be decided or if it should even be heard.

But, I can pretty make a sure bet on one thing...those in favor of animal rights are progressives and those in favor of animal enslavement and cruelty are conservatives...

Caligula-1763025, I am a social liberal, but I am a Constitutionalist. You don't have to be anything specific to believe in the Constitution...except an American.

Only in California would a court hear such an asinine case as this. The constitution doesn't cover animals. The judicial system is broken to allow this case to go forward.

Who considers this entertainment? I'd rather go for a walk outside than pay money to sit on metal bleachers and watch a captive whale splash around in the water.

PETA has bided it's time waiting for a right time for this to happen. What time is that you ask? When political correctness has reached the point of lunacy and the judicial system has been beaten down and broken to the point where it is has become literally a dog and pony Orca show. Personally I think they jumped the gun by about 4 years we haven't quite reached the point where the American public as a whole is completely fed up with it all.

well guess what people, if they release these tame animal in the wild they will certainly DIE, doesnt PETA understand that!

These are animals if they want out they would be jumping out of the cages and making all sorts of noise and complaints about being there, they would kill everyone that comes near them.

so obviously they are happy, the fin is not stress, its FAT!! they eat so well that they get to much fat stored in the fins, so spare me the BOO HOO animals have right crap. they dont have rights, do they give us right when we enter there domain!

PETA Needs to SHUT THE HELL UP! and if they would concentrate on helping humans instead of animal maybe they would get more symphanty out all the rest of the planet.

So drop dead PETA!

Kevin...not true, really. Many peoples from around the world believe in our Constitution and look to it as a beacon of light in a world filled with injustice. You don't even have to be an American citizen to have "Constitutional rights" within the borders of the United States. I would argue that the people who believe in the Constitution the least are Americans! There are those, especially religious conservatives, who would trade the Constitution for the bible if given half-a-chance. And then there are those who would trade away their rights for false hopes of "security" (wait, we've already done that). And then there are those who do not see the Bill of Rights as a means of limiting government but instead as a means of empowering government to restrict the rights of the people via such efforts as proposed amendments to ban gay marriage, abortion, and a host of other things. The threat to our Constitution comes from within, not without. And belief in the promise of our Constitution is cherished more by others hoping to come here than those who already live here. Sad but true.

I have a game I play. I ask people (born-here American citizens) to name for me just five of the amendments. Nobody can do it. Nobody. And everybody to date has incorrectly given me even the first amendment as if it were two separate amendments. So much for Americans and the Constitution.

I apologize to everyone else that this may appear off-topic...but Kevin's post required further discussion.

I have a game I play. I ask people (born-here American citizens) to name for me just five of the amendments.

Question Two: How many times does God/Jesus/Christianity appear in the Constitution?

Caligula-1763025, you were the one, who made this into more of a political discussion with your stupid attack on conservatives. It is not about that at all.

Kevin...

Have you forgotten? The courts are one of the three branches of government. It is political by nature. And you're a...what did you call it? A Constitutionalist? Ummmm....I see....

I stand by my assertion of progressives vs. conservatives. And, you have the nerve, the utter gall, to call me "stupid" when I try to advance the discussion on your point about the Constitution? That's makes you a first class a-hole! I sincerely doubt you know $hit about the constitution. Quick, run to Wikipedia and try to come up with something clever....

Fake.

Maybe the whales should be released into the wild, just outside of maybe Osaka, just in time for the annual hunting season.

People Eating Tasty Animals.

Beth...

Believe it or not...most people I humiliate (errrr...I mean educate) seem to know that "Jesus" and Christianity" aren't in the Constitution...but a shocking number seem to believe that "god" or "the creator" is. They simply do not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution and the purpose and content of each document (but maybe even that is giving them too much credit). Unbelieveable. People run around screaming about "taking back America" and they don't even know what America is!!!

LOL Caligula, I know. That's why I added my question to your quiz! :)

YoungMom... I apreciate what you are saying here and agree to some extent. Let's be clear, though. Dogs were bred for domestic purposes. Dogs are not wild animals. They descend from wolves but are more or less unsuited for free reign.

To your point though... it always seems like everyone wants to save just the CUTE animals. We can slaughter cows and pigs all day for sustenance... but try to fry a cat and everyone has something to say about it.

Well said, Youngmom. I think we need to make sure animals are well treated and taken care of, without them we don't exist either.

And I agree with you PETA is nothing more than a grandstanding organization and way to extreme in their methods. If one of them threw blood on me for any reason, I might take a buttwhipping, but they'd know they'd been in a fight.

What I don't understand is why PETA think these animals should be afforded the same rights as humans under our constitution. Don't get me wrong

Why not? Corporations are :) At least killer whales have a pulse.

The key point to the PETA argument is that these orcas were captured and taken from their native environment. The other Sea World orcas were bred in captivity or found sick/injured and nursed back to health.

Youngmom: for the PETA fanatics, they thing that all animals should be able to roam wild and free. They truly believe that a goldfish has more right to be free than a human being.

Really your gonna compare a wild animal to a domesticated dog?? WTF???

always seems like everyone wants to save just the CUTE animals. We can slaughter cows and pigs all day for sustenance... but try to fry a cat and everyone has something to say about it.

Well, it would seem a bit counter intuitive to slaughter endangered species for sustenance. Pigs and cows are bred for the sole purpose of providing sustenance, that reason alone has prevented them from going extinct (like the American Bison). As for "frying up" cats and dogs, some cultures (Like Vietnam) consider that normal. Ours is not one of them.

Do NOT eat the "barbeque" at hibachi buffets!

Of course Orca's can't be people. Only humans and corporations are people!

I love animals and would never stand to see them truly mistreated but ask yourselves this, if it's wrong or inhumane to keep orcas at SeaWorld is it also wrong to keep a dog at home?

I'm not sure I would say the orcas are in "slavery" ... but I definitely think that their living conditions are unsuitable and cruel. If one must keep them, they should be in bigger, more stimulating environments.

The difference between them and a dog at home? Well, most people I know that have dogs don't keep them in small cages 24/7 ... and if they did, I'd say that was cruel and inhumane as well.(And I definitely count those who keep them in small crates while they go to work because they can't be bothered to train them in that category!)

Another difference, as was pointed out earlier, dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be domestic animals. Orcas have not. Even one born in captivity is not a domesticated animal.

However, I also see the problem in turning these poor animals loose, as they don't have the skills to survive in the wild. It really is a conundrum.

Anybody who thinks animals have individual rights, and standing in a court of law, must surely agree that they must sue my dog instead of me when they are bitten.

Beth...

Agreed...for these particular animals it is a conundrum. But there is a way to end future conundrums...stop taking animals out of the wild and putting them in captivity...problem solved.

Anybody who thinks animals have individual rights, and standing in a court of law, must surely agree that they must sue my dog instead of me when they are bitten.

Although a parent can be sued for the actions of their children.

Caligula,

For the most part I agree. But some of the animals are not "taken" from the wild, but "rescued". So the conundrum deepens. Do we rescue endangered animals and put them in Seaworld (or something similar) or let them die?

I must admit, I don't have the answer. But if Seaworld is the answer, then the conditions for those animals must be GREATLY improved.

I think we can all agree that Orca's do not really like being held in captivity. Orcas are some 20 times larger than dolphins and both animals are kept is the same relatively small tank. The Orca's fin folds over when held in captivity -- I could reason that it has something to do with stress. Dolphins on the other hand seem to have a better quality of life at Sea World, in my opinion. I think this is sort of the starting point to their objection. I'll add that trainers and misguided homeless people tend to get hurt or killed by these animals occasionally. Maybe it is time Sea World be banned from acquiring more Orcas.

Regarding "other" animals... I have no objection to any (NON ENDANGERED) animal being killed for the purpose of feeding a family. I couldn't imagine my life ever coming to this, but if it was between starvation and throwing my dog in the oven... I'm throwing my dog in the oven. It is not inhumane to kill an animal for food, it's just the way it is. Survival of the fit.

Cruelty is another subject matter altogether. Killing an animal is not cruel. Torturing an animal or forcing an animal to fight another, or bestiality have no place in our society.

That "We the people" is kind of a clue. ;)

All men are created equal. If these dumb PETA broads cant distinguish animals from men, does that mean that they ?.....EEEW!

No, but they must have had corporations in mind, right?

Cyrax--can you shut up about the corporations? this is already a convoluted debate between animal rights extremists/activists and those with more sense [sea world]; we don't need you trying to bring politics into every annoying reply you make. So stfd and stfu.

Cyrax must have multiple user names...I saw the same lame corporation comments in a couple of the other threads about whale slavery.

Cyrax--can you shut up about the corporations? this is already a convoluted debate between animal rights extremists/activists and those with more sense [sea world]; we don't need you trying to bring politics into every annoying reply you make. So stfd and stfu.

Actually it's a valid response. Since a corporation is a non-human entity and it can be considered human then it logically follows that an animal which is far closer to human life than a corporation should be afforded the same rights. Yes it's political, but the whole argument is political. The ones who are going to be most against this ARE going to be the ones who say that corporations have human rights. They can't have it both ways.

I personally think we need to observe human behavior in captivity and compare it to the whales behavior in captivity and use that as a measuring stick to see if the whales are really in distress. Holding me "Prisoner" in a castle where all my needs are met could be far more desirable than throwing me out on the streets making me fend for my own.

I agree Stally. It is a valid response ... and I suspect that Cyrax is not alone in thinking that (surprise, that's why there is MORE THAN ONE comment on the subject).

And it's CERTAINLY more of a valid response than an attack such as the one ousguy made

(So stfd and stfu.).

Valid response. Can't have it both ways. But, once again...I feel obligated to point out...it is the conservatives who want it both ways (wait...that has connotations that might get some of them really excited).

Cry me a river, Beth.

And ferrets, and geese and goldfish,

and birds and gerbils, and hamsters and rabbits

and turtles and gnuts... where will it all end ?

The point is that these 5 Orcas were stolen from their natural habitat compared to ones that they found sick and nursed back to health or were bred from those already in captivity.

Cyrax - No the point is not that those 5 Orcas were "stolen" from their natural habitat. If it was they would be suing under the Animal Welfare Act. No, PETA wants to give animals equal rights that humans have so then they can sue anyone for doing anything that may or could harm animals. They will stop hunting, fishing, close zoos, circuses, etc. That this lawsuit was filed in CA is no surprise - PETA specifically picked it and the judge. They played the court - how many judges reclused themselves from the case? Don't try to even deny it. Like PETA's lawyer said just getting it heard is a victory. This is the first step in a very calculated and precise process that PETA has designed. As far as the judge who gave this 'case' legs, the voters should get rid of him ASAP! Unless PETA can get animals the right to vote before the next election!

Animal WELFARE is about treating animals well, Animal RIGHTS is about making them equal to people. Its the distinction they're trying to make here. I'm all for animal welfare but they're not the same as humans-- although the opposite is sometimes true.

I would personally volunteer for a job where I get housing, all the seafood I can eat, and a bevy of hot athletic chicks in wetsuits fawning all over me as I work like 1 hour a day. I can't even remember the last time I was in a pool.

IndigoRage:

If you subscribe to christianity, the god of the faith gave humans dominion over all animals.

Today begins a new campaign:

From this day on, I vow to see PETA disbanded.

Death to PETA!

How very un-Christian of you...

LOL

Thank you. I am very much un-christian indeed.

Fish are not mammals, and do not have human level intelligence.
Dogs have been bred from wild animals (wolves) to be our companions, and do not come close to human level intelligence, nor are they well adapted to surviving in the wild.

Your analogies don't work. Scientists have determined that whales / dolphins have all the social, emotional, and mental capabilities that define "personhood". We don't have the right to treat other persons as slaves.

Human beings are animals too.

As to your opinion that orca, that travel thousands of miles of ocean in a year, have "big tanks" and are "exercised", you need to educate yourself. There's a reason why the dorsal fins of orcas are flopped over in captive orcas.

Way too often, the orcas that are ill or injured are "rescued", supposedly with the intent to rehabilitate and release, but are never released. They're worth too much money to Sea World for shows and breeding, since they're not allowed to capture orcas simply for that purpose now, they pretend to "rescue" them instead. They can be released. Those that have been living in captivity for too long can at least be placed in large sea pens, and not forced to live in small concrete tanks.

PERSONHOOD! PERSONHOOD! What? There is their strategy! Oh, they are not animals, they are persons! Can't you tell? We have scientists who tell us so! You are nothing more than a selfish human being! No, wrong! They are animals, not persons! They are not equal to humans, no matter how you try to spin it!

If any one needs to be "educated" - you smug SOB - it's you.

They have intelligence that rivals human intelligence. Language, culture, etc.

I'll buy this when a whale writes a book, builds a car, or engages in agriculture.

Krista - I think the main requirement for personhood would be actually belonging to the human race. Also, are you trying to say that humans are racist against whales????

I agree. Most of the criticism directed at PETA by the posters could have been avoided if the article had bothered to point out that not all the whales at Sea World were covered by the suit, only a few that had been captured in the wild. Trying to use the Constitution isn't right though, it doesn't apply in this case.

You're right, why would they try to use the Constitution to protect these animals. That's just for humans and corporations... You know... "people."

Humans who were born of a slave mother were considered slaves, which was just as wrong as capturing someone and making them a slave. To differentiate between an Orca captured and an Orca born at Sea World is not logical. PETA is, as usual, a bunch of lying hypocrites.

But there is a difference between a captured orca and one born at Sea World. The one that was born at Sea World has his/her pod at Sea World, and has no idea how to function in the wild. Returning that animal to the wild would be worse than taking a different one from the wild, it would be a death sentence. If the parental orcas are rescue animals that are unable to be returned to the wild due to disability, you can't just release the child and expect everything to be ducky. The first wild pod of orcas it encountered would probably kill it if it didn't starve before then.

The difference may or may not be true, Enough, but what child of a slave born on a plantation would survive if dumped off in the wilds of Africa? (and stay free, it might be re-enslaved, after all, the slaves were sold to the white dealers by the black locals).

The judge should also be $#!tcanned for not dismissing the case.

"Dominion" does not sanction abuse, and there's another Proverb that says "A righteous man is kind to his animals." There are other forums more appropriate for your anti-Christian rants, it's really not appropriate here.

You are either a troll or an idiot. No part of the Constitution applies to animals.

Angel...

When animals write books, build machinery, engage in agriculture or commerce, any of the things that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, I'll consider your arguments.

And if you eat a dog or cat here, yes, people will take umbrage. However, go the the Middle or Far East. Eating dogs, cats, horses, monkeys or any number of other animals is common.

And may I ask what you eat for sustenance? I surmise you're a vegan. But if so, then I must ask, do plants have feelings? Do they react to stimuli much the same as other earthly beings? Take for example a Venus Fly Trap. Are they not carnivores? They react to a stimuli and consume small insects to help survive. Just curious of course.

Have you ever watched videos of Orcas killing seals for fun (NOT for food) and batting the carcass around until they got bored? They are destructive, whether or not you want to admit it.

I believe the "judge" is within the 9th circuit jurisdiction. That should answer the "rational judge" concept.

No. Scientifically dolphins (yes an Orca is a dolphin) are not far behind humans in intellegence. A termite is. The same goes for if you wanted to use this argument with your dog. A dog is a domesticated wolf and is not built to live in the wild. They have been bred to be companions. The same with your fish. A fish is no where near intellegint.
Also, these 5 were taken from the wild by force. They were not "rescued" or bred in captivity. They were by definition, kidnaped.

No. Scientifically dolphins (yes an Orca is a dolphin) are not far behind humans in intellegence. A termite is. The same goes for if you wanted to use this argument with your dog. A dog is a domesticated wolf and is not built to live in the wild. They have been bred to be companions. The same with your fish. A fish is no where near intellegint.
Also, these 5 were taken from the wild by force. They were not "rescued" or bred in captivity. They were by definition, kidnaped.

Kidnap=The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or fraud. So, by definition, these orcas were NOT kidnapped (correct spelling). Animals are considered chattel at best, so you might argue that they were stolen. However, there is no ownership of wild animals; there are many rules and regulations put into place by environmental agencies and species preservation acts that tightly regulate the molestation of habitats and movement of specific species such as the orca. Sea world kept in line with these rules and regulations that are determined by the U.S. along with numerous other countries that have an interest in species preservation. They did nothing wrong.

These animals are well provided for, they receive regular veterinary care, and are better off in terms of nourishment and health care (for issues that may arise) than they would be in the wild. True, they cannot swim hundreds and thousands of miles with their pods, but you (pro-PETA argument) have no empirical evidence that says these animals experience any physical ailments in captivity that produce a significant amount of stress or pain (in fact I would argue the counter). It is nice to picture them swimming without limits and in a happy "family", but until you learn to speak with orcas and can analyze their psyche there is no reason to assume they are unhappy. Anthropomorphizing animals is a common practice in condemning animal confinement. The truth of the matter is you have no idea what they want.

More importantly, they are not humans. Subsequently, the Constitution does not apply to orcas. This whole suit is frivolous; I am convinced the judge will admonish the filing attorneys as such and Sea World will (and should) file a counter-suit for damages.

Frankly, it does not matter whether they were bred to be in a cage or not. They are ANIMALS. By definition, they do not have rights protected by the US Constitution, which only applies to people (and corporations and groups of people) NOT animals.

Therefore, you too, are either a troll or an idiot, in either case, not worth paying attention to anymore.

Cyrax - so are you saying that returning a Orca (dolphin) to the wild is correct and the Orca will survive because it is almost as smart as a human but a dog will not because it is "stupid"? I guess you haven't heard of a "wild pack of dogs"(read - domesticated wolves) running loose, or a fish could not survive either for the same reason - then the scourge of invasive fish in our lakes must be from 'wild" fish not from the ones that some "human" dumped in the lake?

These animals are well provided for, they receive regular veterinary care, and are better off in terms of nourishment and health care (for issues that may arise) than they would be in the wild. True, they cannot swim hundreds and thousands of miles with their pods, but you (pro-PETA argument) have no empirical evidence that says these animals experience any physical ailments in captivity that produce a significant amount of stress or pain (in fact I would argue the counter). It is nice to picture them swimming without limits and in a happy "family", but until you learn to speak with orcas and can analyze their psyche there is no reason to assume they are unhappy. Anthropomorphizing animals is a common practice in condemning animal confinement. The truth of the matter is you have no idea what they want.

Do you know the story of Tillikum (whose picture is featured at the top of this story)?

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/nature/The-Killer-in-the-Pool.html?page=all

Read it and educate yourself just a little bit.