Have you seen this popping up in your Twitter feed? SeaWorld has decided it needs to go on the offensive and buy some placement to get its message out. Though it’s unclear if that’s really working based on the replies they get to anything they tweet.
SeaWorld puts forth six arguments as to why Blackfish is wrong and they are right. Though anyone who saw the film will be able to pretty easily spot the way they dance around the events in the film vs what they claim.
1. Blackfish employs false and emotionally manipulative sequences concerning the collection and separation of killer whales: Through stock footage and video mismatched to the narrative, the film implies that SeaWorld collects killer whales from the wild and separates mothers and calves. NEITHER IS TRUE.
First claim is that the film uses false and emotionally manipulative sequences. The footage shown in Blackfish really did happen. Whales were collected in Washington State and one of those whales did end up in Vancouver and later SeaWorld. So, not false. Now, some careful parsing of words here, did SeaWorld do the collection? No, it was made clear that the collection was done by others and that the whales collected did not end up going directly to SeaWorld. Did SeaWorld separate mothers and calves? No, but that was never claimed. SeaWorld didn’t do it, but they sure did benefit from it.
2. The film relies on former SeaWorld employees, most of whom have little experience with killer whales, and others who haven’t worked at SeaWorld in nearly 20 years: These individuals, who speak with apparent authority, have little or no firsthand knowledge of the incidents they describe. Most of them had no experience with Tilikum, and several never even performed with killer whales in the water. The film’s “cast” is completely unfamiliar with current conditions and techniques at SeaWorld, and are certainly in no position to critique a trainer of Dawn Brancheau’s caliber or her last interaction with Tilikum.
The claim here is that the people interviewed had little experience, the things they’re talking about happened a long time ago and/or they didn’t have experience with the events they were describing.
It’s pretty clear in the film at what point in time each person worked there since they say when they worked there and what they did. Part of the problem was that these people had no experience and yet SeaWorld hired them to work with whales and that’s part of the reason that it’s dangerous. They hired untrained people to do dangerous jobs and didn’t properly explain to them the danger. Does that make the words that came out of their mouths lies? It wouldn’t seem to since looking closely at the claim, SeaWorld doesn’t refute what they said, only that they don’t have recent experience or were speaking about things that they didn’t witness, again, nobody is saying that they’re wrong.
3. The film also relies on animal rights activists masquerading as scientists
The claim is that the people being interviewed have falsified their credentials and have some sort of conflict of interest because they are animal rights activists. They make this claim about three specific individuals in the film. Let’s look at each person’s background who SeaWorld claims is masquerading as a scientist and determine if they really are a scientist.
- Howard Garrett – Co-founder of the Orca Network, published author on the subject at hand.
- Ken Balcomb – Officer in the US Navy, degree in zoology from UC Berkeley, master’s in zoology from UC Davis, US Fish and Wildlife biologist, founder of the Center for Whale Research.
- Lori Marino – PhD from SUNY Albany, researcher at Emory University, “Her specific interests are in brain-behavior relationships, the evolution of intelligence, self-awareness in other species, and, more recently, human-nonhuman relationships.”
4. The film spins an entirely fictitious account of Dawn Brancheau’s death in order to advance its anti-captivity narrative. To support this bias [sic] slant, and specifically the idea that Tilikum was a psychotic and violent animal because of captivity, the film engages in a series of false and misleading statements about the circumstances of Ms. Brancheau’s death
This claim is discussed in the film, the filmmakers specifically talk about the various explanations for the death of Dawn Brancheau and how those explanations changed over time. They also provide footage that backs up their claims. It is of course impossible to know what was in her mind or in the mind of the whale so nobody can ever be sure why the whale attacked her. But no matter how SeaWorld spins it, the whale did just that.
5. To advance both its anti-captivity narrative and its false theories surrounding Ms. Brancheau’s death, the film falsely suggests that Tilikum had become psychotic and aggressive
I don’t recall exactly but I don’t remember the word psychotic being used in the film. Aggressive? Definitely. But wasn’t the aggression proven out multiple times both at the now closed facility in Vancouver and at SeaWorld on multiple occasions? How can SeaWorld now claim that this whale has not been aggressive?
6. The film falsely suggests that important facts about Tilikum were concealed from his trainers and that SeaWorld is indifferent to trainer safety
The film doesn’t suggest that, it states it as fact by way of the people who were actually there and stated that they did not know. So either those people were lying or SeaWorld is being very careful with their words here. They undoubtedly did devise special rules for whales known to be aggressive and dangerous. But that’s the very point of the film, we shouldn’t have these animals in captivity in unnatural pens for our amusement and profit.
