top 62 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 90 points 1 year ago

But if I say billionaires should pay more taxes or be euthanized I’m put on a list

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago*

    Me reading headline: I fuckin bet it is Marineland. Me reading the first paragraph of the article: I fucking knew it! Fucking marineland.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    "Look what you're making me do"

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's a great reason not to raise wild animals in captivity.

    They'll be held as hostages by corpo scum.

    "Give me money, or I'll kill 30 whales. Ahahahah! They're mine, and I can do whatever I want! AHAHAAHAH! Hail HR! Hail HR!"

    That's not fiction. That's the story.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "we're closing. We cannot afford to keep these whales with no staff and no land. We want to move them to another habitat which has agreed to keep these animals which cannot be released."

    "No because they could maybe be mistreated."

    "They WILL be neglected here and the people buying the land will need them gone. It's euthanasia or transport. Or you adopt them."

    Barring a time machine to stop the park from opening in 1961, that's the options.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The option is right there in the article:

    Under provincial law, Ontario has the power to seize the whales to ensure their safety – recouping any costs incurred when the park is sold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    How much do you wanna bet that any fines for killing the whales will be substantially cheaper than relocation, so the park will do that and just eat the fine rather than risk the province confiscate the whales and then charge them later?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Why the fuck are there still whales there and why are the corpos allowed to threaten death if these whales. They wanted to sell them to china (where they most likely will be further abused), now if they can't get money they'll kill them?

    C'mon Ottawa, force them to rehabilitate and release them, even if it kills the park.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 30 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Only animal I know that even has a chance in the would is a domestic house cat. Some can't learn to hunt, some can, you never know. And mostly how they survive is finding humans to care for them, so maybe that doesn't really count.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Uhhhh, how about try? If the options are to euthanize them or give them a fighting chance in the wild, they should just release them near or around another pod. The hubris of man to think animals can’t survive without them. They aren’t domesticated. If they’re hungry and see a fish swim by they’d be like “where’s the hairless ape’s hand to feed me?”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    It's not the hubris of man. It's scientific research over decades and decades that has shown many captive animals are unable to survive without humans. This isn't just some hippy or business person making uninformed assumptions about how animals work. Animals who have never been taught how to hunt on their own, or how to communicate with others of their species, will slowly die of starvation. It happens all the time when animals are let loose in the wild with no skills.

    If you don't believe me, go watch Naked and Afraid. Nearly every episode is about how these adult humans who have a production team ensuring their safety can't catch any food and get sick from bad water and mostly starve for the entire duration of the challenge. That's what captive animals are like. They have grown up with nobody to teach them anything useful. The only people who do well on the show are those who have had years of training in how to survive in the wild.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Canada or Ontario should liberate the whales and take over the property for the necessary property and income to do so.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago*

    🎶 Every one haaaaaates Marineland! 🎶

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This Marine Park fellow sounds like one bad hombre.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The government should seize the property and the assets of the owners and shareholders and anyone related to the owners to pay for this. You don’t end up here by accident.

    But they’ll just get their way and retire wealthy.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Apparently it costs 2 million per month to keep the belugas alive. Not sure I would want the government to be covering that cost. The issue is more complex than the headline but at the end of the day the corporation did not manage their money and now are in urgent need however, they also wanted to sell the animals to a group in China and the Feds blocked the sale. These animals were born in captivity so it’s hard to say if they would survive if released. It’s not a great situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    Marineland is still trying to continue existing?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago
    [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It’s provincial jurisdiction. Blame Doug Ford.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I dont get why the government is blocking sending the whales to China tho. If the choice is the government bankrolling Marineland, the whales being killed or the whales being sent to China isn't selling them to China the obviously best choice? Are they worried that the big bad Chinese will steal our Whale IP?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Everyone is big mad about the whales. Meanwhile, there's a whole lot of other animals that aren't famous being fucked with, and humans, and a pretty compelling case that the costs of caring for damn belugas is actually pretty burdensome.

    It's not bad people care about show whales. It's bad that it's vastly disproportionate.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It is proportionate


    to their size

    (In all seriousness, it's a lot easier to make suitable living quarters for most other animals. If you can't make suitable living quarters, it's unethical, full stop. Yes I'm including factory farm meat in that)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I don't actually disagree with that, which is why "don't euthanise them but also don't do anything with them" isn't being accepted by the company as an answer. I only know MarineLand from the ads, but any habitat multiple whales can at least sort of live in will be no joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Euthanize, BUT NOT RELEASE, right??

    Narcissism / machiavellianism / sociopathy-psychopathy / nihilism / SADISM / and systemic-dishonesty

    .. dimensions-of-human-evil in their position, at least.

    The ideological displacing-considered-reasoning dimension may be on-display, too..

    ( they're running-out of dimensions-of-human-evil to exercise!

    & the Western-psychology's "dark triad" is only a small subset of these dimensions.

    Obviously, the psychology-profession'll never accept these dimensions as valid, because it wasn't them who authorized, or noticed, them.

    Profession-narcissism is a very real force in our world )


    Perhaps the executives of that operation are identifying that humankind ought murder the innocent ( the whales ) while catering-to the psychopaths ( the executives )?

    Are we obedient to that directive?

    XOR do we intentionally-ditch the dishonest-framing & force right framing, & THEN decide?

    _ /\ _

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    They'll slowly starve or face predation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    50/50 chance they survive in the wild. 100% chance they die by being euthanized. Even if they die in the wild, they will feed the eco system. Even domesticated animals will eat their deceased owners when they get hungry enough. The only animal I can think of that won’t eat when hungry is a lonely guinea pig.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The only animal I can think of that won’t eat when hungry is a lonely guinea pig.

    You’ve never talked to anyone who raises snakes, have you?

    It’s kinda amazing how this thread has brought out a bunch of people who wouldn’t pass an intro high school biology class, but seem to think they’re a genius on animal welfare.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    If they were born and raised in captivity their odds of survival are pretty low. Like someone who always lived in a large city and never went camping being dropped off in Alaska odds of survival.

    Rehabilitation only helps so much without the actual experience of growing up with other members of their species in the wild.

    Edit: Of course the adults in the wild are the ones that survived until adulthood so I still lean towards attempts to rehabilitate and release, just noting it isn't as simple as releasing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Captive animals don't always do well being released in the wild.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Why not let the rules of nature decide? Unlike human society, that lets the weak rule the strong, only the strong may survive in the wild. That is natural selection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's not natural selection if we yanked them out of the natural order and kept them from acquiring the skills necessary to survive in the wild in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If you consider people as part of the natural order, then it is in fact natural selection. This isn't a commendation of our place in nature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    People always say this as some sort of "gotcha" statement, but what we do to them is clearly very different from their normal life cycle and something we have the will to stop doing or somehow make up for the damage unlike other natural events like volcanoes erupting or meteors striking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    How different is it than ladybugs and aphids, except for we (think we) have the will to do better than our nature demands? Also, I think I made it pretty clear that I don't think that stance does our species credit. But I would say the outcome is very natural, even if natural isn't exactly desirable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    because it'll still cost money to move them to like Newfoundland or whatever.

    This is Marineland, in Niagara Falls, you can't just "release them" unless you want 30 Beluga whales going over the falls.

    Plus releasing them is just killing them. They'll likely die in the wild.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    They should release them. They might not survive but at least they'll have a chance.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's the equivalent of releasing toddlers into a swamp.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Or even an adult who has never gone camping being dropped in the middle of Alaska, the Amazon, or the Ghobi desert. Odds of survival are low and they are gonna suffer from starvation, thirst, getting sick from eating/drinking from the wrong sources, or being prey to something they don't know how to avoid. Maybe all four!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not much different than euthanizatiom except for the cost of shipping them to a release site.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Not necessarily. These animals can be acclimatized and eased into it in stages to give them a fighting chance. Even if the chance of success is slim, I still fully expect the assholes who decided to breed these animals in captivity to be financially liable to cover the cost of that.

    Otherwise, whoever owns these animals should be legally bound to financially support them until they die of old age. If someone decides to breed sentient creatures in captivity they should know that they can't just discard them like an old newspaper if that doesn't turn out to be a good investment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Release them where exactly? someone still has to pay to move them somewhere to be released. I mean you can't just let them loose in Niagara Falls unless you want 30 Beluga Whales falling on top of the Maid of the Mist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's funny how they didn't have any problem paying the huge expense of bringing them there but suddenly money is scarce when it is time to take care of them or brigning them back.

    They should be legally required to pay to fix it. To me this is no different than an oil company having to pay to cleanup whenever they make a spill.

  • source
  • parent
  • 32 comments in c/canada@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    This is the strangest hostage movie ever

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    fuck off, if you open a zoo or marine park knowing you can't afford it, you deserve to be euthanized instead.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    You missed the point: this was a transfer of live animals as part of an orderly shutdown of a decades-old park that was wildly successful in its time. Without the rmtransfer the animals will either starve or be euthanized.

    These animals cannot be released or they'll be dead in no time.

    The official blocking the removal of the animals to a new habitat simply doesn't understand that there is no life for these animals outside a proper enclosure.

    Marineland became dicks. But this is them being least-bad. Let them shut down as best as possible, or it's Whale Stew for weeks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It could be argued that finding a new home for them is worse in the long run as it has more potential to prolong abuse and captivity of whales. If the new home loosens their standards and started abusing the whales, new whales could be brought in and abused as the older ones pass away. Euthanasing could bring an end to that cycle, although none of options here are particularly good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Everyone is screaming about the treatment (and I mean justifiable), but no one is willing to offer an actual solution. I ain't an expert on the topic of Beluga whales, but I mean if a wild release was possible and the best solution, why aren't these people getting involved then? Likely because it's maybe not the best solution.

    So that leaves the government of Ontario to step in, and OK, but problem remains the same. All these supposed sanctuaries that people want them to live in, again, where are they and why aren't they stepping in? Because such a thing might not exist.

    Would love to be totally wrong here, but this has the makings of a boondoggle.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    What would take longer to kill them, starving or the allegedly guaranteed death from releasing them?

    Seems to me that they'd stand a better chance in the wild compared to being left in a tank to starve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Fuck them.

    Seize marineland and all their assets. Use the funds to transport them back to the wild. If not enough $ then run a fund to help and govt cover whatever is needed to finish the job.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    They can never be released in the wild.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    Maybe a ocean area blocked off and they get retrained and released.

    Edit seems they can

    https://savedolphins.eii.org/campaigns/fow

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiko_(orca)

    They tried this with the whale from Free Willy, and the whale failed to adapt to the wild before dying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Love how your source doesn't actually say the orca released only lived a little while before dying

    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3700297

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    It shows hope for the future. It would be bleaker if we did not keep trying. The alternative is life in a cement jail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Does it?

    It shows dying early deaths. Is that better than a life in a (better) captive place?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Definitely, trial and error for a solution is better than giving up. The long term as a solution would provide forever after that point.

    Some deaths would provide for no deaths in the future.

    Just my plebe thoughts is all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    And as fair as that view is, I wouldn't do "trial and error involving the likelihood of death" on humans, or for me, most (if not all) living creatures.

    So that's gonna be a controversial sell, and using "save the dolphins" that leave out crucial info isnt going to be it..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I agree it’s untenable.

    There would be many peops that agree to take that risk on.

    Even though, it would be a no go right from the start due to funding and as you mentioned harm to others.

    The thought I had is far beyond my pay grade so to speak but would not a few deaths on either side be worth it to save many many more in the future?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago

    🎶 Everyone haaaaaaaates Marineland 🎶

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Euthanize the owners.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Whale what's the porpoise of euthanizing them when they can just release them into the Niagara river near the park and let the falls do the work?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Shit, you have something there bud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I do seriously wonder when marine mammals will end up the Great Lakes. Like a seal population in the 1000 islands might be a thing our lifetime given climate change

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Sucks but it’s way better than forcing them to live in Marineland

  • source