In the March issue of Dog's Today, veterinarian Ian Dunbar has an interesting line.
After telling us that "science based training techniques are the best way of getting good, reliable results," and explaining that he never uses any aversive corrections when he dog trains, and that he even dislikes leashes because "leash training gives owners a false sense of security," he asks "I mean, how on earth would you reprimand a naughty killer whale?"
Right.
Dunbar is a pure "click and treat" dog trainer. He runs a dog training school in California, and he has written dog training books. I said nice things about him (and every other dog trainer who has ever written a book) in the March issue of Dog's Today, even as I explained the limits of his type of pure-positive training.
As for Killer Whales, you would think their name might be a caution.
You might think Ian Dunbar would have done a little research on this animal before writing about them.
You see, there are only 47 captive Orcas in the world, but these animals have attacked their positive-training handlers dozens of times, and have actually killed five of them.
The latest fatality occured today at Sea World.
I cannot tell the story or raise the issues better than Heather Houlahan does over at her blog, Raised by Wolves, so go over there to read her take on it all. And be sure to read it all.
As for Ian Dunbar, I have good news for him: there appears to be a new opening for a trainer of Killer Whales at Sea World.
.
11 comments:
Ian Dunbar, listen up. Leashes, like lead ropes on horses, are there in case things do not go exactly according to Hoyle. My horses walk beside me on their lead ropes, which remain a bit slack, until/unless I need to make a correction. Then, it's THERE when I need it. Leashes on dogs are there for the same reason. Your leash or your lead rope do not train the animals tethered by them, the handler does. Or doesn't, depending on how well they can train. Anyone who trains animals solely with positive reinforcement is a fool. Sometimes we ALL need a correction, and you can bet your sweet ass if you deal with them for any amount of time, your animal will correct you if you don't train them in a balanced manner. Of all of my animals, the ones I have to watch the most (and I'm careful around all of my animals) are my parrots. They are still the closest thing to a wild animal I will keep, and they can do real damage if you put yourself in harm's way. People who deal with orcas, wolves, chimps, etc. are really rolling the dice.
Seahorse
Orcas don't belong in captivity.
I don't care what the method is.
No killer whales in captivity.
Keeping one of these animals in a tank is like putting me in a concrete box on Mars.
Whatever limits to a training method exist--
THESE ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE IN CAPTIVITY AT ALL.
They serve no purpose at in captivity. We already know that these animals aren't devils. We have the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
But they do make their owners lots of money.
Their lives are dramatically shortened in captivity.
And the acoustics of a concrete tank for a creature like this have got to be absolute torture.
No wonder these animals go off.
I'm surprised that more of them don't go off.
BTW, do you think that Cesar Millan could handle that whale?
I can see him shting right down that thing's gullet.
I think there's a reason Cesar got into dogs.
They're not whales.
I so totally think that Ian Dunbar should apply as a whale trainer, since he is a DOG trainer, of course. Because there is SO MUCH SIMILARITY between DOGS and and nonDOG animal. To an extent, that is. Is the point where a dog ceases to be a whale/chicken/pigeon/elephant/etc, the point where it becomes a DOG?
Marine mammals have their uses in captivity, but it should not be entertainment. Which should mean that the majority of them do not belong there. And I question my own sentiments in that there is enough research going on about them in the wild and they can be docile enough to let humans around them, so why contain them? I know the jist of where I stand on this issue, but not the particulars.
"... according to Hoyle"
Always makes me think of "Guys and Dolls." (It's used in a line from Sky Masterson's dialoque.)
And yes, Ms. Houlahan's post is a MUST-READ.
A news bimbo sitting in for Anderson Cooper last night was interviewing Jack Hannah. She was going on about the Killer whale attack yesterday, all agitated. Then the stupiest thing I have heard in quite awhile came out of her mouth.
She asked Jack Hannah( paraphrasing here), "If a pit bull kills even 1 person, that animal is put down. This animal has killed 3 people, what should be done with him"? You should have seen the look on Jack Hannah's face.
Hey Lady! They're named Killer Whales, they are wild animals not a domesticated animal gone bad. My sister saw this too and commented to me today, that CNN must have found her on craigslist.
Point well taken, but I would also point out that the breed is called a "Pit Bull" for a reason.
The dog is called a Pit Bull because it was orginally a dog used to grab cattle by the face to hold them for slaugter or alteration. The "Pit" part of the name comes from their historical and continued use as fighting dogs.
This not unimportant. A Pit Bull is not a wild animal, but it is also has a genetic code inside it. It is NOT the same genetic code you will find in a Pointer, a Greyhound or a Retriever.
In short, there is a reason the Freedicitonary defines a Pit Bull as "One who behaves in a markedly aggressive or ruthless manner."
For more on this see an earlier post entitled "That Chimpanzee Went Chimpanzee" at >> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/02/that-chimpanzee-went-chimpanzee.html
Also soo this post >> "When Pit Bulls (with or without lipstick) Go Rogue" at >>
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-pit-bulls-with-or-without-lipstick.html
P.
Point well taken, but I would also point out that the breed is called a "Pit Bull" for a reason.
The dog is called a Pit Bull because it was orginally a dog used to grab cattle by the face to hold them for slaugter or alteration. The "Pit" part of the name comes from their historical and continued use as fighting dogs.
This not unimportant. A Pit Bull is not a wild animal, but it is also has a genetic code inside it. It is NOT the same genetic code you will find in a Pointer, a Greyhound or a Retriever.
In short, there is a reason the Freedicitonary defines a Pit Bull as "One who behaves in a markedly aggressive or ruthless manner."
For more on this see an earlier post entitled "That Chimpanzee Went Chimpanzee" at >> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/02/that-chimpanzee-went-chimpanzee.html
Also see this post >> "When Pit Bulls (with or without lipstick) Go Rogue" at >>
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-pit-bulls-with-or-without-lipstick.html
P.
The guys at the grocery store meat counter were talking about it this morning. One of the butchers says, "He's a 'killer' whale -- a whale that kills things for a living. Why is this such a freaking surprise?"
Reminds me of the Chris Rock line about the SF Zoo tiger who chomped on the idiots who were tormenting her: "That tiger didn't go crazy. That tiger went TIGER."
Ironically enough, one expert is saying that Tillikum went "Killer whale" on that trainer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaH4yPMvXbE
Thanks for the link Viatecio! I may use that as a stepping off to talk about the grizzly story behind early Orca captures.
P
Great post! Very good points.
Like some others who have commented, I also believe killer whales should not be kept in captivity. And I'm no expert on this animal, but I'm guessing like every other animal they are trained best with a combination of rewards and negative associations, not just treats, treats, treats!
Post a Comment