Tag Archives: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Amusing Monday: Colbert talks drugs with Sammy the Salmon

Stephen Colbert: “Environmental scientists — this is true — have tested salmon in the Puget Sound out around Seattle. And they found that, because those salmon are near all these wastewater-treatment plants, the salmon are full of drugs, including Prozac. I don’t blame them, because if I spent all my life living in wastewater, I would definitely need a mood stabilizer.”

Stephen Colbert dedicated a portion of his “Late Show” with a humorous take on a recent scientific report about how drugs are passing through people’s bodies and ending up in Puget Sound, where they can affect fish, including salmon. This video has been viewed about 216,000 times since it was posted last Tuesday.

In the four-minute video, Colbert goes on to have a conversation with Sammy the Salmon, who seems clearly affected by the drugs he has been consuming.

On the serious side, you can read about the study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in a Kitsap Sun story by reporter Tristan Baurick. Tristan’s story inspired me to write a “Water Ways” post about one possible solution being studied: building enhanced treatment processes into existing wastewater plants.

In other humorous news, perhaps you’ve seen the new SeaWorld commercial called “The new future of SeaWorld.” The ad promotes SeaWorld’s decision to quit breeding killer whales and to halt its theatrical shows with orcas but not to move them out of their tanks. Recall Water Ways, March 17.

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, quickly posted a parody that you can watch in the second video player on this page.

If SeaWorld Ads Told The Truth

What if SeaWorld's new commercial told the truth? "Because you know what whales hate? The ocean." #LOL

Posted by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) on Tuesday, March 29, 2016

One other bit of humor came out in print last week as an April Fool’s joke from the Center for Biological Diversity. Here’s a quick sample from “Endangered Earth online.”

  • “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this week confirmed rumors that the comb-over wilderness atop the pate of presidential contender Donald J. Trump is indeed “critical habitat” for more than 300 endangered species.”
  • “The Center’s innovative ‘Take Extinction Off Your Plate’ campaign — aimed at reducing meat consumption for the sake of people’s and the planet’s health — announced today it would be baking 10,000 kale-lentil muffins and delivering them to needy gray wolves across the West.”
  • “The Center went to federal court this week to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent finding that smooth jazz is ‘perfectly safe’ for people and wildlife.”

Lolita, the captive orca, could gain endangerd status

Lolita, a killer whale taken from Puget Sound in 1970 and placed in a Miami aquarium, could be reclassified as an endangered species, along with other endangered Southern Resident orcas. At the moment, Lolita is not listed at all.

Lolita lives alone in a tank at Miami's Seaquarium. Photo courtesy of Orca Network
Lolita lives alone in a tank at Miami’s Seaquarium. Photo courtesy of Orca Network

NOAA Fisheries announced today that PETA — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals — has provided adequate documentation to consider whether captive orcas (specifically Lolita) should be listed along with their counterparts still roaming free.

One must not presume, however, that because NOAA has accepted PETA’s petition that a listing will follow, agency officials stressed.

I was under the impression, from talking to NOAA officials last year, that we would soon know whether or not the entire Southern Resident population would be taken off the Endangered Species List, as proposed by Pacific Legal Foundation. But that decision appears to be delayed for consideration of the Lolita petition.

“The agency said to make sure that its review is complete and based on the best available science it would now solicit any new information about Lolita’s genetic heritage and status to include in the ongoing status review,” NOAA said in a news release. “A finding on the delisting petition is due next January.”

PETA filed its petition on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Orca Network and four individuals. The 33-page petition, filed in January, applies only to Lolita, since the 35 other killer whales captured in Puget Sound have died, the petition notes. Documents — including the Lolita petition — can be found on NOAA Fisheries’ website. I discussed PLF’s delisting petition and provided links to related documents in Water Ways last Oct. 24.

The PETA petition strongly challenges the reasons for ever leaving Lolita out of the endangered population:

“No explanation was offered for Lolita’s exclusion from the listing because no legitimate explanation exists. Lolita’s biological heritage is undisputed. The Endangered Species Act unquestionably applies to captive members of a species, and the wholesale exclusion of captive members of a listed species is in excess of the agency’s authority.

“Lolita’s exclusion serves only one purpose: It protects the commercial interests of the Miami Seaquarium. The Endangered Species Act specifically precludes agency consideration of whether listing a species would cause the holder of any member of the species any economic harm. Thus Lolita’s exclusion violates the act.

“This petition urges the National Marine Fisheries Service to rectify this unjustified and illegal exclusion, thereby extending Endangered Species Act protections to all members of the Southern Resident killer whale population.

“Although as a legal matter Lolita’s genetic heritage is sufficient to merit her listing, this petition provides additional support in four sections. The first section provides the factual background regarding the Southern Resident killer whales’ listing and Lolita’s exclusion. The second section explains the application of the act to captive members of listed species. The third section applies the five factors that govern listing decisions under the act to the Southern Resident killer whales generally and also to Lolita. The fourth section considers policy reasons that support Lolita’s protection, given her significant scientific value to the wild population.”

Legal actions swirl around orcas Morgan and Lolita

UPDATE: Dec. 13, 2012

Advocates for the release of Morgan have failed in their appeal to overturn the court ruling that transferred the young killer whale to Loro Parque, a Spanish amusement park. An appeals court ruled that the transfer was not unlawful. See today’s Dutch News

Barbara van Genne of Orca Coalition:

“Morgan is provisionally kept in Tenerife. Fortunately, in Spain animal protectors are attracting the fate of the orca and want to continue our fight there. We’ll continue to monitor Morgan and we will help where we can. And in the Netherlands we focus on the future, to ensure that stranded cetaceans will no longer fall in the hands of the commercial industry. The fact that the license for the care of these animals is no longer in the name of the amusement park Dolfinarium, but in the name of SOS Dolphin, is a good first step.”

—–

UPDATE: Nov. 29

Morgan was loaded into a plane today and flown to her new home in Loro Parque, an amusement park on the Spanish island of Tenerife. The transport, which involved trucks on both ends of the trip, was uneventful.

Toby Sterling covered the story for the Associated Press.
—–
UPDATE: Nov. 21

A Dutch court ruled this morning that Morgan may be sent to live at Loro Parque aquarium, ruling against advocates who had hoped to reunite the young orca with her family in Norway.

In a written finding, Judge M. de Rooij said chances of the female whale surviving in the wild were “too unsure,” according to a report by Toby Sterling of the Associated Press.

“Morgan can be transferred to Loro Parque for study and education to benefit the protection or maintenance of the species,” she was quoted as saying.

Reactions among supporters for her release are being compiled on the Free Morgan website.

Ingrid Visser, who helped lay the scientific groundwork for Morgan’s release, was quoted as saying the only hope for Morgan now now lie with the Spanish courts or the Norwegian government.

“Personally, I am devastated that after all these months of fighting the good fight, to find that reason and science lost over money and ulterior motives,” Visser wrote on the Free Morgan page. “Our long-term goal of establishing laws to ever prevent an animal in need being turned into an animal used for profit and personal gain will not stop with Morgan’s incarceration.”
—–

Separate legal actions continue to swirl around two famous killer whales, Morgan and Lolita.

The fate of Morgan, the orphan killer whale, lies with an Amsterdam judge who is scheduled to decide tomorrow if the orca should be moved permanently to an aquarium in Spain or be taken to a coastal location where she might be reunited with her family.
said

Steve Hearn, head trainer at Dolfinarium Harderwijk, plays with Morgan at feeding time two weeks ago.
Associated Press photo by Peter Dejong

Morgan, estimated to be 3 to 5 years old, was rescued in poor condition last year in the Wadden Sea and was nursed back to health in a marine park called Harderwijk Dolfinarium. Advocates for her release say Morgan is being commercially exploited in violation of international law regarding marine mammals.

As for Lolita, animal-rights groups in the United States filed a lawsuit last week regarding the killer whale captured in Puget Sound in 1970 and kept in the Miami Seaquarium almost her entire life.

The new lawsuit contends that Lolita should have not have been excluded as part of the “endangered” population when the federal government listed the Southern Residents under the Endangered Species Act in 2005. The Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals say if Lolita is included among the endangered orcas, it will lead to better treatment and possibly a reunion with her relatives.

Morgan’s story

Advocates for Morgan’s release say her caretakers at the marine park did a good job nursing her back to health, but the law requires that every effort be made to release marine mammals after rehabilitation is complete.

The dolphinarium filed a report saying that it is unlikely that Morgan would be able to survive in the wild and that finding her family was unlikely. Some experts who supported that initial report have since changed their minds, however.

Dutch Agriculture Minister Henk Bleker sided with dolphinarium officials, saying moving Morgan to a large tank at Loro Parque is best under the circumstances. That decision was unchanged after the judge ruled that the ministry must conduct its own evaluation, independent of the dolphinarium.

As time goes on, experts associated with the Free Morgan Foundation say they are getting close to identifying Morgan’s family group, based on recordings of vocalizations. In the latest report, researchers Heike Vester and Filipa I. P. Samarra said, “We do consider it likely that Morgan is either from group P or a group closely related to group P,” which are among the orcas that live in Norway. Check out the report, “Comparison of Morgan’s discrete stereotyped call repertoire with a recent catalogue of Norwegian killer whale calls” (PDF 5.9 mb).

Here are the Water Ways entries I’ve posted so far about Morgan:

Aug. 3, 2011: Supporters of Morgan’s release celebrate a victory

Feb. 2, 2011: Morgan, the orphan orca, gets her own lawyer

Jan. 14, 2011: Orphan orca gains attention of whale advocates

Lolita’s new lawsuit

The Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are asking that Lolita be included in the population listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

It isn’t clear what this would accomplish, but the groups make the point that the Endangered Species Act makes some exceptions for listing animals kept in captivity, but the focus is on using those animals for recovery of the listed population and does not apply to animals kept for commercial use, the groups argue. Quoting from the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle (PDF 92 kb):

“In its final listing decision (in 2005), NMFS provided no explanation for its decision to exclude all of the captive members of the Southern Resident killer whale population from the listing of that population as endangered.

“Because of its final listing decision, NMFS has excluded Lolita from the protections of the ESA, thereby allowing her to be kept in conditions that harm and harass her, and that would otherwise be prohibited under the “take” prohibition of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a), including, but not limited to, being kept in an inadequate tank, without companions of her own species or adequate protection from the sun.”

The group asks the court to set aside the portion of the listing decision that excluded Lolita from the endangered population, because it was “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.”

Some Water Ways entries related to Lolita:

Aug. 8, 2010: Thinking of Lolita, the captive killer whale

July 15, 2010: Lolita’s fate could become linked to Gulf disaster

Jan. 23, 2008: Lolita, the orca, makes news again

Jan. 12, 2008: Celebrities and a ‘beautiful whale’

PETA protests fish-tossing at veterinary conference

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has raised objections over a planned demonstration of fish-throwing at a veterinary conference.

The idea was to invite fishmongers from Pike Place Market to toss fish around as part of their appearance at the conference of the American Veterinary Medical Association next month in Seattle. It’s part of the act at the market.

Now PETA is saying if the demonstration is to be held at all, the fish-tossers should throw rubber fish.

After watching KCPQ (Channel 13)’s story last night about PETA’s objections to the demonstration, I was ready to question PETA’s logic, if not the sanity of the group. PETA already has something of a flaky reputation.

While watching the TV news report, I was literally hooting at what seemed to be the notion that PETA was objecting to the fish-throwing at the Pike Place Market.

“These fish are dead!” I said laughing. “How can PETA say tossing fish around is disrespectful? If you want to talk about disrespect, spend some time on a fishing boat, where fish are rounded up in a net and dumped into the hold. If you want to talk about disrespect, visit a salmon hatchery, where fish are sliced open to remove the eggs. If you want to talk about disrespect, think about killing the fish, cooking the fish, cutting the fish into pieces and eating it!”

OK, I didn’t really say all that in so many words. But that was the essence of my logical argument. I thought PETA was really missing the boat, so to speak, by arguing about fish-tossing, when people have been making an honorable living from fishing for thousands of years.

Then I went to PETA’s Web site and read the press release and letter to the veterinary group. I realized that PETA had not missed these greater points at all. It was the news reports that came up short. Reporters, both television and print, were so amused by PETA’s objections to fish-tossing that they failed to pick up the nuance of PETA’s argument.

KCPQ may have realized the inadequacy of the report, as it held an in-studio interview this morning with PETA’s president Ingrid Newkirk.

It turns out that PETA is not objecting to fish-tossing in general — at least not so much in this letter. The group continues to object to the killing and eating of all animals, and believes that net fishing is a cruel way for fish to die. Organizers were making the point that veterinarians — charged with protecting and treating animals — should not celebrate such cruelty by tossing fish about in an amusing way.

PETA promotes veganism. It is pretty well established that eating lower on the food chain has less impact on the environment. I find the argument against meat-eating logical, and I have cut back my personal consumption of meat and chicken to some degree.

But some of PETA’s campaigns are so removed from common sense that a large number of people refuse to take the group seriously. PETA organizers acknowledge that they do crazy things to get attention, but maybe they should work harder on their nuanced message. To be effective, PETA representatives must make a connection with people who don’t already agree with them.

As hard as PETA tries, the message frequently seems off the mark, especially if the group is trying to reach logical people — let alone hard-bitten folks who believe in human domination over other species.

PETA’s letter protesting the fish-tossing demonstration includes this: “Surely the AVMA would not describe an event as ‘fun, educational and inspiring’ if the animals being tossed around were lambs, hamsters, or cats.”

I would have to say that most of us don’t eat hampsters or cats. Personally, the idea of tossing dead bodies does not bother me much, as long as these animals were treated well while they were alive.