kathooper  asked:

For some reason every time I try to reblog it's deleting the text above mine? That's really interesting to learn though. It made sense to not take an animal with a virus at that time, but I can't imagine the headache and heartache it would've saved in the long run (with Tilikum being at SeaWorld, not Keiko's release). I don't usually like "eyewitness account" type novels so I haven't read Death at SeaWorld (or Killing Keiko) yet, so I totally missed that annotation, thank you!

Yeah, seen alone, not taking Keiko makes sense. Had the release not happened or whatever, I wouldn’t be as annoyed about it because a contagious virus is totally a reason to not take an animal. Plus, Keiko’s PV was bad when he was at Reino Aventura and even knowing it can clear up, and it did clear up, I look at the pics and am like “okay, that’s gross.” But – SeaWorld continues to claim that Keiko’s release was a “failure” and that he would have survived longer in captivity and whatshisface wrote that Killing Keiko book and I’m like – really????? You had two opportunities to take him and you didn’t, and you took a bull that had been involved in a trainer death over him, so you have no leg to stand on here and get all self-righteous about captivity and Keiko’s release.

Plus, SeaWorld interfered heavily in the attempts to line up who was going to take Keiko and rehab him, etc. So it makes it even worse.

Death at SeaWorld isn’t really an eyewitness account novel? Kirby is a journalist who worked with the NYT and has written a few other nonfiction books about animals. Death at SeaWorld also starts all the way back at the beginning of the captivity industry, and it relies heavily on documentation, and looks at other animals in addition to Tilikum (i.e., Kanduke, Gudrun, etc.). He obviously started on the book after Dawn’s death, though. Sometimes he gets a bit long winded when talking about human backstories (he includes like, Ventre and Rose’s childhoods and how they got involved with orcas, for example) so I skim those.

But yeah – not really “eyewitness.” More like “investigative journalism.”