Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Good Mammal Goes Bad, Bites Hand that Doesn’t Feed It

From PJTV’s Trifecta: Scott Ott, Bill Whittle, Steve Green.

I’m afraid the guys are making sarcastic jokes here and there while telling the story (with film) of this dreadful event at Sea World. Something must be done!

9 minutes.


  1. John Galt says:

    I’m not sure what is worse, the fact that these three idiots are barely suppressing sniggers or the fact that we live in a world where we keep sentient, intelligent creatures in aquatic cages and let people pay to have their children feed them fish.

    Actually, I find both utterly repulsive.

  2. RAB says:

    Yes, the Three Dimigo’s indeed.

    Though some of their comments could be taken as riffing on Obama’s new welfare state.

    I’m with you John, keeping such magnificent creatures in jail for our amusement is a crime.

  3. Kevin B says:

    Come on guys! Are you serious?

    Of course it’s a sarcastic riff on the welfare state. Creature loses liberty in exchange for food, but when food stops coming it gets aggressive.

    And as for the three dimigos, Scott ‘Scrappleface’ Ott walks the walk by getting himself elected as a small government candidate in his local county, Bill Whittle with his Afterburner series on YouTube does an helluva lot for putting the small government conservative case to a lot of people, and while Steve Green only drunkblogs candidate debates, it’s a tough job but somebody’s got to do it.

  4. Julie near Chicago says:

    I know that many people disapprove of zoos, aquaria, and suchlike, and not only do I see their point but my gut somewhat agrees–until my head kicks in.

    Most people would never make the acquaintance of these creatures, personally, without the zoos and aquaria. Thus, most people would never be in a position to begin to appreciate them as distinct creatures and not mere fairytale fiction, with their own lives in the wild.

    But because of the zoos and so forth, and now with the technology we have that allows to capture snippets of these lives on films, we have the opportunity to meet the animals “up close and personal” and to gain some understanding of how they live as well (which includes “nature red in tooth and claw”)–which is what, really, leads to the awareness and ability of some to squawk about “cages.”

    Yet zoos here and I think in most of the civilized countries have worked toward ever more wildlike “environments” for the animals, and away from the “animals in cages” presentations. And they also work to keep certain species from going extinct–even though some animals will not breed “in captivity.” Dolphin breeding programs are an example

    So many of these same “animal-lovers” think that DOGS should be kept in “crates.” At least in the house. And certainly at bedtime.

    The same people who are so disapproving of zoos.

    Which is to me just incomprehensible.

    Of course, “indoors dogs” (and cats) are kept in “cages” anyway–by definition of “indoors.” And more and more we are not supposed to let them roam free even outside.

    So no, I do not abhor zoos and aquariums and private “nature preserves” (which although spacious still restrict the comings and goings of many animals), nor livestock farms where the stock, such as buffalo or ostriches or whatever, may well be “exotic” (and what difference does “exoticness” make anyway?) –provided the animals are treated humanely and have good lives, and at the end are slaughtered swiftly and painlessly.

    And I have not given up meat, nor fish, recently.

  5. RAB says:

    I’ll talk to Kevin B, first I think. Thanks for the explanation Kev. Having never laid eyes on any of those three characters before, and viewed the video only once, I think I did rather well to discern that a certain amount of Michael was being extracted from just that raw material. But I’m a Brit and we never know what is supposed to be humour or satire on American TV anymore. They could have just been filling space on some obscure channel in a run up to the adverts couldn’t they? I have seen much funnier stuff, except it was meant in dead seriousness, on ABC, CBS and various other alphabet soup American networks.

    Now then Julie, don’t get me wrong here, I am not against Zoos per se. Some species thrive in them, others being so rare, can only be conserved in them; Giant Pandas spring to mind, who without our help would have been extinct long ago. Mainly because they are too stupid to look after themselves in the wild and too lazy to get laid even ( I might just be indulging in a little Welfare State satirising myself here Kev, waddia think?). And as I have many Farmer relatives I have no problems with animal husbandry, or eating them as the end product. Yum Yum.

    But I do have a problem with keeping intelligent sentient mammals like Dolphins in captivity. If I want to see dolphins then I know where I can go and see them in the habitat they should and deserve to be in, in the Ocean. I can put on a wet suit and swim with them, if they will let me. Or I can ride a boat and watch them follow the wake and delight in their antics and take pics and videos of them. I do not want to interact with them as a circus act.

    In the age of David Attenborough’s endless documentaries, where I can watch Lions screwing, bringing down Antelope, ripping out their guts and feeding their young (not often on offer at Bristol Zoo… one of the oldest in the world) I don’t think I will feel deprived if I didn’t see one up close, bored out of its mind in a cage to gather some knowledge and experience of them.

    If the only way we can preserve a species is to put them in a zoo, because their natural habitat has been destroyed or under serious threat, then fair enough, but otherwise let them be.

  6. John Galt says:

    I believe RAB’s position pretty much agrees with my own.

    Just because the Victorians thought it was amusing to pay to walk around Bethlehem Asylum or have a local bear-pit like they did in Headingley, doesn’t mean that we should continue such practices as the 21st Century really begins to pick up steam.

    For lower-level creatures that don’t have the mental capacity to understand they are in a prison, I don’t think it matters too much (insects and the like), but certainly for higher-level creatures who have the ability to comprehend their surroundings then zoos seem a barbarous and outdated practice.

    RAB is quite right that there are some animals whose numbers have declined to such a low level that they are only being prevented from total extinction by human intervention, then of course there is justification to do so, but even in those circumstances I would argue against zoos.

    It seems to me that conserving them within enclosed natural habitats or reserves is a much better way of intervening but without interfering beyond what must be done for the preservation of the species.

    Just because people, especially children enjoy having close exposure and even direct contact with wild animals does not mean that we should. As with slave labour and sending children down chimney’s, it might have made sense in the past, for whatever reason – but it no longer does.

  7. John Galt says:

    On the matter of house dogs & cats, who are never allowed outdoors, I agree that this is cruel as well. It doesn’t matter how small they are, even the tinniest Yorkshire Terriers and Chihuahuas shouldn’t be forever trapped indoors.

    Dogs need to run around, jump, splash, frolic in the mud, run madly across rivers and bark at never reachable ducks in the middle of lakes, but most of all run up-hill-and-down dale for the sheer doggie heavenliness of being a dog. Preferably a red setter with a tongue that hangs down from his mouth like a slice of cured ham, characteristic of the breeds perpetual befuddlement.

    Cats need to hunt so they can secrete that lovely trap of mouse entrails just where you step barefoot into the bathroom in the morning, or alternately give their human staff exercise by dragging a baby rabbit through the cat-flap with half its ears chewed off and then hunt it round the living room with blood getting everywhere.

  8. Julie near Chicago says:

    Well, to an extent we agree and to an extent we disagree. I think it’s very good for the higher life-forms on the planet that children who live, say, in Kansas, or in the ghet-to (of whatever variety), for whom wetsuit diving in the ocean among the dolphins or going on safari in Africa is not necessarily on offer, are still able to meet them, enjoy them, and develop at an early age the sense of our connectedness with them. It is precisely that that tends to foster the kinds of feelings that RAB and JG have toward them.

    But I haven’t seen any evidence that dolphins or dogs or kitties or elephants or pigs or horses or … all of which are highly trainable and some of which possibly have some sense of self-awareness are really capable of capable of the kind of intelligence (in the broadest possible sense) that would make it wrong to treat them as pets–which is essentially what the better type of trainers and showmen do.

    And let us not forget that the trainers or workers-with-the-animals are also learning about them, about what kind of creatures they are, and so about what ARE the humane ways of treating them. And that, again, the shows move some of the children to what can become a profession in biology, or animal psychology, or animal conservation, or….

    It’s from just such experiences as this that our sense of animals as independent creatures has developed, to the point that we no longer allow the bear-pits (which I assume were dreadfully inhumane, from the way you speak of them — to me, that’s a new term). Observe how the discussion having moved to the issue of what constitutes mistreatment, with the lower bar rather far from the ground already.

    Also, it seems to me that a great many seemingly-unlikely animals are in fact quite happy making friends with us, if they are encouraged to do so from infancy–like the Siberian tigers. The fact that they sometimes damage or kill their human friends is no contradiction to that.

    JG…unfortunately, even indoor kitties occasionally leave little love-presents in the wrong spot. So sad. I really think that people who have pets in the house should forgo carpet. :>))

  9. Julie near Chicago says:

    Also, I apologize for springing “Trifecta” on you folks. I have been criticized in the past for assuming people were unaware of this or that notable, so I erred in the other direction.

    Bill Whittle is at the more conservative (American-conservative) end of the conservative-libertarian spectrum; Scott Ott is really at the strongly-libertarian end (not so far as “anarcho-capitalist” so-called, though, I think); and I’d put Stephen Green, “Vodkapundit,” in between them somewhere.

    Kevin B is right about them.

    Look for something more to your liking (I hope) from either Mr. Whittle or the whole gang, soon. :>))

  10. RAB says:

    Well you move in such exalted circles don’t you Julie? 😉

    Not knowing a damn thing about any of them, my comment ….

    Though some of their comments could be taken as riffing on Obama’s new welfare state.

    Wasn’t bad was it?

  11. John Galt says:

    I’m happy to agree to differ on the zoos good or bad argument – we’re all adults around here…some of the time at least…and being libertarian is by necessity a very broad church (as there are too few folks in a big empty space)

    Your “Trifecta” guys might be great American satirists, but I suspect without a bit more introduction us yokels from the old world just end up scratching or heads, sucking on our proverbial straws and going “eh?”

    Happy to be told that I’m in a minority of one though.

  12. CountingCats says:

    Dolphins are animals, not people. As such, they can legitimately be treated as animals.

    Intelligent? Sure, so are dogs, or at least, they are more intelligent than turtles and stick insects.

    Are they as intelligent as humans? Pull the other one. Myth, tree hugger fantasy.

    As for the three coves, I have enjoyed watching Bill Whittle for years now. Hasn’t everyone?

    Truly, do you never, ever, ever go to Pyjamas Media? Really? Hot Air? No? Gosh.

    I’m with JnC on this. Ditto Kevin B. You guys have been listening to way too much Agenda 21 propaganda.

  13. Julie near Chicago says:

    RAB…”Exalted circles”–the heck of it is…the dude in question is on our mutual libertarian (U.S.) yahoo group (and has been for at least 8 or 9 years I think, and a pretty active participant), and I mentioned Detlev Schlechter without introduction, and he got all offended that I would mention this person as if assuming everyone knew who he was.

    So I proceeded to explain, and gave brief descriptions about several Austrians, sort-of and actual, including Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff (the investors–you know them, right?) and, as a joke, Thomas Sowell (and, I thought, made it clear I was teasing).

    And was promptly read the riot act by the same guy, who asked how I dared to assume that someone who’s as well-read as he would not know the people on my list.

    *Sigh*…can’t win for losing, I guess. :>)!

    I think really my exalted circles are confined to CCiZ and Samizdata. And I do try not to knock over the furniture as I charge around flinging verbiage in all directions….

    No, dear, your comment wasn’t bad and neither was JG’s. I just have a little different take on the issue, that’s all.

    Give Miss BonkersDog a special scratch for me and we’ll call it even. :>))

  14. RAB says:

    ” I just have a little different take on the issue, that’s all. ”

    That’s all we need to get along round here after all isn’t it? 😉

  15. Julie near Chicago says:


  16. RAB says:

    Bonkers dog duly scratched. Her anal glands were excised yesterday too, you wouldn’t want to be around for that!

    You guys have been listening to way too much Agenda 21 propaganda.

    From them, or about them Cats? Frankly I’ve been deaf to either. There may be Machiavellians out there, but the cock up and cover up theory is my first personal choice. Hence we stumble towards oblivion with the fourth rate fuckwits we currently call Govt.

  17. CountingCats says:

    RAB, that was a tongue in cheek reference to the ‘dolphins are smart’ meme.

    Sure they are smart, about as smart as dogs and elephants, but no smarter. They deserve the same level of consideration as well.

    Sure, don’t be cruel to the things, but they are animals, not people. Ditto chimps for that matter.

  18. John Galt says:

    Have to agree with RAB again on the Agenda 21 thing, yet another desperate cry of “will someone please think of the children / dolphins / polar bears / Gaia” from the worlds most pointless institution.

    The conspiracy nuts have attempted to blow Agenda 21 out of all proportion citing overturning property rights and other such nonsense, but as a completely non-binding initiative it has as much vim as the boy scouts pledge.

    The site policy for CCiZ clearly states “Those who propose conspiracy theories will be deemed idiots.”. That sounds like a good idea, lets do that then.

    I have no pressing agenda (21 or otherwise) for dolphins, polar bears or penguins and suggest that if they want fish, they should go out and get a bloody job like everyone else.

  19. NickM says:

    I once dated a girl who had a grade A at A-level in maths. She couldn’t do physics for toffee and got an ordinary degree. Her maths was spot-on mind. How precisely does one compare “intelligence” or “sentience” or whatever? And what is it like to be a bat?

    No idea. Now obviously some critters are smarter than others. A Hamster is clearly dimmer than a chimp for example but God knows how you figure it out. A falcon undoubtedly knows in it’s bones more about air than a fighter pilot could hope to ever learn but do you want one at the throttle and stick when the engine warning light starts blinking? Horses for courses and all.

    I’ve known people who can’t factorize a quadratic and people who can do tensor calculus but couldn’t make head nor tail of “Hamlet”. Who is smarter? Or figure me this out. I’m monolingual (apart from computers, natch). I couldn’t order a ham sandwich in a Krakow Subway but I’m a Scrabble ace and usually beat my wife who is a linguist and therefore can order a sandwich anywhere in Europe.

    It’s skill-sets not this bizarre generalisation called IQ (or whatever) that matter. So maybe we judge animals wrongly. Certainly aquatic ones. The octopus is mighty smart and we are only just realizing this. Why should we be special?

    As a bizarre aside I have a feory… I think if and when we ever create AI or meet aliens or whatever they’ll be incomprehensibly different from us. It won’t be Star-Trek and basically the same but with peculiar cranial ridges but just utterly different.

  20. CountingCats says:

    “they should go out and get a bloody job like everyone else”

    In that case it is sorted then. They have a job, amusing and educating people. For this they get paid, in fish.

  21. Philip Scott Thomas says:

    Nick –

    I think you’re coming at it with the wrong argument.

    Analogy: You know how whenever the question of the Television Licence Fee comes up it always devolves into a question of whether the quality of the Beeb’s output is worth the licence fee or not? It always devolves into a panto-esque ‘Oh, yes it is’ v. ‘Oh, no it’s not’ argument. But that’s asking the wrong question. The correct question is whether a licence fee in itself is an appropriate way of funding a broadcaster.

    Well, questions of the relative intelligence of species are similarly the wrong questions. As Cats said, “they are animals, not people”. Animals have a nature different from people. The rights we ascribe to people are based on that different nature.

    There’s a whole load of philosophical guff behind all that. Centuries worth, actually. Questions about human v. animal nature. Accusations of reductionism and denials of the existence of such a thing as human nature. It’s a whole post in itself. And tonight probably isn’t the best time to be addressing that question, wine being what it is. :-)

  22. RAB says:

    “They have a job, amusing and educating people. For this they get paid, in fish.”

    Er Prisoners used to sew mailbags and work on treadmills, for which they got free lumpy gruel too.

    Yes Philip we have to be careful of the whole “Rights” thing, or we’ll be getting headlines like…

    Freddy Starr married my Hamster… 😉

    Treat ’em right according to their nature, not give ’em rights they can’t possibly understand or enforce.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *