Join #FOWLERNATION!! http://bit.ly/SubscribeFowlerNation
This week a California state legislator proposed legislation that would ban killer whale shows at SeaWorld in San Diego. The bill would outlaw orca performances, ban captive breeding programs, and prohibit the export of whales out of the state. Existing whales would be retired to sea pens or permitted to be displayed but not performed. SeaWorld argues the law would likely be invalid under the state and federal constitutions. But prominent animal law experts contacted by ThinkProgress strongly disagree.
The legislation is a response, in part, to the controversial documentary Blackfish which alleged that SeaWorld subjected killer whales to mistreatment and exposed trainers to extreme danger. In 2010, a orca named Tilikum killed trainer Dawn Brancheau. It was the third death linked to Tilikum, who still performs at Sea World in Florida.
In response to the new legislation, SeaWorld suggested the bill, even if enacted would be struck down. “The premise behind this proposed legislation is severely flawed on multiple levels, and its validity is highly questionable under the United States and California Constitutions,” Seaworld spokeswoman Becca Bides said in a statement. Bides dismissed that bill as the work of “extreme animal rights activists, many of whom regularly campaign against SeaWorld and other accredited marine mammal parks and institutions.”
But four leading animal law experts contacted by ThinkProgress believe that, if SeaWorld challenged the law, they would not be successful.
Any constitutional challenge would likely fall under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibits “takings” of private property “without due process of law” or “just compensation.” (Article I, Section 19 of the California constitution contains similar language.) SeaWorld could argue that prohibiting killer whale performances and other restrictions in the bill constitutes a taking of their property.
Kathy Hessler, a law professor and the Director of the Animal Law Clinic at Lewis & Clark Law School, noted that the “right to own wild animals has always been highly qualified and has been largely regulated.” Hessler cited existing regulations on “the transportation, breeding and exhibition of certain animals,” as well as OSHA regulations limiting human interaction with different species. Therefore, it is not at all clear that additional restrictions on the ownership of orcas would constitute a taking under state or federal law. Even if the new law was ruled a taking by a court, SeaWorld “would be entitled to due process and to compensation.” But it would not invalidate the law.
Hessler’s analysis was echoed by other top animal law scholars. Gary L. Francione, law professor at Rutgers and author of numerous books on animal law, told ThinkProgress: “I am not sure on what basis anyone claims that this violates the federal Constitution. I suppose that they might argue that it is a taking of property that requires compensation but I think that is weak.”
3 Steps To Join #FowlerNation!
1. Subscribe To The Fowler Show:
http://bit.ly/SubscribeFowlerNation
2. ‘Like’ The Richard Fowler Show on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/RichardFowler…
3. ‘Follow’ Us on Twitter
http://www.twitter.com/fowlershow
Are you a fan of The Fowler Show? Become a Patron & help support independent media! Learn more here:
http://www.patreon.com/fowlershow
Want to help out but don’t have any money to donate? Donate your account & help us get our stories out on social media. Learn more here:
http://www.donateyouraccount.com/fowl…
If you liked this clip, share it with your friends and hit that “like” button!
1,500 Subscriber Behind The Scenes Reward Video –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT9x1P…
Subscribe to our Podcast on iTunes for free!
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/t…
@fowlershow
@richardafowler
http://www.facebook.com/richardfowler…
http://www.fowlershow.com
http://fowlershow.tumblr.com/
Comments
Sorry, but I disagree most intently, as long as the whales are treated humanely and have room to move I can see no reason to prohibit the exhibits. And, Sir … you have less freedom in your environment than those animals do. If the trainers accept “harms way” that is up to them – YOU have no say in the matter. AND – I do not accept your statement that the whales are in harms way. On the contrary, I think they are more protected. So .. shut your mouth.