The ocean is a colossal home for many aquatic animals and marine life. It is natural for animals to have endless miles of sea to explore, so how does it make sense to keep some of the largest marine animals in captivity? Killer Whales have been kept in captivity in SeaWorld and other aquatic attractions for decades for people's entertainment. I am interested if living in captivity effects Killer Whales mental health, physical well being, and if it there are differences between wild and captive Killer Whales. I am interested in this because I have always been aware of protecting the environment; and that includes that animals that live in it. I do not think it is morally right to put an animal in an unnatural, miniscule environment. The movie "Black Fish", is what originally intrigued me to do research on the topic. It was a documentary on SeaWorld and how they treat their animals. It was extremely bias against SeaWorld, so I want to take the opportunity of this paper to look at both sides. I am bias against SeaWorld as well, but I am going to be as neutral as possible in my research. The only personal experience I have is some research I have done in my free time but my no means am I an expert. I believe I'm qualified because I know more then most people about Killer Whales in captivity because I am intrigued by it. Through this project I hope to get a better grasp on the facts on the effects of Killer Whales being kept in captivity. 

My first source is written by SeaWorld on a website called "SeaWorld Cares." It is an article about what they say are false claims made in the movie, "Black Fish". The main pieces of evidence are just statements about how the Killer Whales have much better conditions then mentioned in the documentary. The article also states that the old workers from SeaWorld who spoke in film have not worked there in decades and the atmosphere of Sea World has changed since then. The interests at stake is SeaWorld losing costumers because they were influenced by the film. The whole website was made to build back credibility that they lost. Obviously, this a bias source because it was written directly by someone who works in SeaWorld. I picked this source because I wanted to find holes in it to try to disprove their claims. They do not cite any information so it is unsure if the facts they say about SeaWorld are true. 

My second source is from a data base called "NOAA Fisheries". It is just facts on Killer Whales such as, what they eat, how they travel, physical attributes, and other basic information. I needed to know basic things like this so I could compare it to the stats of whales kept in captivity. There really are no major values or interests at stake for this source. It is clearly just data written by a scientist who works for this data base. It is a credible source, there are many articles on hundreds of aquatic animals that are all very factual and helpful. It has information on where they live to how do they die to what they do with their young. It is non bias, it does not even mention whales in captivity. It is a good source that I will cite when I make a claim on how captivity effects Killer Whales compared to Whales that live in the wild. This source is mainly logos. 

My third source is a experiment that was published on a USC data base comparing the growth rate of whales in captivity and whales in the wild. The major evidence was the experiment itself. They measured whales at SeaWorld and compared it to the growth rate of a pod of Killer Whales in the Wild over their life span. They found that Killer Whales are significantly larger in the wild. The interests at stake is that it makes SeaWorld look bad if their whales are not as big as whales in the wild. This could make it look like they are malnourished or some other reason they are not a healthy size. The source is very credible, to be published to in the data based it must be peer reviewed by other people in a specific field. It is not bias; the results just came out favoring the fact that whales should stay in the wild. 

This research project is arguable because even if it is not morally right, it may not actually harm Killer Whales to be kept in captivity. Just because I do not think it is fair to keep a whale in pool does not mean that they do not live like they would if they did in the wild. The only disagreement between my sources would be that the "SeaWorld Cares" article says that there are no physical differences between their whales and whales in the wild; but the experiment source would say otherwise. The only different perspective then my own would be the SeaWorld article and that is only because I do not support their company. Right now I like my research question and I think I can find a lot of information on it. However a few things could change in the fact that I do not just focus on SeaWorld; I do not want to seem as I am attacking one specific company. 
