How do you feel about Sea World, ethically? Is AK better?

[mummabear]

2) Some of the assertions made in Blackfish are easily verifiable. If you look into them, you'll find this. The "ponytail" controversy was the thing that bothered me the most, and if you look into it, you'll find that what was asserted in Blackfish is supported. That trainer didn't deserve to be made the scapegoat with false facts, so that SeaWorld could go on "business as usual".

Just want to point out that SeaWorld did not go on with business as usual, after the incident the shows were changed and trainers are not longer in the water with the Orcas as they were before

 

[OhioStateBuckeye]

I have some pretty mixed feelings on this topic.

I don't give the Blackfish documentary much credence. I tend to agree with Pete's thoughts on it that he gives on the DIS podcast. I don't trust the makers of the documentary and I think its a shame they used that poor girl's death to further their agenda.

On the other hand, I think it hurts the killer whales that they aren't in their big family groups and that they are confined to such a small area, since in the ocean they swim huge distances.

But I also ascribe to the viewpoint that the world needs animal ambassadors to introduce people to their kind so that the people will want to help those animals. Couple that with all the good that Seaworld does for other marine life, I think the killer whales should stay. I'll also add conditions to that though, I don't think they should breed the killer whales. If they want to add whales in the future I think they should be hurt ones that they find who can't be rehabilitated back to live in the ocean.

As for AK, I like that the safari animals get to roam during the day, but they do go to concrete cages at nighttime. I think most of the animals there are happy, but I don't really know.

I think some of the animals have better lives than in the wild, they don't have to worry about protecting themselves from predators, and the predators don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. On the other hand, I am sure some would be happier being free.

So yeah, really mixed feelings on both, but I feel that zoos and aquariums are very important and do good work.

 

[Jennytoon]

We've been at FoW when the bird didn't do the trick - they just don't get the treat. It's not a trauma and the bird (as far as I can tell) isn't punished in any way.

... and forcing one to perform while withholding food if they don't is the same thing...

LaurenT, without addressing the validity of your reasons for not going to SeaWorld (they're your reasons and you're correct that that's all that needs to be said), I think your statement above is a misrepresentation of how animals are trained to perform. I haven't seen the film Blackfish, but I was (briefly) friends once with someone in zoo management, and Good Morning Dewdrop's statement is a better way to think about it.

Some tidbits from my discussions with my friend:

• When trained animals are in shows, failure to perform the trick and receive the treat does not mean food is withheld. The amount of food that animals eat is tracked very carefully, and when a significant number of calories normally consumed as treats are not eaten that amount is made up in their food at their regular feeding time. This is true whether the treats were not consumed because the animal was in a performance and didn't do the tricks, or whether the animal was simply not performing that day.
• The visiting public is a very poor judge of whether or not an animal is receiving adequate care. The optimal weight for many animals usually found in the wild is such that their ribs may be visible or very close to the skin. If you have a dog or cat, your vet will tell you that the animal's ribs should be easily able to be felt when running your hands down the animal's side. One of the biggest challenges for zoo managers, said my friend, is keeping many species fed well enough that the zoo does not receive a constant stream of complaints about how they are starving the poor tigers, while at the same time keeping them at a weight that is healthy for the animal.

And also an analogy from closer to home ... if my kids have had a great day and gone above and beyond with some heinous family chore, I may serve a light dinner and treat them to a trip to the ice cream shop as a reward. If I don't feel they've earned it and so serve dinner as normal with no trip, I am undoubtedly withholding the reward. If they do a good job the next time this situation arises, have I then forced them to perform as I desire by withholding the reward the previous time?

 

[Networth]

Can't speak for Seaworld. I know a vet that works for Disney at AK. Anytime I have ever asked she has told me the animals truley are cared for and don't run the risk of poachers. Those that preach animals should never be in "cages" need to go visit the real wild life preserves in Africa and see what poachers do to animals like the black rhino for their horns. That truley is where disgust should be placed.

 

[LaurenT]

LaurenT, without addressing the validity of your reasons for not going to SeaWorld (they're your reasons and you're correct that that's all that needs to be said), I think your statement above is a misrepresentation of how animals are trained to perform. I haven't seen the film Blackfish, but I was (briefly) friends once with someone in zoo management, and Good Morning Dewdrop's statement is a better way to think about it.

Some tidbits from my discussions with my friend:

• When trained animals are in shows, failure to perform the trick and receive the treat does not mean food is withheld. The amount of food that animals eat is tracked very carefully, and when a significant number of calories normally consumed as treats are not eaten that amount is made up in their food at their regular feeding time. This is true whether the treats were not consumed because the animal was in a performance and didn't do the tricks, or whether the animal was simply not performing that day.
• The visiting public is a very poor judge of whether or not an animal is receiving adequate care. The optimal weight for many animals usually found in the wild is such that their ribs may be visible or very close to the skin. If you have a dog or cat, your vet will tell you that the animal's ribs should be easily able to be felt when running your hands down the animal's side. One of the biggest challenges for zoo managers, said my friend, is keeping many species fed well enough that the zoo does not receive a constant stream of complaints about how they are starving the poor tigers, while at the same time keeping them at a weight that is healthy for the animal.

And also an analogy from closer to home ... if my kids have had a great day and gone above and beyond with some heinous family chore, I may serve a light dinner and treat them to a trip to the ice cream shop as a reward. If I don't feel they've earned it and so serve dinner as normal with no trip, I am undoubtedly withholding the reward. If they do a good job the next time this situation arises, have I then forced them to perform as I desire by withholding the reward the previous time?

I saw a former trainer being interviewed who said that, although it's not official policy, if an orca isn't performing during training (not during a show) some of the trainers will get permission to cut their food down to barely enough and that some orcas wound up very underweight because of it. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but I just am not happy thinking about that and seeing the orca swimming around in its little pool with its fin all bent over from lack of exercise .... Feel sorry for it and can't enjoy myself because of it. That's just me ... Again, I have friends who still go, I don't try to stop them.

 

[mshanson3121]

I feel like you should look at motive. Sea Workd us being bashed for ratings. LOL.

Of course they get no credit for the large amount of rescue work they do. And that is what is going to be cut when this thing loses money

And I do think if you decide you can't do one of these parks you can't do any of that this picking and. choosing is just a joke

I don't think anyone here is picking and choosing. Zoos are what they are - but at the end of the day, there's a huge difference between a zoo that doesn't abuse or mistreat their animals, and places that do.

 

[mshanson3121]

Entertainment, or education? Would you even know what an orca is without SeaWorld?

LOL. I think most people would yes, if they went through any elementary school science program.

 

[soniam]

I have never been to Sea World and probably never will. I have opposed marine animal parks since I was very young, way before Black Fish came out. I went to one in Galveston as a child. The conditions were so appalling that I vowed I would not go to one again. I know that most places are not like that today, but it still conjures sickening images in my mind. I have been to some select aquariums, and I do try to research them before I go. I have also seen the marine animals at Epcot once. I didn't like it, so we don't go back to the Seas. We do go to Epcot though. But, this is my personal choice, and the rules that I apply to my family. We also have really only seen the animals at AK once, except the Safari, because it bothered me there too. We still go to AK though. We also limit the zoos that we go to.

As for the way AK treats their animals, I have some fairly qualified inside knowledge, but it's still a friend of a friend kind of thing. One of my coworkers, his fiance is studying to be a veterinarian and did the college program at AK last year. She was very impressed with the care given to the animals and would lover to return to work there again. I still don't really like the idea of animals kept in cages; however, I do have two pet cats. Maybe that's not so different. I am not a member of PETA, and I do eat some meat and fish. So, I am sort of hypocritical too.

However, if it bothers you or someone in your family, then just don't go. It's your family and your decision. Your children won't be traumatized by not going to Sea World. They probably won't be traumatized by going either. Good luck.

 

[si-am]

I'm probably a bit of a hypocrite. I won't go to Sea World, and I won't visit other aquariums with large mammals or fish being kept in relatively small tanks (this includes the Ga Aquarium and also Living Seas). I don't go to most zoos, either.

However I do like AK, and I love Epcot (just not the Living Seas-- there has been some controversy there over the dolphins).

 

[mshanson3121]

However, if it bothers you or someone in your family, then just don't go. It's your family and your decision. Your children won't be traumatized by not going to Sea World. They probably won't be traumatized by going either. Good luck.

Yeah, I'm really torn. I mean, the kids would LOVE it, and my MIL was really looking forward to it, and I know she would think I'm nuts for not going. She'd say all the allegations are just a bunch of lies, but I highly doubt the USDA made up their citations against Sea World. I'm not knocking the work that Sea World does do, and I'm sure that many of the trainers there love the animals. But... I dunno. I mean, I've heard the rumors for years, but ignored them. But today, I've done a lot of reading... and I just don't know.

 

[soniam]

Yeah, I'm really torn. I mean, the kids would LOVE it, and my MIL was really looking forward to it, and I know she would think I'm nuts for not going. She'd say all the allegations are just a bunch of lies, but I highly doubt the USDA made up their citations against Sea World. I'm not knocking the work that Sea World does do, and I'm sure that many of the trainers there love the animals. But... I dunno. I mean, I've heard the rumors for years, but ignored them. But today, I've done a lot of reading... and I just don't know.

People have thought I was weird for years for not liking Sea World, marine parks, and zoos. I have come to peace with how I feel. Luckily for me, DH is understanding. MIL and FIL probably wouldn't take DS somewhere like that anyway; theme/amusement parks are not really their bag. My mom is a little bit of a hippy and kind of feels the same as I do. DS wouldn't go to Sea World now anyway. He begged me to let him watch Black Fish last fall. I warned him that he would probably never want to go after that. It's always hard to stand up for what we feel is right; otherwise, it wouldn't be a big deal to do it. However, you are not a terrible person for deciding either way and should ignore those who judge. It's hard enough living with our own judgements of ourselves, much less the judgement of others.

 

[ArwenMarie]

Yeah, I'm really torn. I mean, the kids would LOVE it, and my MIL was really looking forward to it, and I know she would think I'm nuts for not going. She'd say all the allegations are just a bunch of lies, but I highly doubt the USDA made up their citations against Sea World. I'm not knocking the work that Sea World does do, and I'm sure that many of the trainers there love the animals. But... I dunno. I mean, I've heard the rumors for years, but ignored them. But today, I've done a lot of reading... and I just don't know.

The shows are stunning and something to see at least once, IMO, but I understand people who don't want to contribute to it, just like I understand that there are people who don't eat animal products for the same reasons.

 

[abinormal]

I don't support SeaWorld. For me it comes down to the fact that orca are just not suited to captivity. Decades of poor outcomes should be proof enough of that to them but they are too determined to hold onto that cash cow. Therefore I choose to stay away because $ is the only language they speak.

I don't have a problem with animal captivity per se. Some animals thrive or at least do the same. Zoos or facilities that insist on keeping those that don't, don't tend to get my money.

I absolutely don't support animals "performing", particularly animals that are forced to do it. What SeaWorld does is not in any way an extension of natural behaviors, and their performance is tied to their basic need to eat. That's not ok to me.

 

[IrishNYC]

I'm probably a bit of a hypocrite. I won't go to Sea World, and I won't visit other aquariums with large mammals or fish being kept in relatively small tanks (this includes the Ga Aquarium and also Living Seas). I don't go to most zoos, either.

However I do like AK, and I love Epcot (just not the Living Seas-- there has been some controversy there over the dolphins).

Going to Epcot while condoning Living Seas is the equivalent to going to the circus and covering your eyes when the animal acts take place.

 

[mshanson3121]

I don't support SeaWorld. For me it comes down to the fact that orca are just not suited to captivity. Decades of poor outcomes should be proof enough of that to them but they are too determined to hold onto that cash cow. Therefore I choose to stay away because $ is the only language they speak.

I don't have a problem with animal captivity per se. Some animals thrive or at least do the same. Zoos or facilities that insist on keeping those that don't, don't tend to get my money.

Yeah, for us - we've only ever been to one zoo and one aquarium (okay with the exception of when I was to SW when I was a kid, and loved it if course). The zoo we go to is small, clean, and has no citations, though honestly, I'm not sure we'll go back, as it's cages are quite small. Though they do no animal performances etc... The aquarium we go to is amazing. It's a small, non-profit aquarium owned by the local university and is part of their teaching/research lab. They do not have any large animals, do not do any shows etc... And their holding tanks are very large and not too crowded at all.

 

[Good Morning Dewdrop]

Entertainment, or education? Would you even know what an orca is without SeaWorld?

to answer your question - I have a BS is Biology so yes, I knew what an Orca was without SeaWorld (we went to SeaWorld for the first and only time in 2008 long after I had graduated)

I do believe firmly in education and I think being able to see / observe an animal really does make people care more about it but the Orcas are really too big to be in captivity. We did not go to the shows in SeaWorld but I did watch an Orca through the glass - I was amazed to see it in person - it's size and beauty and yet I was sad to watch it just swimming around and around the large tank.

 

[si-am]

Going to Epcot while condoning Living Seas is the equivalent to going to the circus and covering your eyes when the animal acts take place.

That's why I admitted the hypocrisy up front. (I would never in a bajillion years go to a circus though.)

 

[MainMom]

My family went to Seaworld Orlando 2 years ago and were bored. We arrived at opening and left before noon. We saw the One Ocean show did a few rides and left. The only reason we went is because we had 'free' passes after going to Discovery Cove the day before. I would never pay to go there and that has nothing to do with ethics. I'd spend the extra day at Disney.

 

[bcla]

I'm a firm believer in the mission and work of accredited zoos. I do believe, though, that orcas are just too big to be kept in captivity.

Animal Kingdom has a fine record of maintaining it's accreditation. We visit every trip. I won't be back to Sea World though.

All three SeaWorld parks have current Association of Zoos and Aquariums accreditation.

https://www.aza.org/current-accreditation-list/

SeaWorld Orlando, Fla.
Accredited through March 2020

SeaWorld San Antonio, Texas
Accredited through September 2016

SeaWorld San Diego, Calif.
Accredited through March 2020

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I don't have any problems with SW, AK, or most other Zoos.