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

[JanaDee]

Actually, no they DON'T put a lot of money into conservation and rescue efforts. Sea World makes on average 800,000,000 to close to 1 billion dollars per year. Their non-profit portion donates a mere $1,000,000 to conservation. And guess how much of that Sea World Corp. themselves physically donates? $100,000. IMO that's pathetic, and in no way even comes close to excusing how they're treating their animals. The rest of the money they donate comes from outside donations from fundraising events, merchandise sales etc... But Sea World Corp. finds the money to pay their CEO a many, many, multi-million dollar salary - and hey, did you know that his house is actually 7000 square feet larger than the entire orca stadium? So, IMO, the "conservation" part, is a joke. Don't get me wrong - it's nice that they do anything, yes. But, to me, it's more of a publicity thing. They could be doing FAR more than they are - and instead of working on saving all these other animals, why don't they start by putting the money into taking care of the ones they have properly?

Now to be fair - Disney makes billions of dollars every year - and that's just on ticket sales. And their conservation fund only donates $1.8 million each year, also largely from donations. So they could be doing better, too. But the difference is - Disney is at least giving better treatment and care for their animals, and they're not using their fund to off-set negative publicity.

No it doesn't. I've said all along - my issue isn't so much with the animals being there, as much as how they're cared for. Animal Kingdom has excellent records, has NO safety citations, no deaths or injuries to trainers, much better housing and doesn't drug their animals to perform - perform in the sense that Sea World does, which let's stop nit-picking shall we, you know that by perform I don't mean walk to the trainer to get fed and go into their housing at night, which is not done as a "show". By perform I mean shows in which the animals are expected to do a certain series of tricks while a stadium full of people are sitting to watch, many of whom they've made money off of by selling preferred seating etc.... Animal Kingdom does NOT do any performances like that. (The bird thing is a private company.)

I wouldn't have such an issue with Sea World if they a) were providing better living conditions for the orcas b) were actually consistently meeting safety standards instead of getting repeated violations c) weren't drugging their animals. I won't list the other things they've been accused of in recent lawsuits, since there's no "proof", yet. However, the fact that they even dared to bring an orca into their park that had already killed two people is pathetic. My God - what if that accident had happened in front of a stadium full of kids?! And the fact that even after it happened, they tried to deny responsibility, they tried to fight/appeal the court decisions, the fact that they still tried to keep the trainers in the water with the animals, even though this was not the first time an orca had attacked one of their trainers? Doesn't make them look all that "nice". Money hungry? Yes. Responsible and caring? No.

I have no doubt that the people that work there, do care for their animals. But they can only care as much as Sea World Corp. says they can. I think there is a lot of potential there, I do. It's just a matter of are they going to shell out the money they need to, to get there? With revenue down and stocks down 50%... somehow I doubt it. And maybe in a sense, the people boycotting it are only hurting their own efforts - because the less money, the less likely those animals are going to see any improvements. But... on the flip side, if SW went ahead and put the money into doing what they need to, I bet they'd see revenue and stocks go back up. It'd be great PR.

We give 1% of our income to charity each year. Sea World gives 0.000125%.
And just when are the overhauls going to happen? Have they even remotely set a date? It's one thing to "say" they're going to get an overhaul when they're being pressured from the public. It's another to actually do it. Sea World has had complaints and pressure for over 50 years, and they've done nothing yet. They've had multiple citations for the same safety issues that they didn't fix. So... I think it's safe to say most people have a "we'll believe it when we see it" attitude, especially given their track record.

That's quite the turnaround from three days ago, when you couldn't wait to visit SW/DC. You've sure 'learned' a lot in those few days.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Just curious--for those of you that are so against having animals in zoos and such, do you have pets at home???

There is a difference between a domesticated cat and an Orca. Cats were domesticated long before I was born and there are several of them that need a home and need taken care of. Going out and killing Shamu's mother so one can capture Shamu for an animal show is a far different thing.

 

[nugov2]

Animal Kingdom does have citations against them. OSHA has hit them with both fines and violations multiple times over the years, but because they are Disney I guess they get a free pass on their mistakes and their responsibility in all of the animal deaths as a direct result of their negligence and mistakes.
I can't even find a statistic on how many animals Disney has rescued so I'd imagine that number is extremely small if they aren't broadcasting it. SW has rescued and released over 25,000 animals. I found that SW donated 2.5 million in 2012. I can't find much on Disney's charitable donations. 1 million to UNICEF in 2006. They do lots of in kind donations for make a wish and other organizations, but SW also donates to those causes. I find nothing about animal rescue and release through AK or any donations to wildlife conservation at all. Doesn't appear they do any more than SW. Again putting blinders on to AK and their wrongs is just silly, but each person decides what is right or wrong for them. I just don't get slamming one company for doing the exact same thing a company you are praising is doing.

The reality is that both of these places as a corporation put money first, their salaries fisrt. It is the people who work day to day with the animals at both parks that love and care for them, not the company and its CEO's.

 

[nugov2]

There is a difference between a domesticated cat and an Orca. Cats were domesticated long before I was born and there are several of them that need a home and need taken care of. Going out and killing Shamu's mother so one can capture Shamu for an animal show is a far different thing.

That was 35 years ago and I'm not sure they killed shamu's mother. I can't find a report of that but maybe. I also don't recall that in blackfish but I saw it a long time ago and admit to a bad memory. Disney also participated in these practices back then. Their dolphins were ripped from the wild for no reason other than to be on display. They have all learned this is wrong and no longer participate in those practices. Either way both companies found that practice acceptable at one time.

 

[Kbee]

The reality is that both of these places as a corporation put money first, their salaries fisrt. It is the people who work day to day with the animals at both parks that love and care for them, not the company and its CEO's.

Exactly. It boggles my mind that Disney gets a pass on everything they do that is the same as SW just because its Disney. The truth is people who want to make a stand against something really don't want to do it if it effects them. Boycotting Disney, not going to happen, they love it too much, but hey I don't really visit that park down the road, I'll boycott them to make myself feel better. Its garbage, either you are all in, or your boycott and your making a stand means nothing.

 

[mshanson3121]

That's quite the turnaround from three days ago, when you couldn't wait to visit SW/DC. You've sure 'learned' a lot in those few days.

Yes it is. And yes, I have. And I don't give a rat's butt if you "believe" me or not.

 

[mnrose]

I don't care for either SW or the dolphin thing at Disney. In general, I also don't patronize zoos. I find them sad.

I DO enjoy seeing animals in their natural habitats. Seeing the whales while we were in Mexico recently was an awesome experience. And the distance they traveled in just a short while (less than 15 minutes) while we viewed them gives you an appreciation for how grossly unfair it is to those animals to confine them in the spaces that ANY captivity does.

I'm not boycotting them. It just doesn't give me any pleasure to see animals like that. So I don't go....much less spend money to go to "see" it.

 

[JanaDee]

Yes it is. And yes, I have. And I don't give a rat's butt if you "believe" me or not.

Like other posters have already noted, I won't be engaging with you further.

 

[mshanson3121]

Animal Kingdom does have citations against them. OSHA has hit them with both fines and violations multiple times over the years, but because they are Disney I guess they get a free pass on their mistakes and their responsibility in all of the animal deaths as a direct result of their negligence and mistakes.
I can't even find a statistic on how many animals Disney has rescued so I'd imagine that number is extremely small if they aren't broadcasting it. SW has rescued and released over 25,000 animals. I found that SW donated 2.5 million in 2012. I can't find much on Disney's charitable donations. 1 million to UNICEF in 2006. They do lots of in kind donations for make a wish and other organizations, but SW also donates to those causes. I find nothing about animal rescue and release through AK or any donations to wildlife conservation at all. Doesn't appear they do any more than SW. Again putting blinders on to AK and their wrongs is just silly, but each person decides what is right or wrong for them. I just don't get slamming one company for doing the exact same thing a company you are praising is doing.

The reality is that both of these places as a corporation put money first, their salaries fisrt. It is the people who work day to day with the animals at both parks that love and care for them, not the company and its CEO's.

Curious where you found those? I have been searching, and have found nothing. The death of the animals before/when the park opened were investigated and cleared - Disney was not found to be at fault. The only OSHA violation I can (granted, doing a quick search) find for Animal Kingdom is for the Primeval Whirl incident, which had nothing to do with their animals. Not saying I don't believe you, just curious where it is.

 

[mummabear]

No it doesn't. I've said all along - my issue isn't so much with the animals being there, as much as how they're cared for. Animal Kingdom has excellent records, has NO safety citations, no deaths or injuries to trainers, much better housing and doesn't drug their animals to perform - perform in the sense that Sea World does, which let's stop nit-picking shall we, you know that by perform I don't mean walk to the trainer to get fed and go into their housing at night, which is not done as a "show". By perform I mean shows in which the animals are expected to do a certain series of tricks while a stadium full of people are sitting to watch, many of whom they've made money off of by selling preferred seating etc.... Animal Kingdom does NOT do any performances like that. (The bird thing is a private company.)

I wouldn't have such an issue with Sea World if they a) were providing better living conditions for the orcas b) were actually consistently meeting safety standards instead of getting repeated violations c) weren't drugging their animals. I won't list the other things they've been accused of in recent lawsuits, since there's no "proof", yet. However, the fact that they even dared to bring an orca into their park that had already killed two people is pathetic. My God - what if that accident had happened in front of a stadium full of kids?! And the fact that even after it happened, they tried to deny responsibility, they tried to fight/appeal the court decisions, the fact that they still tried to keep the trainers in the water with the animals, even though this was not the first time an orca had attacked one of their trainers? Doesn't make them look all that "nice". Money hungry? Yes. Responsible and caring? No.

I have no doubt that the people that work there, do care for their animals. But they can only care as much as Sea World Corp. says they can. I think there is a lot of potential there, I do. It's just a matter of are they going to shell out the money they need to, to get there? With revenue down and stocks down 50%... somehow I doubt it. And maybe in a sense, the people boycotting it are only hurting their own efforts - because the less money, the less likely those animals are going to see any improvements. But... on the flip side, if SW went ahead and put the money into doing what they need to, I bet they'd see revenue and stocks go back up. It'd be great PR.

A) the bird show being run by a private company at AK makes no difference to the fact that AK does actually have performing animals in their park. This company is employed by Disney to provide this show. So do you not care because they are birds or because it is at Disney.
B) let's also be clear that one of the deaths caused by the Orca was a person who broke in after hours and jumped into the tank, not quite the same as attacking the trainer. It is tragic, but she also knew the risks of the job she chose to do. The thing with all animals is that they can be unpredictable, sometimes a family dog will bite a child-usually sadly leading to the destruction of the dog. Yet no one is sitting around saying "this was so unavoidable, we shouldnt be holding these animals captive in our homes"

 

[mummabear]

No it doesn't. I've said all along - my issue isn't so much with the animals being there, as much as how they're cared for. Animal Kingdom has excellent records, has NO safety citations, no deaths or injuries to trainers, much better housing and doesn't drug their animals to perform - perform in the sense that Sea World does, which let's stop nit-picking shall we, you know that by perform I don't mean walk to the trainer to get fed and go into their housing at night, which is not done as a "show". By perform I mean shows in which the animals are expected to do a certain series of tricks while a stadium full of people are sitting to watch, many of whom they've made money off of by selling preferred seating etc.... Animal Kingdom does NOT do any performances like that. (The bird thing is a private company.)

I wouldn't have such an issue with Sea World if they a) were providing better living conditions for the orcas b) were actually consistently meeting safety standards instead of getting repeated violations c) weren't drugging their animals. I won't list the other things they've been accused of in recent lawsuits, since there's no "proof", yet. However, the fact that they even dared to bring an orca into their park that had already killed two people is pathetic. My God - what if that accident had happened in front of a stadium full of kids?! And the fact that even after it happened, they tried to deny responsibility, they tried to fight/appeal the court decisions, the fact that they still tried to keep the trainers in the water with the animals, even though this was not the first time an orca had attacked one of their trainers? Doesn't make them look all that "nice". Money hungry? Yes. Responsible and caring? No.

I have no doubt that the people that work there, do care for their animals. But they can only care as much as Sea World Corp. says they can. I think there is a lot of potential there, I do. It's just a matter of are they going to shell out the money they need to, to get there? With revenue down and stocks down 50%... somehow I doubt it. And maybe in a sense, the people boycotting it are only hurting their own efforts - because the less money, the less likely those animals are going to see any improvements. But... on the flip side, if SW went ahead and put the money into doing what they need to, I bet they'd see revenue and stocks go back up. It'd be great PR.

Also do you think it makes a difference to the animal whether the trick they are performing if for an audience or not? Do you think the way the are trained is any different because people aren't pay money for reserved seating?

 

[Disneychick75]

IMO, you can't like one place with animals in captivity, aka, AK and then turn around and dislike another, aka Sea World. I don't like either park but depending upon who I travel with, I'll go without a fuss because I won't shove my personal feelings down someone else's throat.

 

[bookgirl]

I put the makers of Blackfish in the same category as PETA, Rachael Maddow, Fox News, Michael Moore and most of the politicians in the world. They have an agenda and it's never the one they claim. They are all extremists and if they said the sky was blue I'd go out and look just to make sure.

I sure as heck wouldn't base my vacation on them or anyone who chooses to smear a business under the guise of a public service post about the shocking thing they JUST found out.

I find it funny that these threads are always started by 'innocent questions' and then they just turn into soapbox rants and debate. They also always show up right around the time people are in the midst of planning vacations.

So convenient and so much bull.

 

[Oodalally13]

What about the poor carrots grown in close proximity to each other? Not being allowed to grow as they please. And if they do, they are ripped away from their families. Poor carrots.

 

[luvsJack]

No it doesn't. I've said all along - my issue isn't so much with the animals being there, as much as how they're cared for. Animal Kingdom has excellent records, has NO safety citations, no deaths or injuries to trainers, much better housing and doesn't drug their animals to perform - perform in the sense that Sea World does, which let's stop nit-picking shall we, you know that by perform I don't mean walk to the trainer to get fed and go into their housing at night, which is not done as a "show". By perform I mean shows in which the animals are expected to do a certain series of tricks while a stadium full of people are sitting to watch, many of whom they've made money off of by selling preferred seating etc.... Animal Kingdom does NOT do any performances like that. (The bird thing is a private company.)

I wouldn't have such an issue with Sea World if they a) were providing better living conditions for the orcas b) were actually consistently meeting safety standards instead of getting repeated violations c) weren't drugging their animals. I won't list the other things they've been accused of in recent lawsuits, since there's no "proof", yet. However, the fact that they even dared to bring an orca into their park that had already killed two people is pathetic. My God - what if that accident had happened in front of a stadium full of kids?! And the fact that even after it happened, they tried to deny responsibility, they tried to fight/appeal the court decisions, the fact that they still tried to keep the trainers in the water with the animals, even though this was not the first time an orca had attacked one of their trainers? Doesn't make them look all that "nice". Money hungry? Yes. Responsible and caring? No.

I have no doubt that the people that work there, do care for their animals. But they can only care as much as Sea World Corp. says they can. I think there is a lot of potential there, I do. It's just a matter of are they going to shell out the money they need to, to get there? With revenue down and stocks down 50%... somehow I doubt it. And maybe in a sense, the people boycotting it are only hurting their own efforts - because the less money, the less likely those animals are going to see any improvements. But... on the flip side, if SW went ahead and put the money into doing what they need to, I bet they'd see revenue and stocks go back up. It'd be great PR.

Since they have only been accused (as you say in your own post) and nothing has been proven, may I ask why you are spouting it as fact?

Like a pp asked, why on earth would the animal care if he does the trick in front of a stadium of people or just the trainer?

BOTH of these companies would have done the same thing in the case of the killed trainer. WDW is hardly just going to turn on its back and pay up if they don't feel the amount or accusations are fair. That's what they pay lawyers for. The girl's family has spoken out against the things being said against Sea World. I am unclear why, if they don't have an issue with the company, you do.

And what does making money off of preferred seating have to do with anything? It sounds like it wouldn't matter to you how wonderful they make it for the Orcas you would still not think its enough. That preferred seating may very well be what pays for the better facilities for these whales.

And argue it or not, SW gives a great deal of money to conservation and rescue of sea animals. Without SW there would be a whole lot not getting done. Are you going to make up the difference? How about the others that are "protesting" and "boycotting"? Somehow, I don't think so.

 

[nugov2]

I put the makers of Blackfish in the same category as PETA, Rachael Maddow, Fox News, Michael Moore and most of the politicians in the world. They have an agenda and it's never the one they claim. They are all extremists and if they said the sky was blue I'd go out and look just to make sure.

I sure as heck wouldn't base my vacation on them or anyone who chooses to smear a business under the guise of a public service post about the shocking thing they JUST found out.

I find it funny that these threads are always started by 'innocent questions' and then they just turn into soapbox rants and debate. They also always show up right around the time people are in the midst of planning vacations.

So convenient and so much bull.

Right!! The title of the thread asks if Ak is ethically better than SW. The answer is NO unless you think cramming some animals into a habitat that is inadequate causing stress and a significantly shorter life span than in the wild is OK for some species but not others. Unless you view one parks negligence that resulted in animal death as ok and not another parks and unless you view one parks rescue and release of animals as nothing and view another parks almost nonexistent animal rescue program as just fine. If you can look past all of the good SW does and the changes they have made and look past all the mistakes AK made and the practices AK has on place that are exactly the same as SW then I guess you can say that YES AK is better than SW. You asked and the vast majority have answered that ethically they are very equal, but OP it doesn't seem to fit your vacation plans that the evidence supports that or maybe you think Orcas deserve better treatment than giraffes and elephants. Either way you got the majority answer.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

We give 1% of our income to charity each year. Sea World gives 0.000125%.
And just when are the overhauls going to happen? Have they even remotely set a date? It's one thing to "say" they're going to get an overhaul when they're being pressured from the public. It's another to actually do it. Sea World has had complaints and pressure for over 50 years, and they've done nothing yet. They've had multiple citations for the same safety issues that they didn't fix. So... I think it's safe to say most people have a "we'll believe it when we see it" attitude, especially given their track record.

How much do they spend "in house" on research & rescue efforts?

 

[Ambear]

What about the poor carrots grown in close proximity to each other? Not being allowed to grow as they please. And if they do, they are ripped away from their families. Poor carrots.

I feel for the tomatoes, all caged in. What a horrible existence, attacked by deer and pesticides.

 

[dismomtfj]

I don't have a problem with SW or accredited Zoos, but I at the people who say zoo animals (and I'm sure the animals at AK) aren't trained. Animal behaviors are often taught in order to examine the animals and perform routine veterinary care on the animal without the keeper/vet needing to be in the enclosure. Other behaviors are taught to keep the animal swimming/moving to mimic the amount activity in the wild.

We are booked for the Dolphins in Depth tour when we go in a few months. It is a 3 hour tour (cue the Gilligan Music ) and only the last 30 min are actually spent in the water with the dolphins. I also liked this disclaimer:

• Dolphins are highly intelligent animals whose interaction with Guests is voluntary; they are never forced to participate. Fortunately, dolphins are also extremely social and generally friendly, so while interaction isn’t guaranteed, it is likely.

We love our local zoo and have enjoyed many visits there as well as its affiliated zoos. My daughter's knowledge of animals and environmental issues from zoo materials, keeper talks, camps, etc. is extensive and would probably not exist without these programs (I could have done without the owl vomit and mouse bones on the kitchen table but, oh well ). Animal training is a necessary part of zoo life, whether it happens in front of the public or behind the scenes. The animals are rewarded and more often than not live longer in captivity than in the wild.

I respect everyone for their choices, but make sure it is an informed one.

 

[bookgirl]

Right!! The title of the thread asks if Ak is ethically better than SW. The answer is NO unless you think cramming some animals into a habitat that is inadequate causing stress and a significantly shorter life span than in the wild is OK for some species but not others. Unless you view one parks negligence that resulted in animal death as ok and not another parks and unless you view one parks rescue and release of animals as nothing and view another parks almost nonexistent animal rescue program as just fine. If you can look past all of the good SW does and the changes they have made and look past all the mistakes AK made and the practices AK has on place that are exactly the same as SW then I guess you can say that YES AK is better than SW. You asked and the vast majority have answered that ethically they are very equal, but OP it doesn't seem to fit your vacation plans that the evidence supports that or maybe you think Orcas deserve better treatment than giraffes and elephants. Either way you got the majority answer.

Never mind I had to reread it.