Cripes... I was all set to leave this thread for 'closed,' but your questions deserve answers. Here you go...
Not to offend anyone but, if you feel so badly about what Seaworld does, why keep going? I go because they have shows and I enjoy them. They are in business to make money and have to do so to remain in business. It's just the way it is.
No offense taken. And who said I "kept going?" I haven't set foot through the gates of any Sea World park since 2002, and before that not since the mid-90's.
The only reason that I and my friends were at Orlando in 2002 was because we were attending an IMATA conference (Intl. Marine Animal Trainers Association) that Sea World happened to be the host facility for. We were curious about Discovery Cove, and the park itself, since we'd not been to any of the SW parks since (as I said) the mid-90's.
The fact that it didn't work out as well as we had hoped was nothing more than a lost gamble. People lose more than that every day from gambling in Vegas. And it still wasn't a total loss -- The aviary is still magnificent!
As for them being "in business to make money" etc., there is some truth to that. However, I would point out that it is that same one-sided attitude that has caused the United States to lose so much of its manufacturing edge, infrastructure, and good jobs to offshore concerns.
Case in point: When was the last time that you bought a decent-quality item of electronic equipment that was made entirely in this country?
It is more than possible to make a decent profit AND do a good job. It is my belief that Sea World, like most other corporate entities, has gone way too far towards the "Profit At Any Cost" mantra.
If you want an "eco-vacation" there are lots of places to do that. Why would you go to SW just to complain about it?
Who said I do? See above.
But in any case, you're missing the point. ANY zoo or oceanarium that displays captive marine mammals, or other animals, has both legal (I can point you to the relevant USC chapter if you wish) and unwritten responsibilities to present those animals in a way that both entertains and educates. 'Entertains' because visitors expect such, and 'educates' because it's important for people to know what kind of impact their actions could have on the world in general and the critters in particular.
Sea World has, for as long as I've observed, always made a token effort at best where education is concerned. If they come across some fact of Nature or facet of animal behavior that does not fit with the precisely-controlled shrink-wrapped view of "Everything's Happy" that they want to present to the public, they will do their best not to let such things be known, or downplay them as best they can.
Example: They make much of their dolphin "petting pools," such as Orlando and the other parks have. HOWEVER -- the minute that anyone starts showing any degree of talent for getting along and playing with the animals WITHOUT the lure of fish PURCHASED FROM SEA WORLD, then the pool staff start watching them like hawks and the visitor in question, however talented, is likely to be asked to leave the area. I have experienced this personally, and heard it from others.
So: Why would Sea World do this if the whole point of the exhibit is "interaction?" Captive dolphins are curious about people, and they can indeed be playful and seek out all kinds of attention without giving a whit about whether the human they're interested in has fish.
I think SW does it because they don't want visitors in general to know how (relatively) easy it is to get a non-food relationship going. It would cut too far into their fish-booth revenues (as miniscule as that probably is on the park's budget map), and run the risk of showing a side of dolphins that Sea World, for whatever reason, doesn't want people to learn about.
That's only one tiny example. If you want more, I suggest you get hold of a copy of "Spectacular Nature: Corporate Culture and the Sea World Experience" (Susan Davis, University of California Press), and read for yourself. There's also a pretty good 'Frontline' documentary called 'A Whale of a Business' that's worth watching, but beware as it also contains inaccurate testimony from some well-known kooks in the marine mammal field (you can ask me about that via private message if you want -- it's truly off-topic here).
It's no secret that the park is an entertainment venue it's not an eco-tour. You could better spend your money on a kayak trip among the glaciers and enjoy yourself.
Contrary to impressions I may have mistakenly put across, this isn't about me. This is about Sea World shirking their responsibilities as a whole in a way that NO OTHER PARK I've ever been to does. If SW wants to be a pure entertainment and theme park, that's fine, but they should leave the animals out of it in that context.
IMO, they do great work saving wild animals at SW as well as supporting animal rescue and conservation through their wildlife conservation fund.
I think they do a great many good things. I just wish they had the Shamu Rocks at this time of the year.
I'm aware of their conservation fund, and their activities with the rescue and rehab of stranded marine mammals. And guess what? I have NOT THE SLIGHTEST PROBLEM with that. I never have. Their physical plant and facilities, and the veterinary care they provide to their animals, have all been consistently top-notch.
Now, with that said -- Explain to me, if you will, what possible long-term benefit results to the welfare of orcas in general, wild and captive, as a result of "Shamu Rocks" or any of the park's other corny whale shows. If you can do that, and the explanation makes sense and is independently verifiable, I will cheerfully ****.
I guess the best way to sum up is to ask Sea World for less marketing and far more honesty. Not that I think we'd ever see that, but I can hope.
Happy travels.
