Some good news for SeaWorld

[dice50]

PETA is far from a charity even though they are a 501 (c)(3) Corporation with a substantial revenue in excess of 37 million dollars. It's a group of activists that talk out of both sides of their mouth.

There are many documented cases where PETA "euthanized" or recommends to "euthanize" animals.

I don't disagree. I like some of what PETA does and think some of their positions are so outlandish it hurts their cause in general. My point about Orcas at Sea World is that it's no longer just the PETA crowd that thinks its wrong, it's the every day average person. It's reached a tipping point. Just like circus animals, certain forms of hunting, specific ways some large scale farms keep animals, etc.. society has moved to a point that the average person recognizes that it is wrong, even if you aren't an animal rights activist.

Sure, there will always be some good people who just don't see it and don't have a problem with it, but Sea World should recognize that this fight is lost and sooner or later they aren't going to be able to keep them anymore so why go through another decade of bad PR? Solve the problem now and move on.

 

[Barnabe]

This is false. There IS a solution. A semi-wild sea enclosure. In the long run it might even be cheaper for Sea World.

OK , so you expect SeaWorld to purchase space for a semi wild enclosure, set it up , move the large mammals, and then continue to provide all care and feeding? That's a huge expense.

This is never going to happen. The only way that something like this could happen is if a charitable foundation decided to get involved.

 

[dice50]

OK , so you expect SeaWorld to purchase space for a semi wild enclosure, set it up , move the large mammals, and then continue to provide all care and feeding? That's a huge expense.

This is never going to happen. The only way that something like this could happen is if a charitable foundation decided to get involved.

Yes I do expect that of Sea World. They created this problem, it is their responsibility to fix it. It would be very expensive to do, but companies are forced to do very expensive things all the time that they would rather not do. Sea World will eventually do this for one of 3 reasons, it's inevitable:

A. The decision makers at the company come to the conclusion that it is wrong to keep Orcas in captivity, and include the cost of moving them to semi-wild enclosures as part of their budget over a 5 year span to even out the costs.
B. The decision makers at Sea World, do the cost benefit analysis and realize that despite the cost of moving the Orcas, they are actually losing more $ from lost attendance from people refusing to go to their parks while they keep Orcas
C. Legislation will force Sea World to do this - there was a state bill in CA that was already going to do something similar. It appears to be shelved for now, but this will only gain more traction every year.

It is inevitable now, Sea World can gain massive PR and save a decade of fighting this if they choose. It will also be the most economic decision over the long run. A one time big financial hit (that isn't as massive as people think) or a slow bleed.

If a charitable foundation wants to help make this happen then that's great, I'm saying there just shouldn't be any expectation for a charitable organization to pay for it, even one that supports it happening. Like every other corporation, Sea World is responsible for their own operations and regulation compliance.

 

[rteetz]

Yes I do expect that of Sea World. They created this problem, it is their responsibility to fix it. It would be very expensive to do, but companies are forced to do very expensive things all the time that they would rather not do. Sea World will eventually do this for one of 3 reasons, it's inevitable:

A. The decision makers at the company come to the conclusion that it is wrong to keep Orcas in captivity, and include the cost of moving them to semi-wild enclosures as part of their budget over a 5 year span to even out the costs.
B. The decision makers at Sea World, do the cost benefit analysis and realize that despite the cost of moving the Orcas, they are actually losing more $ from lost attendance from people refusing to go to their parks while they keep Orcas
C. Legislation will force Sea World to do this - there was a state bill in CA that was already going to do something similar. It appears to be shelved for now, but this will only gain more traction every year.

It is inevitable now, Sea World can gain massive PR and save a decade of fighting this if they choose. It will also be the most economic decision over the long run. A one time big financial hit (that isn't as massive as people think) or a slow bleed.

If a charitable foundation wants to help make this happen then that's great, I'm saying there just shouldn't be any expectation for a charitable organization to pay for it, even one that supports it happening. Like every other corporation, Sea World is responsible for their own operations and regulation compliance.

In sea worlds eyes there isn't a problem so why would they do this. Sea world doesn't want to get rid of the orcas they are a money maker for them... Shamu.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

The large tank is simply impractical, for a variety of reasons. It just can't be done. It's a lot different than cordoning off an area of land for animals to roam.

I agree about the preservation of many species because of zoo work. It's important. But we have to look at balancing something like a Species Survival Program with just how much it hurts an intelligent being to be kept in a small tank.

Ah, nothing is impossible. ;-) There would be engineering challenges in operating such a large salt water tank, but the only real issue is money. It would be very expensive. But think what could be done with some Imagineering! Replicating the look of the ocean. a ride that circumnavigates, cameras in the water for when the whales aren't close. It would be a huge draw and would be lauded by all but the wackos. But there is that nagging little issue... Money. It would cost hundreds of millions.

 

[dice50]

In sea worlds eyes there isn't a problem so why would they do this. Sea world doesn't want to get rid of the orcas they are a money maker for them... Shamu.

Agreed. With their current management, they clearly aren't going to get rid of Orcas out of the goodness of their hearts. So it has to come down to economics or legislation. You say the Orcas are a money maker for them. I believe this has been true up till now. Now, I think they are starting to become a loss. Add up the cost to keep them - training, tanks, food, maintenance, add the new proposed tanks, the big one - loss of attendance from people who refuse to go, and then the risk that one day it will be illegal to keep them; now add up that total cost/risk and compare it to the number of tickets sold to people who only go to the parks JUST for the Orcas. I find it hard to believe that when you add it all together, keeping the Orcas is still wildly profitable.

Out of the 3 main reasons I posted above about why Sea World will not have Orcas in the long run, economics is the most likely answer.

 

[dice50]

Ah, nothing is impossible. ;-) There would be engineering challenges in operating such a large salt water tank, but the only real issue is money. It would be very expensive. But think what could be done with some Imagineering! Replicating the look of the ocean. a ride that circumnavigates, cameras in the water for when the whales aren't close. It would be a huge draw and would be lauded by all but the wackos. But there is that nagging little issue... Money. It would cost hundreds of millions.

If Sea World is going to keep Orcas for now, I think all of us would rather have them be kept in an improved tank like you suggest. The problem is if they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new tanks to satisfy the anti-Orcas in captivity crowd, they might as well spend that money on semi-wild ocean enclosures. Also, if Sea World does build them new tanks that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, they are going to be far less likely to then release them in the future. So sadly, in the end, these new tanks might actually hurt the Orcas more; unless we could know for sure that they would never be released. I'm just worried it will prolong the problem.

 

[ahoyle]

Theres a couple of things I don't understand in this thread.

1. People declaring that if SeaWorld doesn't release the Orca's, they are dead, bankrupt, etc. The point of the thread was to show a turnaround. The last two years they have posted declines in revenue and attendance, this year is pointing towards an increase in that. It doesn't take much analysis from that to see that maybe they have lost the customers they are going to lose and things are starting to pick up, however so slightly. Some of you are reading this news and acting like its worse? This is without any new rides and before the opening of the new Sea Lion show in Orlando, and while the Sea Lion habitat has been closed due to the rescues in Cali.

2. People think that SeaWorld should/would pay for sea pens. That would be an enormous money pit for the 5 decades! How or why would a company pay for that? And to the person that equates it to an oil spill. That might be valid if SeaWorld had illegally obtained the whales and was now being forced to deal with them. But that's not the case.

3. Saying the life span of an Orca doesn't matter. It does matter. Unless you have a better way to test the happiness of an animal? Any creature that lives in torment, stress, unhappy and depressed, doesn't live as long as its happy counterpart. So the average life span matters quite a bit as a way of SeaWorld showing the animals are well cared for. Is it perfect? No. Is it getting tremendously better with the Blue World project? Yes!

4. Wait, people are talking about releasing them? They would all die in a matter of weeks.

People are so out of touch on reality with this whole situation its unbelievable. Joe Rogan on twitter last week was showing how bad the whales are treated at SeaWorld by using a video of the whales jumping

 

[rteetz]

Theres a couple of things I don't understand in this thread.

1. People declaring that if SeaWorld doesn't release the Orca's, they are dead, bankrupt, etc. The point of the thread was to show a turnaround. The last two years they have posted declines in revenue and attendance, this year is pointing towards an increase in that. It doesn't take much analysis from that to see that maybe they have lost the customers they are going to lose and things are starting to pick up, however so slightly. Some of you are reading this news and acting like its worse? This is without any new rides and before the opening of the new Sea Lion show in Orlando, and while the Sea Lion habitat has been closed due to the rescues in Cali.

2. People think that SeaWorld should/would pay for sea pens. That would be an enormous money pit for the 5 decades! How or why would a company pay for that? And to the person that equates it to an oil spill. That might be valid if SeaWorld had illegally obtained the whales and was now being forced to deal with them. But that's not the case.

3. Saying the life span of an Orca doesn't matter. It does matter. Unless you have a better way to test the happiness of an animal? Any creature that lives in torment, stress, unhappy and depressed, doesn't live as long as its happy counterpart. So the average life span matters quite a bit as a way of SeaWorld showing the animals are well cared for. Is it perfect? No. Is it getting tremendously better with the Blue World project? Yes!

4. Wait, people are talking about releasing them? They would all die in a matter of weeks.

People are so out of touch on reality with this whole situation its unbelievable. Joe Rogan on twitter last week was showing how bad the whales are treated at SeaWorld by using a video of the whales jumping

Sea world saw a big decline because of the bad publicity from blackfish. That's basically what this is all about. Blackfish was big push by PETA and groups alike to try and really hurt sea world. Sea world management didn't have an answer for this and marketing wasn't good. Sea world does do a lot of good work rescuing and helping animals. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to have orcas in captivity but I'm not going to base that off of a documentary that was all one sided.

 

[Barnabe]

Yes I do expect that of Sea World. They created this problem, it is their responsibility to fix it. It would be very expensive to do, but companies are forced to do very expensive things all the time that they would rather not do. Sea World will eventually do this for one of 3 reasons, it's inevitable:

A. The decision makers at the company come to the conclusion that it is wrong to keep Orcas in captivity, and include the cost of moving them to semi-wild enclosures as part of their budget over a 5 year span to even out the costs.
B. The decision makers at Sea World, do the cost benefit analysis and realize that despite the cost of moving the Orcas, they are actually losing more $ from lost attendance from people refusing to go to their parks while they keep Orcas
C. Legislation will force Sea World to do this - there was a state bill in CA that was already going to do something similar. It appears to be shelved for now, but this will only gain more traction every year.

It is inevitable now, Sea World can gain massive PR and save a decade of fighting this if they choose. It will also be the most economic decision over the long run. A one time big financial hit (that isn't as massive as people think) or a slow bleed.

If a charitable foundation wants to help make this happen then that's great, I'm saying there just shouldn't be any expectation for a charitable organization to pay for it, even one that supports it happening. Like every other corporation, Sea World is responsible for their own operations and regulation compliance.

The only time a company has been forced to do anything, it's because of some type of environmental disaster. If the California legislation passes, how much do you want to be Sea World will declare bankruptcy and walk away from their San Diego park? The California taxpayers will be stuck footing the bill. I'll bet that's the reason the bill has been shelved.

 

[Barnabe]

Sea world saw a big decline because of the bad publicity from blackfish. That's basically what this is all about. Blackfish was big push by PETA and groups alike to try and really hurt sea world. Sea world management didn't have an answer for this and marketing wasn't good. Sea world does do a lot of good work rescuing and helping animals. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to have orcas in captivity but I'm not going to base that off of a documentary that was all one sided.

Blackfish was not only one-sided, they misrepresented spokespeople as marine biologists. It is the perfect propaganda film

 

[dice50]

Theres a couple of things I don't understand in this thread.

1. People declaring that if SeaWorld doesn't release the Orca's, they are dead, bankrupt, etc. The point of the thread was to show a turnaround. The last two years they have posted declines in revenue and attendance, this year is pointing towards an increase in that. It doesn't take much analysis from that to see that maybe they have lost the customers they are going to lose and things are starting to pick up, however so slightly. Some of you are reading this news and acting like its worse? This is without any new rides and before the opening of the new Sea Lion show in Orlando, and while the Sea Lion habitat has been closed due to the rescues in Cali.

2. People think that SeaWorld should/would pay for sea pens. That would be an enormous money pit for the 5 decades! How or why would a company pay for that? And to the person that equates it to an oil spill. That might be valid if SeaWorld had illegally obtained the whales and was now being forced to deal with them. But that's not the case.

3. Saying the life span of an Orca doesn't matter. It does matter. Unless you have a better way to test the happiness of an animal? Any creature that lives in torment, stress, unhappy and depressed, doesn't live as long as its happy counterpart. So the average life span matters quite a bit as a way of SeaWorld showing the animals are well cared for. Is it perfect? No. Is it getting tremendously better with the Blue World project? Yes!

4. Wait, people are talking about releasing them? They would all die in a matter of weeks.

People are so out of touch on reality with this whole situation its unbelievable. Joe Rogan on twitter last week was showing how bad the whales are treated at SeaWorld by using a video of the whales jumping

1. I don’t think Sea World will go bankrupt if they don’t release the Orcas. They will slowly lose more and more money or make less money then they could have without it. They will also continue to get bad press and their image will go down the tubes. This thread talked about the increase in attendance for Sea World, it’s a valid point to bring up the defining issue of the day for Sea World, which is the Orca issue.


2. Yes most people that think the Orcas should be moved out of Sea World think Sea World should pay for them. It would cost a lot of money. I find it very hard to believe it would bankrupt them. If you removed all the Orcas from Sea World and kept everything else the same, my honest prediction is that attendance might go down 15% worst case scenario, best case scenario attendance goes up 15-20%. It’s a good point that when Sea World captured the Orcas it wasn’t illegal, but I would say that there are many things that companies used to do that was legal or considered ethical, that now are illegal or considered unethical so they had to adapt. I think an almost identical example would be the recent decision by the Ringling Brothers to release their performing elephants to a conservation center. It’s not yet illegal for Ringling Brothers to use elephants in their act but through a combination of economic pressure, society realizing how cruel it is, and the threat of legislation, Ringling Brothers have decided it was the best decision.


3. That was a lazy answer on my part. I have so far not gone into the detail about why it’s so cruel to keep Orcas in captivity because I thought that was well understood. Life span definitely matters. The life span of captive Orcas is definitely shorter than wild orcas. People can point to one Orca in captivity that lives longer than one orca did in the wild but that doesn’t prove anything. It is well known that Orcas in captivity don’t live as long. My bigger point, was that even if Orcas don’t die instantly in captivity, they clearly have a lower quality of life in captivity, and that is more important than Orcas in the wild. I would be happen to explain how their quality of life is harmed in captivity if need be.


4. No one is talking about releasing them into the wild instantly. You either didn’t read the posts before this or are making a false argument, to make your position sound reasonable. People are talking about Sea World moving orcas to sea pens (which you acknowledged in 2.) There are a few Orcas they think could be released into the full wild and there is some hope that even the other Orcas could one day be taught to hunt and make it but even if they never were fully released their lives would be immeasurably better in a sea pen.


I’m glad I’m not on the side of history of trying to argue for why Sea World should keep their Orcas. Joe Rogan might have made a bad point but at least he's for doing the right thing.

 

[dice50]

The only time a company has been forced to do anything, it's because of some type of environmental disaster. If the California legislation passes, how much do you want to be Sea World will declare bankruptcy and walk away from their San Diego park? The California taxpayers will be stuck footing the bill. I'll bet that's the reason the bill has been shelved.

There is legislation passed all the time that deals with environmental issues that isn't spurred by a disaster but by the ever evolving opinion of society. Sometimes it does take a disaster, sometimes it doesn't. Sea World wouldn't declare bankruptcy if they were forced to move Orcas to a sea pen because they wouldn't go bankrupt. They might be less profitable for a few years until the capital expense of the operation was paid off, no different from building a new large e-ticket level ride. Their attendance could even increase because of the decision. Sea World as far as I know, hasn't even threatened the bankruptcy argument, and if they did they should call their bluff. It got shelved because the state representative that covers the area that Sea World is in got it shelved. I'm sure Sea World has some serious clout in the district.

 

[dice50]

Blackfish was not only one-sided, they misrepresented spokespeople as marine biologists. It is the perfect propaganda film

I haven't seen Blackfish but as it is supposed to be a documentary on why keeping an Orca in captivity is cruel, it would only be surprising if it wasn't one-sided. I'd hope it wouldn't take a documentary for people to understand why it's cruel and no longer acceptable to keep an Orca in captivity but if it helps the cause then so be it.

If there are enough people that want to keep them in tanks forever, they can make their own pro captive Orca documentary. I'm sure it would break all kinds of box office records and really help increase Sea World's attendance...

 

[Silock]

Ah, nothing is impossible. ;-) There would be engineering challenges in operating such a large salt water tank, but the only real issue is money. It would be very expensive. But think what could be done with some Imagineering! Replicating the look of the ocean. a ride that circumnavigates, cameras in the water for when the whales aren't close. It would be a huge draw and would be lauded by all but the wackos. But there is that nagging little issue... Money. It would cost hundreds of millions.

It's still too small, unfortunately. That's the problem with a solution like that and even semi-wild enclosures. We're talking about animals that travel tens of thousands of miles. It's just not possible to replicate even a small fraction of that. Don't get me wrong -- that would be far better than the current situation, but it wouldn't solve the problem.

 

[dice50]

It's still too small, unfortunately. That's the problem with a solution like that and even semi-wild enclosures. We're talking about animals that travel tens of thousands of miles. It's just not possible to replicate even a small fraction of that. Don't get me wrong -- that would be far better than the current situation, but it wouldn't solve the problem.

You're right, it's not a perfect solution but if it improves their lives then it's worth doing. There are some that might be able to be released. The rest would have a better life in a sea pen. If all of that is never going to happen, which I contend it's inevitable now, then build them the biggest tank imaginable, don't breed new ones.

Also this standard should be applied to any "marine park" that is keeping them, not just Sea World.

 

[rteetz]

I haven't seen Blackfish but as it is supposed to be a documentary on why keeping an Orca in captivity is cruel, it would only be surprising if it wasn't one-sided. I'd hope it wouldn't take a documentary for people to understand why it's cruel and no longer acceptable to keep an Orca in captivity but if it helps the cause then so be it.

If there are enough people that want to keep them in tanks forever, they can make their own pro captive Orca documentary. I'm sure it would break all kinds of box office records and really help increase Sea World's attendance...

Well blackfish is really the main culprit to why seaworld is under this lull in attendance and why there is more backlash on the orca problem. Blackfish was about the orca trainer that was killed and they really used that to their advantage. The family of the trainer was against how they used her in the documentary. SeaWorld also didn't know how to respond to the documentary and basically did nothing which hurt them even more.

 

[Goddesstree]

Having worked with dolphins in captivity, I feel strongly that large marine mammals do not belong in aquarium settings. The dolphins at EPCOT make me sad. I don't purchase anything in the Living Seas. I refuse to give one penny to Sea World, as they insist on keeping orca. Sharks are not mammals, have very underdeveloped brains compared to mammals, and can stay in tanks for all that I care.

 

[Barnabe]

There is legislation passed all the time that deals with environmental issues that isn't spurred by a disaster but by the ever evolving opinion of society. Sometimes it does take a disaster, sometimes it doesn't. Sea World wouldn't declare bankruptcy if they were forced to move Orcas to a sea pen because they wouldn't go bankrupt. They might be less profitable for a few years until the capital expense of the operation was paid off, no different from building a new large e-ticket level ride. Their attendance could even increase because of the decision. Sea World as far as I know, hasn't even threatened the bankruptcy argument, and if they did they should call their bluff. It got shelved because the state representative that covers the area that Sea World is in got it shelved. I'm sure Sea World has some serious clout in the district.

Please, provide an example of when a company was required through legislation to deal with something like this? I am aware of companies being blocked from building in a particular area because of an endangered species, but that's not the same thing as what you're proposing for SeaWorld. The only time I have ever seen the government step in and make a company do something is when the toxic waste was hazardous to humans or there was an .some type of environmental disaster. I don't think the Orca conditions at Sea World qualify and I don't think the Calif legislation will ever see the light of day.

 

[dinolounger]

I like some of what PETA does and think some of their positions are so outlandish it hurts their cause in general.

Can you be more specific about those things PETA does that you like? Does that include vandalizing medical research laboratories? And euthanizing thousands of animals annually?

it's no longer just the PETA crowd that thinks its wrong, it's the every day average person.

Oh, really? How often do you speak with "the every day average person"? When did they make you their spokesperson? It may come as a surprise to you, but everyone doesn't base their perceptions on programming from a certain particular cable news outlet that has shrinking ratings, due to its rather partisan leanings.

It's reached a tipping point. Just like circus animals

Oh, so everyone now wants to only go to Cirque Du Soleil? Which is frankly a racket to dramatically jack up the price of circus tickets far above what "the average everyday person" can afford, but that's a separate discussion. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but there are still plenty of currently thriving domestic circuses that feature performing animals. Since you'll never hear about most of them from the mainstream media, I'll introduce a representative cross section:

The Big Apple Circus
http://www.bigapplecircus.org/the-show

Carson and Barnes Circus
http://www.carsonbarnescircus.com/

Cole Bros. Circus of the Stars
http://colebroscircus.com/

Circus Flora
http://circusflora.org/

The Royal Hanneford Circus
http://www.hannefordcircus.com/

The Shrine Circus
http://shrine-circus.com/

The Ramos Bros. Circus
http://www.ramoscircus.com/

Universoul Circus
http://www.universoulcircus.com/#!tickets-schedule/cr9v

And of course, the favorite target of the circus haters:

Ringling Bros. Barnum and Bailey
https://www.ringling.com/

Zoppe Family Circus
http://www.zoppe.net/index.html

Society has moved to a point that the average person recognizes that it is wrong, even if you aren't an animal rights activist.

Is the "average" person the same demographic as your "everyday average" person? Or is it a discrete subset? Whatever, again, when did you become their spokesperson? Actually, if you want to meet some of these salt of the earth types, I can guarantee you'll find many at performances of the circuses I've listed above.

Sure, there will always be some good people who just don't see it and don't have a problem with it, but Sea World should recognize that this fight is lost

Certainly, that's why their attendance has gone up. As the great Phineas T. Barnum observed, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."