Some good news for SeaWorld

[Jess_S]

I agree with that, but there are some species that just cannot do well in captivity. Many zoos keep animals that would otherwise be in a lot of danger were they in the wild, which is a bit different. It's also easier to replicate land conditions than sea conditions.

I agree with this 100%. As we learn more about other species, it's important to adjust our behavior -- and that may include not exhibiting certain animals at all. I'm not concerned about the long term viability of zoos because the good ones have adjusted and improved with the times.

I'm somewhat disappointed to hear that SeaWorld is seeing attendance increases when they haven't really addressed the animal welfare issues that initially brought them negative publicity.

 

[dice50]

Exactly. I'm worried for the future of Zoos and Aquariums everywhere.

I had the unique opportunity of going up to Washington and getting on a whale watching boat. I was able to get pretty close to some Orcas for a few minutes. Very cool experience, and something that I won't soon forget.

My issue is how many people are going to be able to take a boat tour in Washington? Sea World is way more accessible for millions of guests who will not just catch glimpses of the whales (or maybe not at all), but see them in all their glory.

Is it better to release a handful of whales in captivity who will help tens of millions of people learn to appreciate Orcas? (They're basically sacrificial lambs, is that moral?) Or rid the world of whale captivity and make the barrier of entry much higher to see them? Creating a whole population of young people who've never seen an Orca and don't care about their conservation.

Difficult questions that I'm glad I don't have to answer. Over my head.

The answer is yes, it is better to release the whales in captivity. Making things easier for millions of Americans is not an excuse for cruelty. Through the internet and television people can learn about any animals they want without having to force an animals to have a terrible life.

 

[dice50]

I also think Seaworld allow people to see and learn about marine life up close and personal. I also read somewhere that most of Seaworld's marine life was bred in captivity or rescued from life threatening situations. I think there is more public buy-in on protecting our oceans when people can see what lives there. Seaworld educates their guests.

On a side note, I also find it interesting that Seaworld, a company practically destroyed by Blackfish, is experienced a 5% increase in attendance. Kind of makes me think that all of the theme parks, including Disney, are enjoying an increase in tourism. Disney is just riding the wave along with everyone else.

I think what's frustrating is that Sea World just has to make a few changes to go from being a soulless monstrosity to something few people would have a problem with. Stop keeping Orcas and a few other animals that society has long since realized is cruel to keep in captivity and do everything else the same and all would be fine. Sea World does do many good things such as educating the public and rehabilitating injured marine animals. Just stop doing the really terrible things and all will be forgiven.

 

[rteetz]

I think what's frustrating is that Sea World just has to make a few changes to go from being a soulless monstrosity to something few people would have a problem with. Stop keeping Orcas and a few other animals that society has long since realized is cruel to keep in captivity and do everything else the same and all would be fine. Sea World does do many good things such as educating the public and rehabilitating injured marine animals. Just stop doing the really terrible things and all will be forgiven.

I don't think PETA will stop and just forgive seaworld if they got rid of orcas. Organizations like that hate all animals in captivity. I also think they can't just release the orcas back. What they would have to do is just not get anymore and just phase them out one by one I guess.

 

[dice50]

I don't think PETA will stop and just forgive seaworld if they got rid of orcas. Organizations like that hate all animals in captivity. I also think they can't just release the orcas back. What they would have to do is just not get anymore and just phase them out one by one I guess.

That's very true, there will always be criticism and some people think keeping any animals in captivity is wrong. I think it's about finding a reasonable consensus and adapting as science learns more and more. So science tells us its especially cruel to keep some kinds of animals in captivity such as Orcas, elephants, and polar bears but other animals seem to thrive in captivity and seem happy as best as we can tell. We can constantly try to improve their enclosures making them larger, more interesting, less stressful.

As far as Orcas, they can move them to semi-wild areas in the ocean. I believe this was done in the past, where you put them in a bay but they can't get out into the ocean itself. That life would be a million times better than what they have now.

 

[Josh Hendy]

I don't think PETA will stop and just forgive seaworld if they got rid of orcas. Organizations like that hate all animals in captivity. I also think they can't just release the orcas back. What they would have to do is just not get anymore and just phase them out one by one I guess.

At some point the public stops listening to PETA. Like when they announced that they wanted to rename fish "sea puppies" because that way the public would be more likely to stop eating them and imprisoning them in aquariums.

 

[Planogirl]

The answer is yes, it is better to release the whales in captivity. Making things easier for millions of Americans is not an excuse for cruelty. Through the internet and television people can learn about any animals they want without having to force an animals to have a terrible life.

Reading about things through the internet or watching a TV show is never the same as seeing something in person. Imaging visiting WDW only through the Internet and TV.

Releasing the animals doesn't always seem to work. I believe that even the famous "Free Willie" whale had trouble even with all of the effort made by a lot of people.

 

[Planogirl]

At some point the public stops listening to PETA. Like when they announced that they wanted to rename fish "sea puppies" because that way the public would be more likely to stop eating them and imprisoning them in aquariums.

I think that PETA does more harm than good when it comes to educating the general public.

 

[rteetz]

I think that PETA does more harm than good when it comes to educating the general public.

And blackfish was a big part of that

 

[Barnabe]

I think what's frustrating is that Sea World just has to make a few changes to go from being a soulless monstrosity to something few people would have a problem with. Stop keeping Orcas and a few other animals that society has long since realized is cruel to keep in captivity and do everything else the same and all would be fine. Sea World does do many good things such as educating the public and rehabilitating injured marine an mals. Just stop doing the really terrible things and all will be forgiven.

I have read somewhere that the Orcas in captivity would die if they were released.

 

[I M Fearless]

There's zero chance of them being released. They will be quietly sold if there is enough pressure put on Sea World. I think other than that they will wait for them to die in captivity. It's either a tank in Florida or somewhere else.

Sea World are not going to build Ocean Habitats, no bank in the world is going to give them a line of credit that large, especially at this point. It's just not a viable business option.

 

[dice50]

You're right, seeing things in person is the best way to truly understand something. However, that doesn't justify cruelty. Sea World can still do plenty of in-person educating without keeping Orcas.

I don't think most reasonable people favor instantly releasing whales that have lived most or all of their lives in captivity straight into the ocean. Most people (who have a problem with Sea World keeping them, which sadly isn't everyone) think they should be put into semi-wild ocean habitats, rehabilitated, and if scientists determine they have a chance at making it in the wild released. This is a win/win for the whales. If they are never deemed fit for release, their lives in the semi-wild habitat is enormously improved from their tank at Sea World, if they are released into the wild and make it then that's obviously great, and even if they are released into the wild and don't make it, I would take that trade.

Sea World continues to breed new Orcas in captivity, so this issue isn't going away anytime soon.

Obviously building an ocean habitat isn't a profitable business decision. However, you could argue it's a smart business decision. If the loss of revenue from potential customers not coming to the park is greater then the cost of releasing then, then it's the smart business decision. Of course, you would hope they'd do the right thing regardless of economics. Ultimately, Sea World might be forced to do this through legislation. There is precedent for this, many of the big circuses have decided to stop using elephants and other large animals to their immense credit.

 

[DDLand]

The answer is yes, it is better to release the whales in captivity. Making things easier for millions of Americans is not an excuse for cruelty. Through the internet and television people can learn about any animals they want without having to force an animals to have a terrible life.

What happens when it comes time for those millions of Americans to vote in candidates who will protect those animals habitats or let them die?

You want a world where contact with those animals are limited? I'd argue that it's at the animals own peril. People in order to fully appreciate them many need to actually see them in person.

It's a difficult question, but not one I'd say can be conclusively answered in the way you just did. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the most ardent supporters of letting them go had their first contact at SeaWorld.

It's also highly emotional obviously. Once again I'm glad I don't have to answer it...

 

[dice50]

It’s not a true statement to say that we need to allow Orcas (or similar animals) to be kept in captivity for people to appreciate them. People brought up the example of the movie Blackfish. I’m sure a ton of people saw that movie, decided that whales shouldn’t be kept in captivity, and now will never go to Sea World because of it, without ever seeing an orca in person.

My parents took me to Sea World when I was a kid and I loved it, including seeing the Orcas. It never crossed my mind that what I was seeing was wrong. I also have never seen the movie Blackfish either. I came to this idea simply by a growing interest in protecting endangered animals throughout the world and reading up on articles about animal welfare and inevitably coming across one about how keeping an Orca in captivity is a particularly cruel act for a host of reasons. So for me, seeing an Orca in captivity wasn't the moment I fell in love with them or when a light when on that it was wrong, it was just me watching a whale in a tank swim around.
For many things that modern day society has deemed is wrong/immoral, we don’t say “well we know this is wrong but we’re going to allow it to happen on a limited basis so we can all remember why this is terrible”. We just make it illegal and try to enforce it being illegal. There is nothing different about this case and we shouldn’t make excused for it or try to pretend it’s morally vague. For example, society overwhelmingly considers dog fighting to be wrong. We don’t argue “well we know this is wrong but I’m open to the idea of letting a few dog fighting rings continue to exist so kids can see the horrors or it.”
If you think keeping Orcas and similar animals in captivity is wrong, there is no ethical dilemma on what we should do. Every person who visits Sea World is answering it with their pocket book and those that refuse to go while Orcas are still kept there and answering the call in another direction.

 

[DDLand]

It’s not a true statement to say that we need to allow Orcas (or similar animals) to be kept in captivity for people to appreciate them. People brought up the example of the movie Blackfish. I’m sure a ton of people saw that movie, decided that whales shouldn’t be kept in captivity, and now will never go to Sea World because of it, without ever seeing an orca in person.

My parents took me to Sea World when I was a kid and I loved it, including seeing the Orcas. It never crossed my mind that what I was seeing was wrong. I also have never seen the movie Blackfish either. I came to this idea simply by a growing interest in protecting endangered animals throughout the world and reading up on articles about animal welfare and inevitably coming across one about how keeping an Orca in captivity is a particularly cruel act for a host of reasons. So for me, seeing an Orca in captivity wasn't the moment I fell in love with them or when a light when on that it was wrong, it was just me watching a whale in a tank swim around.
For many things that modern day society has deemed is wrong/immoral, we don’t say “well we know this is wrong but we’re going to allow it to happen on a limited basis so we can all remember why this is terrible”. We just make it illegal and try to enforce it being illegal. There is nothing different about this case and we shouldn’t make excused for it or try to pretend it’s morally vague. For example, society overwhelmingly considers dog fighting to be wrong. We don’t argue “well we know this is wrong but I’m open to the idea of letting a few dog fighting rings continue to exist so kids can see the horrors or it.”
If you think keeping Orcas and similar animals in captivity is wrong, there is no ethical dilemma on what we should do. Every person who visits Sea World is answering it with their pocket book and those that refuse to go while Orcas are still kept there and answering the call in another direction.

I'm just worried that as the barrier between humans and animals gets larger and larger people are going to stop caring about them. It's pretty easy for most people to brush off the destruction of precious habitat, accept pollution, and turn a blind eye towards poaching if they don't ever have a chance to see the animals in person. We as humans have a hard time understanding the suffering of large quantities of humans and animals in an circumstance, but when it's boiled down to a handful of stories or faces than it becomes understandable and emotional. Sea World gives a face to Orcas everywhere. When someones making a decision about whether to allow construction of something that could disrupt local orca populations they may not care, but if they can visualize the Orca they spent time with at Sea World it could influence their decision.

One of Zoos primary mission is to benefit the earth and help protect habitats from destruction at the cost of the animals freedom. It is an ethical dilemma because by putting my family with a couple feet of giraffe I'll never think of them the same way. They're real. Not just an image on a computer, but a real thing. I don't want that animal species to die, and I'll fight for their preservation. That's what Zoos do, bring knowledge and educate people through contact.

For example, society overwhelmingly considers dog fighting to be wrong. We don’t argue “well we know this is wrong but I’m open to the idea of letting a few dog fighting rings continue to exist so kids can see the horrors or it.”

All that I've written above answers this, and I'll also add that you seem to be missing the fundamental connection people make at Zoos.

I'll leave it at this, but I still think this is way more multi layered than you think. I understand that if you, after weighing the costs, have decided no captivity is acceptable than alright. However, ignoring the benefits completely is not the right call either.

 

[dice50]

I'm just worried that as the barrier between humans and animals gets larger and larger people are going to stop caring about them. It's pretty easy for most people to brush off the destruction of precious habitat, accept pollution, and turn a blind eye towards poaching if they don't ever have a chance to see the animals in person. We as humans have a hard time understanding the suffering of large quantities of humans and animals in an circumstance, but when it's boiled down to a handful of stories or faces than it becomes understandable and emotional. Sea World gives a face to Orcas everywhere. When someones making a decision about whether to allow construction of something that could disrupt local orca populations they may not care, but if they can visualize the Orca they spent time with at Sea World it could influence their decision.

One of Zoos primary mission is to benefit the earth and help protect habitats from destruction at the cost of the animals freedom. It is an ethical dilemma because by putting my family with a couple feet of giraffe I'll never think of them the same way. They're real. Not just an image on a computer, but a real thing. I don't want that animal species to die, and I'll fight for their preservation. That's what Zoos do, bring knowledge and educate people through contact.


All that I've written above answers this, and I'll also add that you seem to be missing the fundamental connection people make at Zoos.

I'll leave it at this, but I still think this is way more multi layered than you think. I understand that if you, after weighing the costs, have decided no captivity is acceptable than alright. However, ignoring the benefits completely is not the right call either.

I understand what you're saying and think we both want the same things and I have weighed the benefits. I think all of your concerns are valid and I am in complete agreement with the purpose of zoos. I just think when you add up all the pros/cons of keeping orcas in captivity, the answer is pretty clear on what the right thing is to do.

There are plenty of smaller animals/fish that Sea World could keep in captivity that would do quite well, that most people wouldn't have a problem with, that would teach kids/people about the important of sea life, the need to protect oceans, etc.. and if people learn that we need to protect the ocean the orca will benefit in the process, without ever having to keep a few sacrificial lambs.

On the other side of the equation if there were just a few orcas left in the world that they were being hunted to the point of extinction or their environment was being destroyed and the last 10 were taken in captivity to develop a captive breeding program to build up their numbers until they could be released into the wild, I would be OK with this as well, it would be the right thing to do even if it wasn't ideal.

So luckily we are in a situation where there are other animals better suited for captivity to teach society about protecting wild life and there are enough wild orcas that we don't need to save the last few in captivity. So with that information, knowing what we know now that orcas are particularly hit hard by living in tanks, and knowing that if Sea World is willing to pay for it there are viable alternatives to keeping them in tanks (semi-wild ocean enclosures with possible full release), I am left with only one ethical choice.. all orcas should be released from captivity and Sea World will not get $1 from me until they are, and I would support any legislation that forces them to do it if Sea World won't do it on their own and I hope others will make the same choice.

Also, I think all of the arguments people (with good intentions) make for why we should think of the benefits of keeping a few in captivity should consider I could say the same thing about a blue whale. Sure it would have a terrible life and be miserable every day but hey people could see what they're like up close and then learn to care about them. But of course no one would be oK with that b/c it's cruel, because they are so big, and because that doesn't currently exist. The only reason anyone is OK with captive orcas is because people have gotten used to it. Imagine you're the Orca in the tank, do you want to be let go or live there forever?

 

[rteetz]

I just wanted to throw it out there that I just saw a seaworld commercial. It was all about looking at the facts about orcas and captivity. They said that their age hasn't decreased while in captivity and they have high standards etc.

 

[Planogirl]

I agree that first hand experience actually does the animals' wild brethren good. People are driven to donate when they see animals and learn to appreciate and even love them. I would argue that even many of those opposed wouldn't care as much if they'd never been exposed to orcas.

It's a complicated situation and it's not being helped by the zealots. Rational people can come up with solutions but just attacking SeaWorld without offering anything of substance solves nothing.

 

[Jdbsfw]

Fair point about the Blue Whale, I've never seen one at a theme park (neither has anybody else) yet I have the utmost respect for their majesty

 

[Yellowstonetim]

If captivity automatically means cruelty, then no animals should be kept. If we think outside the box and set money aside, what kind of environment would make the captivity not cruel? I have seen some Grizzly enclosures for bears that could not be released in the wild that were huge and amazing. If Sea World would design the largest saltwater tank ever imagined (acres in size) and then start an awareness and fund raising campaign, maybe we could make a good place for those whales that cannot be released, educate people, learn more about the species, and keep Sea World going. I don't think Sea World would survive without killer whales. It is the icon that many go to see.

A number of species are in existence because of preservation and breeding work done by zoos around the world.