Some good news for SeaWorld

[JaxDad]

Right or wrong, it definitely won't stop with the Orcas. The watermelons are elated with the unexpected traction of Blackfish and won't let it go until they can shut Sea World down. It would be a HUGE "victory" for them. Then they will go after other marine parks, Busch Gardens, yes Animal Kingdom, and ALL zoos. And it won't even stop there. They will seek to even shut down farms. You don't think so? Heed the words of one of their heroes, Jane Goodall (from Wikipedia): "In The Inner World of Farm Animals, Goodall writes that farm animals are 'far more aware and intelligent than we ever imagined and, despite having been bred as domestic slaves, they are individual beings in their own right. As such, they deserve our respect. And our help. Who will plead for them if we are silent?'"

We continue to witness cultural changes in our society that would have shocked our parents or even our younger selves. Again, I can't say what is right and what is wrong. It's really a personal choice when it comes to these types of issues. But I do know that these groups that appeal to emotion rather than intellect (and make propaganda-like use of social media) have proven capable of instituting major societal changes, and they don't take no for an answer. They are admirably passionate and patient and apparently very well-funded.

 

[Josh Hendy]

About farm animals ... appreciating what Jane Goodall wrote doesn't necessarily mean that you should turn vegetarian or abolish animal husbandry. It means that if you keep animals for food or milk you have a moral obligation to respect them as intelligent beings. In practical terms it means that cattle feedlots, battery chickens, milk parlors where the cows are locked in their stalls forever, etc. are a morally bad alternative to free-ranging conditions with more space and more stimulus. Maybe that's not what she meant, but that's what I got out of it.

Did you notice in any kind of kids' story about farm animals ... the ideal of the animals is always freedom within the context of what might at least be possible. Even in Chicken Run, the life of the chickens before they escape is a free-ranging dream compared to what real chickens on big farms go through, whether they're layers or broilers. A movie about a cow on a feedlot would be far too depressing for anyone to watch.

Even the whales and dolphins at Seaworld have a life that is 100 times better than the average farm animal, truth be told. They get far more space for their size, regular exercise and play time, affectionate care, the company of other animals, and a long life. That doesn't justify catching and breeding the animals because I don't think entertainment and education are good enough reasons to do so, but it's important to keep things in perspective.

Anyone who watches Blackfish and boycotts SeaWorld, but picks up a pound of hamburger from [average supermarket chain] on the way home is guilty of lazy thinking.

 

[DDLand]

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?

I respect this view, you're also probably on the right side of history too. I'm still researching myself... Tough call.

 

[Silock]

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.

Which is all false.

https://www.thedodo.com/community/D...e-as-long-as-in-the-wild-are--1089827505.html

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ld-says-their-whales-live-long-wild-whales-d/

 

[Silock]

If Sea World would design the largest saltwater tank ever imagined (acres in size)

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

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.

 

[Barnabe]

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.

That sounds ideal, but who can afford to pay for the area and the care of the Orcas?

 

[rteetz]

Which is all false.

https://www.thedodo.com/community/D...e-as-long-as-in-the-wild-are--1089827505.html

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ld-says-their-whales-live-long-wild-whales-d/

Reading the second article doesn't say it's false. What it says is that they basically don't have enough evidence to confirm nor deny that it's true or not. I've also never heard of either of these sites so I don't know how credible they are. PETA is going to say sea world is wrong all the time and of course sea world is going to say they are right.

 

[Silock]

Reading the second article doesn't say it's false. What it says is that they basically don't have enough evidence to confirm nor deny that it's true or not. I've also never heard of either of these sites so I don't know how credible they are. PETA is going to say sea world is wrong all the time and of course sea world is going to say they are right.

They link to another article with a ton of citations, so even if you don't know the site, you can still look at the source data.

I don't feel like this statement is ambiguous at all. Your mileage may vary:

"Of the 136 orcas taken in captivity from the wild over the years, only 13 still survive. The average lifespan in captivity so far is about eight and a half years. In the wild, the average rises to thirty-one years for males and forty-six for females."

"And let's remember one last stark number: Of the 55 whales the SeaWorld and other marine parks removed from the Southern and northern resident populations from 1964 to 1976, exactly two remain alive. One is at SeaWorld: Corky. And the only surviving southern resident is Lolita. She's not even in SeaWorld's collection."

 

[Barnabe]

I know there are a lot of passionate people who want to see Sea World closed. If this does happen, what will happen to all of the animals? They can't be set free, so are they just transferred to other aquariums.

I remember Japanese Deer Park in California. They went bankrupt and just walked away and left the deer to starve to death. They couldn't afford to feed them. It was ghastly.

So, after Sea World closes, will PETA step in and relocate the animals to a safe environment and continue to pay for their care and feeding?

 

[Silock]

Problem is, there ISN'T a good solution. I think the best we can hope for at this point is that no further harm is done.

 

[rteetz]

I know there are a lot of passionate people who want to see Sea World closed. If this does happen, what will happen to all of the animals? They can't be set free, so are they just transferred to other aquariums.

I remember Japanese Deer Park in California. They went bankrupt and just walked away and left the deer to starve to death. They couldn't afford to feed them. It was ghastly.

So, after Sea World closes, will PETA step in and relocate the animals to a safe environment and continue to pay for their care and feeding?

I highly doubt PETA would step in. Their main focus of course is to keep animals out of captivity. I don't think sea world will close but I do think eventually they will something about this issue with the orcas. A lot of people forget the amount of good work sea world does rescuing animals recently they rescued over a dozen manatees that were stuck in a sewer I believe.

 

[Barnabe]

I highly doubt PETA would step in. Their main focus of course is to keep animals out of captivity. I don't think sea world will close but I do think eventually they will something about this issue with the orcas. A lot of people forget the amount of good work sea world does rescuing animals recently they rescued over a dozen manatees that were stuck in a sewer I believe.

I don't think Sea World will close either. I was just speculating. I agree that Sea World does a lot of great things that shouldn't be disregarded. c

 

[I M Fearless]

Perhaps PETA should actually try and DO something instead of just coming up with the ideas.

If their solution is actually viable, the obvious thing for them to do is to build the suitable ocean enclosures themselves. If what they are asking Sea World to do is actually possible and if PETA are so determined this will solve the problem, then it would be better if they actually got the project done to their own specifications.

PETA is likely to have similar ability to raise credit and get funding as Sea World is at this point. Neither organisation is in a particularly strong position to negotiate any sort of funding for such a project, as I can't see any return on investment from a financier's point of view.

Once the fantastic habitats are all ready and complete, PETA could then offer to re-home the Orcas free of charge for Sea World, who at this point will no doubt be glad to get rid of them. The public would also no doubt be supportive of that decision.

Everyone would then presumably be happy?

 

[rteetz]

Perhaps PETA should actually try and DO something instead of just coming up with the ideas.

If their solution is actually viable, the obvious thing for them to do is to build the suitable ocean enclosures themselves. If what they are asking Sea World to do is actually possible and if PETA are so determined this will solve the problem, then it would be better if they actually got the project done to their own specifications.

PETA is likely to have similar ability to raise credit and get funding as Sea World is at this point. Neither organisation is in a particularly strong position to negotiate any sort of funding for such a project, as I can't see any return on investment from a financier's point of view.

Once the fantastic habitats are all ready and complete, PETA could then offer to re-home the Orcas free of charge for Sea World, who at this point will no doubt be glad to get rid of them. The public would also no doubt be supportive of that decision.

Everyone would then presumably be happy?

I doubt PETA would do something like this.

 

[dice50]

Problem is, there ISN'T a good solution. I think the best we can hope for at this point is that no further harm is done.

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

 

[dice50]

I know there are a lot of passionate people who want to see Sea World closed. If this does happen, what will happen to all of the animals? They can't be set free, so are they just transferred to other aquariums.

I remember Japanese Deer Park in California. They went bankrupt and just walked away and left the deer to starve to death. They couldn't afford to feed them. It was ghastly.

So, after Sea World closes, will PETA step in and relocate the animals to a safe environment and continue to pay for their care and feeding?

I don't want Sea World to close. That is what is so frustrating to me about this. If all Sea World did was get rid of the very large animals that we've come to realize is particularly cruel to keep in captivity, they could change absolutely nothing else and all would be fine. Yes, some people are correct in saying there are some hard-core PETA types that would never be satisfied, but the overwhelming majority of the people who think it's wrong to keep Orcas in captivity aren't of that mindset.

I believe how society at large has come to the conclusion that you shouldn't keep Orcas in captivity, is pretty similar to how society has come to the conclusion that hunting an elephant or tiger is wrong. 100 years ago many people wouldn't have thought it was a moral travesty, even if they personally would be opposed to it.

I also agree and think it's fair to say that in 50 years many more things that we think are OK now, we'll almost definitely have changed our minds on. To the point about Jane Goodall and farm animals, I didn't really see anything in her quote that was outlandish or even that I would disagree with. I'm not a vegetarian but there is zero excuse to keep farm animals in small inhuman cages and not treat them with respect and kindness. They should be treated with maximum care, space, and kindness. Yes on some level it's hypocritical to want those things and also still be OK with eating them, I admit, but I don't see why we can't have sensible anti-cruelty laws if we're going to keep animals for agricultural purposes.

 

[dice50]

Perhaps PETA should actually try and DO something instead of just coming up with the ideas.

If their solution is actually viable, the obvious thing for them to do is to build the suitable ocean enclosures themselves. If what they are asking Sea World to do is actually possible and if PETA are so determined this will solve the problem, then it would be better if they actually got the project done to their own specifications.

PETA is likely to have similar ability to raise credit and get funding as Sea World is at this point. Neither organisation is in a particularly strong position to negotiate any sort of funding for such a project, as I can't see any return on investment from a financier's point of view.

Once the fantastic habitats are all ready and complete, PETA could then offer to re-home the Orcas free of charge for Sea World, who at this point will no doubt be glad to get rid of them. The public would also no doubt be supportive of that decision.

Everyone would then presumably be happy?

Why should a charity be financially responsible for what another company has done. No one forced Sea World to capture Orcas. If an oil company has a spill, should you be forced to pay for cleanup b/c you support a charity that cares about the ocean? Of course not.

 

[ahoyle]

Why should a charity be financially responsible for what another company has done. No one forced Sea World to capture Orcas. If an oil company has a spill, should you be forced to pay for cleanup b/c you support a charity that cares about the ocean? Of course not.

I find it hilarious you mention oil spills and clean up, as SeaWorld is one of the companies doing the most to help animals with the recent spill in California. But keep banging that evil company rhetoric. (Full disclosure, my wife works for SeaWorld, but obviously everything I am stating on here is my opinion only).

Also, no one really knows the true life span of Orcas in the wild. I remember reading a study recently that found a large population, one of the Orcas was estimated to be almost 90, and none of the others in the pod were past their 30s. It was really confusing and no one had a good explanation on why or how that would be. Also, while I care about killer whales in captivity, we are talking about SeaWorld. There are other parks that have whales, and none of them provide the care or expertise as SeaWorld does. So if ABC Marine Park in Brazil (complete made up company) has a killer whale that dies after 5 years, that doesn't really concern me as far as what SeaWorld is doing.

In peer-reviewed studies, scientists estimate that the average, or mean, life expectancy for a female is 30 years and a male is 19 years in the Pacific Northwest.[1] For whales in Southeastern Alaska, the maximum longevity appears to be in the 50s for females and late 30s for males.[2] So, in those two areas of the world, female killer whales live around 30 to 50 years and males live around 19 to 30 years.

SeaWorld has several killer whales in their 30s and one that is close to 50.

 

[cranbiz]

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.

 

[dice50]

I find it hilarious you mention oil spills and clean up, as SeaWorld is one of the companies doing the most to help animals with the recent spill in California. But keep banging that evil company rhetoric. (Full disclosure, my wife works for SeaWorld, but obviously everything I am stating on here is my opinion only).

Also, no one really knows the true life span of Orcas in the wild. I remember reading a study recently that found a large population, one of the Orcas was estimated to be almost 90, and none of the others in the pod were past their 30s. It was really confusing and no one had a good explanation on why or how that would be. Also, while I care about killer whales in captivity, we are talking about SeaWorld. There are other parks that have whales, and none of them provide the care or expertise as SeaWorld does. So if ABC Marine Park in Brazil (complete made up company) has a killer whale that dies after 5 years, that doesn't really concern me as far as what SeaWorld is doing.

In peer-reviewed studies, scientists estimate that the average, or mean, life expectancy for a female is 30 years and a male is 19 years in the Pacific Northwest.[1] For whales in Southeastern Alaska, the maximum longevity appears to be in the 50s for females and late 30s for males.[2] So, in those two areas of the world, female killer whales live around 30 to 50 years and males live around 19 to 30 years.

SeaWorld has several killer whales in their 30s and one that is close to 50.

I’m not sure you fully read my message but you definitely didn’t understand the intent of it. Not sure where you got the banging evil company rhetoric but it definitely wasn’t from me. Sea World does a lot of really great things, helps rehabilitate animals, helps cleans up spills as you mention, teachers kids/people about sea life, bring joy and entertainment to millions, etc.. I’m no Sea World basher. But just because a company does a lot of really great things doesn’t mean they are incapable of doing something awful, which to the majority of people keeping an Orca in captivity is.

Because Sea World is capable of doing so much good it’s particularly maddening why they choose to dig in their heels on this one issue. Just fix this one issue and this all goes away. Beyond the ethics of it I don’t even think they can justify it from a business prospective. For whatever the cost to build semi-wild enclosure and the attendance they would lose from people going to the parks ONLY to see Orcas (which I don’t think is that much), they have to be losing close to that much money from people refusing to go and the damage to their brand.


So I just want to reiterate, I don’t hate Sea World, I like and respect a lot of what they do, I just really dislike this one major thing because it’s so wrong, and so unnecessary, and there are solutions to the problem. I work for an oil and gas company – which is why I used that as an example - if we have a spill it should be our responsibility financially to clean it up. It would be ridiculous and wrong to say “you care about the ocean, so if we have a spill why doesn’t your foundation pay for the cleanup costs”. Like Sea World a lot of people hate us for a few things and ignore the good we do. But there are things we can change to be a more responsible industry and if we dig in our heels and refuse to implement those changes even if it cost us some money to do it, then we deserve the criticism we get.


I’m not arguing the life span of Orcas in the wild or in captivity. Even if Orcas in captivity lived longer than orcas in the wild, I would still think it’s very wrong to keep them in captivity. Quality of life is far more important than quantity.