Some good news for SeaWorld

[dinolounger]

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.

Correct. But of course, the author of said article ends up winging it and stating Sea World is still likely to have a detrimental impact on whale life expectancy.

 

[Silock]

Correct. But of course, the author of said article ends up winging it and stating Sea World is still likely to have a detrimental impact on whale life expectancy.

He's still not wrong.

https://www.thedodo.com/community/NaomiRose/everything-wrong-with-seaworld-561608176.html

There are plenty of citations and sources in this article.

 

[Josh Hendy]

I don't want to blacken the name of any particular circus, but about 20 years ago we saw a small circus that came to our town and we were shocked at what happened in the tiger training act. In the front row we were only about 10 feet from the tigers. I think they were behind a temporary mesh fence or something. Anyways, we could see very clearly that when the trainer was cracking the whip, it wasn't in the air an inch from the animals. He was snapping them right on their ribs with a mighty "crack" and we could see big, red welts on their skin that faded a second after the whip crack. Seeing the welts, you could instantly understand the pain and anger on the faces of the tigers, and boy oh boy did they roar. I will never go to a circus with animal acts again. What they were doing to the tigers makes SeaWorld seem like a picnic for the orcas ... even if (like the old Claymation mockumentary about zoo animals), "they don't get out much." (clip)

So if animal-based circuses are still thriving ... maybe they shouldn't?

 

[dinolounger]

So if animal-based circuses are still thriving ... maybe they shouldn't?

"Animal based circus" is code for "any circus that utilizes animals in any way."

And therein lies the tyranny of the animal rights extremists. They don't distinguish between a massive enterprise like Ringling vs. a medium sized show that features performing zebras and bears vs. a tiny fifteen person operation whose entire menagerie consists of a camel and two spider monkeys. No, in their PETA framed existence, any circus that uses animals in any way is an evil operation that must be terminated. And once they've brainwashed the masses to buy that logic, their next strategy will be to convince everyone that there must be a ban on ownership of all farm animals and household pets.

Don't believe that? They've been making it clear for decades that's their long term agenda:

http://protecttheharvest.com/who-is-under-attack/animal-rights-vs-animal-owners/

And while there has been the usual PETA bashing here, the Humane Society of the U.S. has come through unmentioned and unscathed.

They should not and won't:

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/136-humane-society-of-the-united-states/

 

[Josh Hendy]

Don't worry, I believe it. The PETA people are like attack-zombies. It's quite comforting to very sensitive or simple-minded people if they can believe and act like the world is full of very simple choices. Using animals in any way is cruel, therefore never use animals in any way for food, leather, entertainment, anything.

So they become vegetarians ... and meanwhile ... WFT do they think that vegetable and fruit farmers do to the wild gophers and deer that wander into their fields to browse? BANG.

But you have to listen to them, because sometimes they help raise awareness of actual moral problems. Just because they think that you should stop eating "sea kittens" doesn't mean that they're wrong when they tell you that many turtles and dolphins die a horrible, cruel death when they're caught in drift nets and that the practice should be stopped.

 

[peg110]

"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 when were these 136 orcas taken in? 2003 or 1964? Kind of makes a difference when you consider what the life span would be. An orca captured in 1964 would be over 50 years old (beyond the "Average" life span in the wild). How old were they when captured?

"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."

Again, lets assume that this occurred at "BIRTH" in 1964 to 1976, that would make them 51 to 39 years old (If this occurred at their birth). Not knowing all their sexes (as the life spans are significantly different for the sexes), I'd say that 2 out of 55 is pretty good since they are likely AT or beyond their average lifespan for being in the wild, but they were in captivity.

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.

A charity should NOT be financially responsible. However, if a charity is "Pushing" for a particular outcome, it seems to me that they would do more than just push for policy change.

Unicef doesn't just preach a better life for children. Salvation Army doesn't just lobby to get help for less fortunate. Red Cross doesn't just plead for blood donations. They HELP OUT. Unicef provides food, Salvation Army provides services, and red cross provides relief in disasters (as well as collected blood for surgeries). What Does PETA do for Seaworld? Offer a solution that PETA finds acceptable (compromise? What's that?) but does little to help implement.

And with your "Oil Spill" Scenario, now the charity pushing for an outcome would not be FORCED to (by law or mandate) but may feel forced to because of the situation. If they love the ocean so much then I would think they would want to step in and help make it right, not just stand by and complain how the oil companies screwed it up.

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.

PETA is digging in just as much. I have no doubt that if Seaworld would "Fix this one issue" not only would it not "All go away", but I think it will be a chalk mark in PETA's win column giving them motivation to work on the next issue. (Dolphins, then polar bears, then seals, then penguins, ........ then gold fish.

I am not a big fan of those who Radically advocate any cause (pro or con). PETA is one such group (in my opinion) and if you give them an inch they will certainly take the mile.

As a final note, I personally don't believe that the orcas at Seaworld are being treated cruelly. Certainly their life is far better than we treat animals for food. (I know, PETA is all over that too). Much like anything else, if you strongly object to such things (as is your right) you have a couple of resources at your disposal. The first is the "Vote" make your vote count and vote for the person that best reflects your position. If enough people vote that way, you can effect change. Second, let your wallet do the talking. If you support Seaworld, continue to do business with them. If you are against Seaworld (or at least the Orcas) then don't spend your money at Seaworld and support groups like PETA (or other groups) who represent your interest. I will be going to Seaworld in November and I look forward to the Shamu shows and my kids learn a lot that they might not otherwise be able to (or even want to) as the shows make it exciting and engaging for them. I think if you start getting rid of the Orcas (and other large fish) you loose the educational component (or at least its effectiveness) and they will loose more business. I don't think the anti-orca crowd is that much larger than the crowd who wants to see them.

 

[dice50]

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.

I could cite big sweeping laws that cover a host of environmental issues that force companies to change their practices like:
- Clean Air Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Clean Water Act
But more specifically the hundreds/thousands of laws that pertain to animal cruelty, rules for breeding animals, rules for how farm animals are regulated, laws pertaining to hunting, states passing laws that no longer allow private individuals to keep large game as pets (this one specifically is a good fit for the Orca issue), banning of dog fighting/**** fighting. All of those are laws passed that affected how people/corporations treat animals.

 

[rteetz]

I could cite big sweeping laws that cover a host of environmental issues that force companies to change their practices like:
- Clean Air Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Clean Water Act
But more specifically the hundreds/thousands of laws that pertain to animal cruelty, rules for breeding animals, rules for how farm animals are regulated, laws pertaining to hunting, states passing laws that no longer allow private individuals to keep large game as pets (this one specifically is a good fit for the Orca issue), banning of dog fighting/**** fighting. All of those are laws passed that affected how people/corporations treat animals.

If that's a good fit for the orca issue then what about zoos? That basically tells me that all zoos should go away and all of these animals should be wild. Sea world is not a private individual they are a for profit company. That law could also affect disney and animal kingdom, Busch gardens, and zoos across the country. I'm saying it's right or wrong for orcas to be in captivity but is it really right or wrong for any animal?

 

[ahoyle]

Sorry, I was away from this for a day and didnt realize my last post went through as my phone gave me an error. I wanted to add one thing that got cut off. Joe Rogan on twitter was being so crazy about this, arguing how the whales were so unhappy/mistreated they could no longer jump right. He linked to a video showing SeaWorlds Orcas jumping, then a video of the scene from Free Willy jumping over the land bridge as an example of what they do in the wild. You couldn't make that up!

I still don't understand the disconnect for some people. Even after that post someone mentioned that if they didnt release the Orcas they would keep losing customers and revenue. They haven't released the Orcas, yet revenue and customers were up in 1st quarter. Thats what the whole thread was about.

Also, those wanting SeaWorld to build an ocean in their park for the orcas, I assume you are well read on the Blue World Project in your concern about the animals, so I am sure I am repeating something you know. But you know part of the new, bigger tanks, will have a current system, that allows the whales to swim in place, like a water treadmill. I think thats pretty cool. And no, it doesn't replace the ocean, but its another example of doing what they can.

 

[rteetz]

Here is an interesting read the pertains to this and blackfish

https://reason.com/archives/2015/06/10/blackfishsgreen-lies-about-sea-world/

http://www.breitbart.com/california...hows-signs-of-recovery-from-blackfish-wounds/

 

[Disney Von Drake]

I think if you start getting rid of the Orcas (and other large fish) you loose the educational component (or at least its effectiveness) and they will loose more business. I don't think the anti-orca crowd is that much larger than the crowd who wants to see them.

We obviously need the educational component since some people that visit SeaWorld look upon Orcas as "large fish" rather than mammals.

 

[peg110]

We obviously need the educational component since some people that visit SeaWorld look upon Orcas as "large fish" rather than mammals.

Ok, you got me. I really wasn't focusing on it when I wrote that. That being said, I did not indicate that Orcas were fish. Sharks, however, are and some can get very large. So do manta rays, and other fish. So what I said was still technically correct. And yes, I know, whales and dolphins are not fish. I suppose I should have said, "if you start getting rid of the Orcas (and other large living inhabitants) you loose the ...." but thank you for the correction nonetheless.

 

[Barnabe]

I could cite big sweeping laws that cover a host of environmental issues that force companies to change their practices like:
- Clean Air Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Clean Water Act
But more specifically the hundreds/thousands of laws that pertain to animal cruelty, rules for breeding animals, rules for how farm animals are regulated, laws pertaining to hunting, states passing laws that no longer allow private individuals to keep large game as pets (this one specifically is a good fit for the Orca issue), banning of dog fighting/**** fighting. All of those are laws passed that affected how people/corporations treat animals.

These are the same type of laws that I already mentioned. But I don't see one law that is similar to one that you think could be applied to Sea World. I appreciate that you are passionate about this issue, but I don't think the government is going to step in and force Sea World to create a new environment for their large mammals.

 

[I M Fearless]

It is obvious that the only two things that can happen to the Orcas are:

1. They stay where they are

2. They are sold

No one is going to pay for Ocean enclosures, including PETA who are the people who actually want them to happen. If the people who actually want something are unable or unwilling to pay for it then it is unlikely that people who are not really interested in it happening will fund it. It's just fantasy to think this even has a 1% chance of actually happening.

What else can happen?

If Sea World closed it would be option 2. If Sea World was taken over it would be option 1. If Sea World feels the Orca's are loosing them too much attendance it would be option 2.

I really can't see what else is a viable alternative here.

 

[Barnabe]

It is obvious that the only two things that can happen to the Orcas are:

1. They stay where they are

2. They are sold

No one is going to pay for Ocean enclosures, including PETA who are the people who actually want them to happen. If the people who actually want something are unable or unwilling to pay for it then it is unlikely that people who are not really interested in it happening will fund it. It's just fantasy to think this even has a 1% chance of actually happening.

What else can happen?

If Sea World closed it would be option 2. If Sea World was taken over it would be option 1. If Sea World feels the Orca's are loosing them too much attendance it would be option 2.

I really can't see what else is a viable alternative here.

I think you forgot another option: the Orcas could be euthanized. It would be horrible, but if SeaWorld were no longer able to care for them and no one was wiling to assume financial responsibility, this could happen.

 

[Planogirl]

I think you forgot another option: the Orcas could be euthanized. It would be horrible, but if SeaWorld were no longer able to care for them and no one was wiling to assume financial responsibility, this could happen.

I was just thinking that and it wouldn't just be the orcas. I doubt that they could find enough buyers for all of their creatures.

 

[I M Fearless]

Yes, this is quite a real possibility, I think it would be more likely that they sell them to any park where they would physically fit at that point however. Kind of like a whale in a bath tub situation.

PETA may end up doing more harm than good if they blindly go on fighting. I think this is very much a case of them knowing what they are fighting AGAINST, but they don't know what they are fighting FOR.

 

[peg110]

I agree that there is Option 3 - Euthanize
What about Option 4 - Release to the wild? I know the survival rate may not be that good, but the apparent argument is now, is that their survival in captivity is horrible too. (I don't believe it, but that is apparently one of the arguments).

I would think that if it came down to it, obviously Seaworld would want to sell as much as they could to recoup any money they could, but having said that, if PETA (and others) are so adamant against their captivity then who would really want to step up to take that line of fire by buying these animals?

I think release to the wild would certainly be a better option than euthanizing them. At least in the wild, they have a chance, and if they don't survive, then they become food for other animals (not to be morbid, but it is, after all, the normal cycle of their lives anyway).

 

[Barnabe]

I agree that there is Option 3 - Euthanize
What about Option 4 - Release to the wild? I know the survival rate may not be that good, but the apparent argument is now, is that their survival in captivity is horrible too. (I don't believe it, but that is apparently one of the arguments).

I would think that if it came down to it, obviously Seaworld would want to sell as much as they could to recoup any money they could, but having said that, if PETA (and others) are so adamant against their captivity then who would really want to step up to take that line of fire by buying these animals?

I think release to the wild would certainly be a better option than euthanizing them. At least in the wild, they have a chance, and if they don't survive, then they become food for other animals (not to be morbid, but it is, after all, the normal cycle of their lives anyway).

I know what you're saying, but these animals have been in captivity. They hve not learned to hunt for food or guard against predators, so I think releasing them in the wild is not a great option.

 

[peg110]

I know what you're saying, but these animals have been in captivity. They hve not learned to hunt for food or guard against predators, so I think releasing them in the wild is not a great option.

No more cruel than Euthanizing them. It's also not a "Great Option"

Think of it this way, if it were YOU (and not an Orca) which would YOU rather have happen. Sure death, or a chance (however slim) of life? No easy answer either way.