"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.