Some good news for SeaWorld

[kamik86]

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.

Ok so the equivalent for a person would be that you could either give me a relatively painless injection and kill me or put me in the woods somewhere with no food and water, no supplies, and no knowledge of how to get these items (Since the whales don't know how to hunt I'm imagining that I don't know things like what types of plants in my area are edible, how to build a fire without matches, etc).

I would choose the injection over starving to death in the cold, wet conditions I would find myself in.

 

[Silock]

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?

http://us.whales.org/wdc-in-action/fate-of-captive-orcas

There's a list there.

I'd say that 2 out of 55 is pretty good

4% is good? 4% reaching what is a relatively average age for a wild orca is . . . not good. At all.

Certainly their life is far better than we treat animals for food.

That depends highly upon where one sources their food animals.

 

[Barnabe]

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.

Personally, I'd choose euthanasia.

 

[ahoyle]

http://us.whales.org/wdc-in-action/fate-of-captive-orcas

There's a list there.



4% is good? 4% reaching what is a relatively average age for a wild orca is . . . not good. At all.



That depends highly upon where one sources their food animals.

Can you show me a study that 50 years is the average age for an Orca in the wild? The average lifespan of a human is around 84ish...do you think that makes the average human 84 years old?

I'm assuming your are more scientifically advanced than those involved in the Marine Mammal Report (a US Federal Govt report) that was quoted as saying a whale born at SeaWorld has a life expectancy of 46 years. Or Dr Douglas Demaster, of the Alaska Fishery Science Center, quoted in the WSJ that whales in captivity and the wild have similar life spans.

Also, one thing PETA and other agencies with agendas use against zoos or SeaWorld, is counting the deaths of infants against them. A whale dying 2 days after birth, significantly skews the statistics of small population. There is NO way to measure this in the wild. No one watches the oceans for how often whales die that young, so the only thing you see in studies is the ones that already survived. Its biology 101 that those first few weeks, months, whatever of life are when we are the most vulnerable, until advanced old age.

 

[peg110]

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?

http://us.whales.org/wdc-in-action/fate-of-captive-orcas


There's a list there.

Ok, but that doesn't tell me when the Orca's were captured. Ironically, it further "EXPANDS" the dates from 1964 - 2003 to 1961 - 2003 additionally the numbers show that 148 (not 136) Orcas were taken in and only 126 leaving 22 (not 13) surviving.

THe article also talks about other deaths of Orcas in captivities but not very specific about how or why (or even when. Could have been prior to 1961, we really don't know).

Ironically the longest surviving Orca in captivity is at least 45 years old and is held at Seaworld. (so they must be doing something right)

I'd say that 2 out of 55 is pretty good

4% is good? 4% reaching what is a relatively average age for a wild orca is . . . not good. At all.

I would be happy to make it to my average lifespan. I would be thrilled to live longer. Let's not forget that we don't know how old they were when captured and for the most part they are AT or BEYOND their AVERAGE life span for the WILD, however these are in CAPTIVITY. To get a truer picture, I think we would need to see a full on graph of EACH of the other 53 Orcas age at death and not just a single sensational statistics.

As an engineer with an understanding of how statistics work, it's very possible to sway an argument by only showing the statistics that support your cause. To truly understand you need to see ALL the statistics to really make a good assessment.

Certainly their life is far better than we treat animals for food.

That depends highly upon where one sources their food animals.

Absolutely it depends on your sources. Isn't that the point? Free Range Chickens versus Tightly Penned up chickens. Isn't that akin to Orcas in the wild versus Orcas at Seaworld? Certainly the WILD (or free range) is better, but as far as "Pens" for animals go, I think the Orcas got the better deal versus the Chickens (in their pens)


Please don't misunderstand me, I am not for abusing the animals. if PETA had it their way, we'd all be vegetarians. I don't believe Seaworld is abusing or mistreating their Orcas (or other inhabitants). I suppose it's much like the people who have dogs. Some people treat their dogs like they are a member of the family (my dog eats well, has run of the house, shares our bed and is overall treated excellent), where others keep rover tied to a dog coop in the back of the yard and only once or twice a day does anyone take them food/water.

In either case, PETA would have both of us not having our dogs. From your posted article, it sounds like the majority of Orcas that have had issues are not necessarily from seaworld (while some, clearly have been).

I know enough to know that I don't know enough about Orcas but from what I do know and have seen/experienced, I am not yet convinced that Seaworld is a terrible way of life for Orcas.

 

[I M Fearless]

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?

They are unlikely to find buyers in North America, but there would be plenty of takers in foreign markets. Mexico, Spain, South America.

In many countries ethical issues are much less considered by the majority of the population. Look at Spain, bullfighting is a regular national pastime. A few whales in captivity wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

 

[oddman]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/la-fi-seaworld-20150606-story.html#page=1

Hopefully this is the beginning of the turnaround for them!

After falling 4.2% in 2014, attendance rose 5.6% in the first three months of this year at its 11 theme parks and attractions, although SeaWorld noted an early Easter helped boost crowds. Revenue rose just 1% because the company had to use "promotional offerings" to help attract visitors, who spent less on average than a year earlier.

I love seaworld and will continue to visit as long as I visit FL. as far as I am concerned they do a pretty good job and if a few whales have a mildly less fruitful life to educate and enamor millions that is fine with me.

many of you are completely hypocritical in respect to the orca situation. The Orcas may or may not be happy and well adjusted, but the truth is it does not matter, they are treated well and not starved , beaten or afraid. And frankly for any animal that is pretty good living in a world where we chomp and chew up billions of creatures and do it in horrific ways. that chicken burger or hotdog did not have a moment of peace and happiness, they were buggered from the day they were born to the day they died. So frankly if you are taking part in the human race, keeping a few whales in some pools and being nice to them is not that bad. I feel a lot more sorry for the people in low paid hard labor jobs, they have tougher lives than those whales and nobody is demanding they get a better home or appears worried about their lives.

hell I say fix the issue of short and harsh lives for the poor before we worry about the depth of water for a stupid mammal that moved back to the water.

 

[Silock]

Can you show me a study that 50 years is the average age for an Orca in the wild?

It's a generally accepted number for a female. Males are capable, but less likely, of reaching this age, as well.

http://qap2.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mms.12049/pdf

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/killer-whale.html

Or Dr Douglas Demaster, of the Alaska Fishery Science Center, quoted in the WSJ that whales in captivity and the wild have similar life spans.

"In the 1995 paper, DeMaster cautioned that "comparisons between survival in captivity with survival in the wild will remain tenuous until additional demographic studies are conducted on wild populations.""

Ironically the longest surviving Orca in captivity is at least 45 years old and is held at Seaworld. (so they must be doing something right)

Or they have a statistically anomalous subject. I mean, they haven't killed it yet, so in that sense, yes, they're doing something right.

I would be happy to make it to my average lifespan.

As would I. However, if you locked me in a room and fed me Filet Mignon all the time, but I couldn't get out of the room and had to spend my entire life in there, I'd rather take my chances with my lifespan on the outside.

Isn't that akin to Orcas in the wild versus Orcas at Seaworld? Certainly the WILD (or free range) is better, but as far as "Pens" for animals go, I think the Orcas got the better deal versus the Chickens (in their pens)

Chickens and Orcas are completely different animals with entirely different needs. Both situations are no doubt awful, but comparing the two is not appropriate.

I don't believe Seaworld is abusing or mistreating their Orcas (or other inhabitants).

Neither do I. I'm sure they love their animals very much. However, that doesn't mean that they are doing what's best for the orcas.

 

[Barnabe]

I love seaworld and will continue to visit as long as I visit FL. as far as I am concerned they do a pretty good job and if a few whales have a mildly less fruitful life to educate and enamor millions that is fine with me.

many of you are completely hypocritical in respect to the orca situation. The Orcas may or may not be happy and well adjusted, but the truth is it does not matter, they are treated well and not starved , beaten or afraid. And frankly for any animal that is pretty good living in a world where we chomp and chew up billions of creatures and do it in horrific ways. that chicken burger or hotdog did not have a moment of peace and happiness, they were buggered from the day they were born to the day they died. So frankly if you are taking part in the human race, keeping a few whales in some pools and being nice to them is not that bad. I feel a lot more sorry for the people in low paid hard labor jobs, they have tougher lives than those whales and nobody is demanding they get a better home or appears worried about their lives.

hell I say fix the issue of short and harsh lives for the poor before we worry about the depth of water for a stupid mammal that moved back to the water.

this is what gets to me: there are more shelters for animals in the US than there are for humans, pretty pathetic IMO

 

[dice50]

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?

I’m not sure how you read that to say all zoos should go away. Zoos serve an important purpose, to be a reserve population of a species, to build up their numbers in captivity to keep the species going while they are decimated in the wild, to teach people about animals, and for enjoyment. But I don’t think anyone would argue that zoos should keep an animal that is doing fine in the wild, in an enclosure that is far too small for them, and make them perform every day. There are some animals that even zoos are slowly moving away from, like elephants. Elephants and orcas have a lot of similarities. The difference is poachers are decimating the wild elephant populations so regrettably some will need to be kept out of the wild for a reserve population, but where they are being kept is moving from zoos to acres and acres of private reserves and sanctuaries.
I understand that some people think it’s wrong to keep any animal in captivity. I think if you can do it humanely and for a good reason and the animal doesn’t seem to be suffering, then it’s OK. But I don’t think we have to be too clever by half and realize, it’s clearly not morally OK to keep an Orca in a small tank at Sea World to perform tricks every day, when the animals are clearly living unhappy lives and there are viable, relatively easy solutions available to alleviate the problem.

 

[rteetz]

I’m not sure how you read that to say all zoos should go away. Zoos serve an important purpose, to be a reserve population of a species, to build up their numbers in captivity to keep the species going while they are decimated in the wild, to teach people about animals, and for enjoyment. But I don’t think anyone would argue that zoos should keep an animal that is doing fine in the wild, in an enclosure that is far too small for them, and make them perform every day. There are some animals that even zoos are slowly moving away from, like elephants. Elephants and orcas have a lot of similarities. The difference is poachers are decimating the wild elephant populations so regrettably some will need to be kept out of the wild for a reserve population, but where they are being kept is moving from zoos to acres and acres of private reserves and sanctuaries.
I understand that some people think it’s wrong to keep any animal in captivity. I think if you can do it humanely and for a good reason and the animal doesn’t seem to be suffering, then it’s OK. But I don’t think we have to be too clever by half and realize, it’s clearly not morally OK to keep an Orca in a small tank at Sea World to perform tricks every day, when the animals are clearly living unhappy lives and there are viable, relatively easy solutions available to alleviate the problem.

I feel that if the solutions were so easy that something would've been done already.

 

[dice50]

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.

Agreed, when people make wild accusations and ridiculous points, it doesn't help whatever cause they are supporting. Yes, I am familiar with the Blue World Project. On one hand I'm really glad Sea World is spending money to do something to improve the lives of their orcas. On the other hand it pretty much solidifies Sea World's stance that they aren't going to release them. For the cost to do the Blue World Project, they could probably finance all sea pens needed. In the end the problem doesn't get solved. So if I had a magic 8 ball and knew that those Orcas were never going to be released (which I disagree with) then I'm glad that they will at least be kept in a better enclosure, but since I think Sea World will eventually be forced to put them in sea pens either through financial pressure or legislation, then I feel like this is a waste of money and time.

 

[dice50]

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 think the best comparisons I can come up with would probably be when laws are passed regulating circus animals. Because in that case you have a for-profit company using animals in a show, and laws changing how they must be treated, handled, and cared for. Zoos and aquariums also accredit themselves through their associations, they often change the regulations for certain animals and how much room they must have. I admit that I'm not sure I know of a specific animal that they've come out with and said "this animal should never be kept in captivity" although I do feel like elephants and polar bears will become increasingly rare to find in zoos because science has learned how they are hit particularly hard by being in captivity.

I would agree and say that I find it unlikely a bill will be passed that forces Sea World to move orcas to a sea pen. I do think the threat of legislation and a cost/benefit analysis of it (financial pressure) will get the job done in the next 10 years.

 

[dice50]

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 really don't understand the idea that someone other then Sea World should pay for the sea pen. Corporations have to pay for things literally every day that they don't want to. If some charity/philanthropist/PETA wants to step up and offer to pay for the entire operation 100% and this is what it takes to get it done then that would be great! But it's not their responsibility to pay for something Sea World has done and continues to do. Sea World has made a lot of money off of captive orcas, let them pay to fix it.

 

[peg110]

So if I had a magic 8 ball and knew that those Orcas were never going to be released (which I disagree with) then I'm glad that they will at least be kept in a better enclosure, but since I think Sea World will eventually be forced to put them in sea pens either through financial pressure or legislation, then I feel like this is a waste of money and time.

I would agree and say that I find it unlikely a bill will be passed that forces Sea World to move orcas to a sea pen. I do think the threat of legislation and a cost/benefit analysis of it (financial pressure) will get the job done in the next 10 years.

So do you think legislation will or won't be passed? I am confused?

It sounds like you want to put the message out there that legislation "MAY" happen (but you don't believe it) in hopes that it may stir up enough "Concern" that it could impact Seaworld financially.

I think Seaworlds financial problems (overall) have less to do with the fact that they keep Orcas and more to do with current state of the economy and existing legislation that keeps pressure on businesses such as the Affordable Healthcare Act and Minimum wage laws. Certainly movies like Blackfish (although I have never seen it) may also be a short term factor to the finances, but only if there is continual pressure from advocates will it have a lasting effect.

I think if Seaworld gets rid of the Orcas (and other animals) that it will have a LARGER impact on their financials then it would to keep them. I know for us, that is one of the main reasons we go. We do like the dolphins, and penguins and other exhibits, but Orcas are a favorite with our entire family.

 

[dice50]

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).

So just so we’re all clear there is a 0% chance that Sea World would ever euthanize an orca is they were suddenly forced to put them in a sea pen. That sounds so childish like “if you make me give it up, I’m just going to break it”. Sea World would be laughed at for even making that claim, which of course they never would, the backlash for even threatening that would be 100x worse then the bad PR they already have.
But just for arguments sake you had two options – release them all into the wild or put them down, then of course they’d be better off released into the wild. But luckily we don’t live in a world with those two extreme options. There is a fairly simple, moderately expensive solution, put them in a sea pen, release the ones that might make it in the wild. Everything else is just hyperbole.

 

[dice50]

I feel that if the solutions were so easy that something would've been done already.

A sea pen is a real option. It's not some abstract idea that we just don't have the technology for. The only reason it's not done for orcas right now is because Sea World doesn't want to do it. They have every right to have that position, even if a lot of people think it's a terrible position. There are solutions to this issue.

 

[dice50]

So do you think legislation will or won't be passed? I am confused?

It sounds like you want to put the message out there that legislation "MAY" happen (but you don't believe it) in hopes that it may stir up enough "Concern" that it could impact Seaworld financially.

I think Seaworlds financial problems (overall) have less to do with the fact that they keep Orcas and more to do with current state of the economy and existing legislation that keeps pressure on businesses such as the Affordable Healthcare Act and Minimum wage laws. Certainly movies like Blackfish (although I have never seen it) may also be a short term factor to the finances, but only if there is continual pressure from advocates will it have a lasting effect.

I think if Seaworld gets rid of the Orcas (and other animals) that it will have a LARGER impact on their financials then it would to keep them. I know for us, that is one of the main reasons we go. We do like the dolphins, and penguins and other exhibits, but Orcas are a favorite with our entire family.

Legislation is already has been written/proposed, not passed. I am saying Sea World will put them in sea pens before legislation is ever passed through financial pressure and public backlash. Sometimes the threat of legislation is enough to force change, without it ever actually passing.

Agreed. All large corporations are facing an ever increasing onslaught of regulations, no argument about that from me. I do think the orca issue is the defining issue Sea World faces today. It is no longer the PETA crowd that has a huge problem with it, the backlash is from the "average Joe who cares about animal crowd" and that is a huge problem for Sea World.

There are obviously still lots of people out there that don’t see what they are doing as cruel and still take their families to see them which sadly is directly funding their continued time in captivity but the number of people that have a huge problem with it are going to go up and up.

My parents took me to see the orcas at Sea World when I was little. I’m sure like most people at the time they never even thought about if it was the right thing to do or if there was something morally wrong about it. But luckily by and large people realize why this is not OK now.

Are there a lot bigger problems that need fixing in the world? Absolutely. But does that mean we should all just ignore this or continue to support Sea World? Hell no. Wrong is wrong.

It would be interesting to do a poll that asked something like – if Sea World released their orcas into a humane/large sea pen where they are well treated, would this make you A. more likely to attend Sea world B. Less likely to go to Sea World C. No difference.

 

[ahoyle]

Public pressure, backlash, is tough to argue when their attendance just went up. Again, not saying thats the end all be all, as its just one quarter, but it does stand in the face of the doomsayers that act like this Blackfish thing is a snow ball rolling down hill.

 

[dice50]

Public pressure, backlash, is tough to argue when their attendance just went up. Again, not saying thats the end all be all, as its just one quarter, but it does stand in the face of the doomsayers that act like this Blackfish thing is a snow ball rolling down hill.

Very true. The quickest way this would get resolved would be an attendance plummet and that obviously didn't happen. Would be interesting to know if they consider the "opportunity cost" of people not coming b/c of the Orcas. So while attendance went up, how much higher would it be? I'd go back in a second. That stuff is hard to measure.