How would you turn SeaWorld around?

[gavin]

Ok so I see that you're obviously anti anyway

Thanks for telling me what I think; I really wasn't sure. I don't agree with them being kept in terms of this type of discussion, but I don't care enough to actually make a big deal out of it in real life. I went to Sea World just last month. If I was that bothered, I clearly wouldn't have or could have at least feigned a fake concern by not seeing the shows, which I didn't do.

How exactly are they flat out lying?

Because there entire argument is "we look after our animals". Absolutely true. Nobody could say that those animals don't get the best possible care. However, they don't address the real issue of keeping them in the first place. They just keep repeating "we look after our animals." Ok, so maybe flat out lying was an exaggeration, but they're being far from truthful.

when the new regulations came in around 1991/2 none of the zoos could afford to upgrade and expand their facilities.

If there was any profitability in it, they would have expended. Why was there no profitability? Because of a general turn in public opinion. By the time those new regulations came in there were what, only 3 or 4 places that still had them? I'm not holding up the UK as some glowing example for animal rights, just saying that public opinion can change, which is clearly happening when it comes to Sea World, and parks can change accordingly.

I assume that you're anti-zoo in general if you're calling "conservational/educational/natural behaviour bulls**t"

Not at all. Anti zoo generalisations don't work since there are such massive differences from country to country, not to mention massive differences when it comes to the types of animals kept. Every species has to be looked at individually; you can't blanket statement that they're all unsuitable to kept in captivity.

many zoos contain animals that are much less endangered than Orca or some species of dolphin.

Again, suitability of species to a captive environment. Orca are not necessarily threatened as an overall species, perhaps in some local populations. Regardless, Sea World keeping them is not protecting the species. That's yet more dishonesty on their part. They don't breed well and there are ZERO plans for an actual breeding plan aimed towards keeping a viable captive population with intent to perhaps reintroduce at a later date.

It's the same with dolphins. Yes, there are some endangered species, but those are not the ones you'll see at a marine park. Again, the captive breeding argument applies. They generally don't breed well and are still taken from the wild in their hundreds on a yearly basis.

So that's what I mean by "conservational bulls**t". Not that conservation is bulls**t, but that applying that to killer whales is dishonest.

I'd have much more respect for them if they just said, "Here are some big dolphins. Come and have a look at them. We're trying to look after them the best we can," and left out the whole "We're protecting them; they need to be here!" bollocks.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153728730297565

They've recently posted this, and it annoyed me so much! It's so so bad to argue back. Even if you're right. They have to understand that they are the 'giant evil corporation' going up against the do-gooders, and no amount of 'well what we actually do is pretty good' is going to change that, it's just going to make people hate you more!

Such a dumb move ffs.

That patronising voice made my skin crawl.

 

[IntaminToWin]

^ It really is cringeworthy.

Honestly, at this point, can't they ditch the whole dolphin and whale show? You know, do some rebranding and renovations? Or is it too integral to their profits?

 

[SilverArrow]

Ok so I see that you're obviously anti anyway

Thanks for telling me what I think; I really wasn't sure. I don't agree with them being kept in terms of this type of discussion, but I don't care enough to actually make a big deal out of it in real life. I went to Sea World just last month. If I was that bothered, I clearly wouldn't have or could have at least feigned a fake concern by not seeing the shows, which I didn't do.

How exactly are they flat out lying?

Because there entire argument is "we look after our animals". Absolutely true. Nobody could say that those animals don't get the best possible care. However, they don't address the real issue of keeping them in the first place. They just keep repeating "we look after our animals." Ok, so maybe flat out lying was an exaggeration, but they're being far from truthful.

when the new regulations came in around 1991/2 none of the zoos could afford to upgrade and expand their facilities.

If there was any profitability in it, they would have expended. Why was there no profitability? Because of a general turn in public opinion. By the time those new regulations came in there were what, only 3 or 4 places that still had them? I'm not holding up the UK as some glowing example for animal rights, just saying that public opinion can change, which is clearly happening when it comes to Sea World, and parks can change accordingly.

I assume that you're anti-zoo in general if you're calling "conservational/educational/natural behaviour bulls**t"

Not at all. Anti zoo generalisations don't work since there are such massive differences from country to country, not to mention massive differences when it comes to the types of animals kept. Every species has to be looked at individually; you can't blanket statement that they're all unsuitable to kept in captivity.

many zoos contain animals that are much less endangered than Orca or some species of dolphin.

Again, suitability of species to a captive environment. Orca are not necessarily threatened as an overall species, perhaps in some local populations. Regardless, Sea World keeping them is not protecting the species. That's yet more dishonesty on their part. They don't breed well and there are ZERO plans for an actual breeding plan aimed towards keeping a viable captive population with intent to perhaps reintroduce at a later date.

It's the same with dolphins. Yes, there are some endangered species, but those are not the ones you'll see at a marine park. Again, the captive breeding argument applies. They generally don't breed well and are still taken from the wild in their hundreds on a yearly basis.

So that's what I mean by "conservational bulls**t". Not that conservation is bulls**t, but that applying that to killer whales is dishonest.

I'd have much more respect for them if they just said, "Here are some big dolphins. Come and have a look at them. We're trying to look after them the best we can," and left out the whole "We're protecting them; they need to be here!" bollocks.

I've just listed my comments in ascending order instead of having to quote everything again.

Quote 1: I was saying that in a way of "I know that to won't change your mind but....." sort of way. A lot of people claim they are anti and won't discuss the topic at all.

Quote 2: Agree with last sentence. I see people say that they lie a lot but nobody actually explains why they think that, hence the question. Zoos always have some critics because some people believe that they shouldn't exist or that they are somehow inherently evil so I think that they're just carrying on knowing that there are always going to be some that do not support them for that fact. Most good zoos with offer reasons to justify their existence to visitors but there's only so many times you can say it. A lot of zoos house non-endangered species along with their endangered species as they are valuable education and research tools (and crowd pullers, because how else are we supposed to fund saving "boring" species like invertebrates etc) so in Seaworld's eyes they are just doing the same as many other facilities.

Quote 3: The UK doesn't do aquariums compared to the US scale at all. You only have to see our multitude of cut and paste sea life centres compared to the likes of Georgia Aq, Shedd or Mystic. There are multiple reasons for this including funding and the fact that the majority of the public is just as happy to see giraffe in a field than dolphins or whatever so it's a lot cheaper just to have a field. I think the climate and cost of land come into it as well. We have a limited selection of pinnipeds (seals, walruses and sea lions), very few polar bears and no manatees either so we generally lack in marine mammals anyway. I'm not saying that cetaceans would go down well necessarily now if not done carefully but we certainly don't rank compared to a lot of countries in terms of aquatic animal variety and facilities.

Quote 4: Ok, well your original statement made it sound like you thought that the conservation and education stuff that zoos promote was bullsh*t.

Quote 5: Simply by keeping a captive population you are potentially helping to conserve a species. You say "They don't breed well and there are ZERO plans for an actual breeding plan aimed towards keeping a viable captive population with intent to perhaps reintroduce at a later date." but do you actually know that they have no plans for this (or that they don't breed well)? I'm sure they work with AZA (the american zoo association) with their studbook keeping and breeding program. Loads of zoos keep species that are never reintroduced but because we have them, there is always the potential for them to be reintroduced. The captive population has to be of a big enough size before you start reintroducing individuals anyway otherwise you'd lose your stock and it would be a very shortlived project.

"They generally don't breed well and are still taken from the wild in their hundreds on a yearly basis." This is a pretty flawed statement. Firstly bottlenose dolphins, which are the main dolphin species you see in captivity DO actually breed really well. Orca, less so from what I understand but they still do ok, but dolphins do really well. Dolphins aren't take from the wild in North America or Europe. There may be a few eastern European exceptions but certainly not anywhere that is part of EAZA. Wild captures only still happen in Russia and Asia.

I understand what you're saying with the last part, that maybe there is less value in them than say a super critically endangered animal but as I said above but I don't think they're lying if they're saying that they do have value in being there.