Sea World Death

Veterinary Science Graduate Programs from U. of I.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
Electrophile said:
I do not doubt their care. But I have yet to see rollercoasters or water rides at the San Diego Zoo or the National Aquarium. My point being I don't doubt they budget money toward care and education. But why spend money on the maintenance for stuff that can be found at Six Flags? If you're going to be for education and conservation, be for education and conservation.
Click to expand...

Let me first start by saying I have not read this whole thread, just skimmed.

But the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium (which was named by the USA Travel Guide number one zoo in America in 2009) bought the neighboring waterpark (previously Wyandot Lake and now Zoombezi bay) complete with water rides and a roller coaster, and has a carousel within zoo grounds. They also own a golf course.

Amusement rides and animal conservation and education are not mutually exclusive.
 
Umm, what class was that?! I need to go listen to the audio right now!
 
Okay, I'm not even going to touch on the debate happening. But I will say this, Tilikum was the largest whale at SeaWorld and an older male. He had been linked to a death in 1991 at a park in Canada, and shortly after was moved to SeaWorld. Then in 2001 they found a homeless man lying dead on Tilikum's back. Knowing this, SeaWorld would not allow trainers in the pool with Tilly. Here's the part that gets me. I saw video of the whale and trainer minutes before the attack and she appeared to be in the water with the whale, not swimming around and doing tricks but squatting in water on those platforms with Tilly. Just because she isn't swimming around with the whale and doing tricks doesn't mean it didn't pose a threat. Why did SeaWorld allow this??? It just seems crazy to me. All animals pose a threat, even if they haven't been dangerous before but if an animal is a known threat why in the world are they using it for dinner shows?!
 
I finally finished reading this thread! To keep it short, I agree with perfbird and anyone else with similar views to him/her.

I think the rides are a separate issue. you can have rides and also provide better welfare and natural environment to the animals.

My one quick example. Has anyone been to marineland in canada? I have been to both marineland and sea world. I know that seaworld does try to educate and they do a decent job at it. However, their shows are way over the top and I'm not sure if I agree with them. When thinking about how to get people to buy tickets without the huge shows i think of Marineland. When you go here it seriously looks like a super old sea world (much older lol) kind of liek the renaissance fair mixed with sea world. The thing that i loved about marineland was how much more natural it was when comparing EVERY setting, even the shows. The show was less "extreme" but i felt like the tricks they did were good to impress kids but weren't crazy enough where they spent forever training them to do something unnatural. I did not see a whale/dolphin show, not sure if they even had them? But they did have a petting area for beluga whales (it was so cheap!!) and this was the most amazing experience i have ever had. I have a picture of myself feeding and petting him. IMO, this could easily be done at sea world in place of the crazy shows, and people would love it even more. Ticket sales would still be up. Instead, if you want to pet a dophin at seaworld ud prollie end up paying 100$+ something insane. Marineland also has a ton of little kid rides which also increases their tickets sale.

My point. I think there are ways to increase ticket sales without having the unnatural "circus" shows. And yes, i do think these shows are similar to a circus. Some moves may be natural but considering how much time it took them to train for the whole show i dont think everything is natural. especially for the orcas. *insert all of perfbirds points here* I dont think all of sea world is like a circus. besides the shows, the rest of the park is very much like a zoo+education setting, and i enjoy that
 
BlacKAT33 said:
I think there are ways to increase ticket sales without having the unnatural "circus" shows. And yes, i do think these shows are similar to a circus. Some moves may be natural but considering how much time it took them to train for the whole show i dont think everything is natural. especially for the orcas. *insert all of perfbirds points here* I dont think all of sea world is like a circus. besides the shows, the rest of the park is very much like a zoo+education setting, and i enjoy that
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely and hopefully the silver lining in this tragedy is an increased public awareness about the problems of keeping these animals in captivity. BTW, if they even think of euthanizing that animal, I will go ballistic!!!! Now they are saying the attack is premeditated...OMG..what's next, are they going to charge the whale with first degree murder! I have to say that there is nothing sadder than seeing pictures of that beautiful and intelligent animal sitting there all by himself in a small fishbowl like he's a criminal!!!!
 
Last edited:
lyndaelyzoo said:
I agree with you completely and hopefully the silver lining in this tragedy is an increased public awareness about the problems of keeping these animals in captivity. BTW, if they even think of euthanizing that animal, I will go ballistic!!!! I can definitely see this as a potential interview topic at UF.
Click to expand...

As of last night on the news Sea World is not going to be euthanizing him and they do not have any plans or intentions of doing so.
 
What's the opposition to training an animal to do something "unnatural?" We train all kinds of animals to do "unnatural" things. Even amongst our own species- is it "natural" to sit at a desk 8+ hours a day? Drive cars? Eat Cheetos? I don't think "unnatural" means inherently harmful.
 
Last edited:
Where are some of you even getting this information? The park has every intention of continuing to work with the whale.

& for what it's worth, you can pet dolphins at Sea World for free and feed them for something like $5. Some of you really need to stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about where the park's priorities are when you only have half a clue about what you're talking about.

If you want legitimate information on the subject, they have a fan page on Facebook that is being kept current.
 
turnandburn said:
What's the opposition to training an animal to do something "unnatural?" We train all kinds of animals to do "unnatural" things. Even amongst our own species- is it "natural" to sit at a desk 8+ hours a day? Drive cars? Eat Cheetos? I don't think "unnatural" means inherently harmful.
Click to expand...

its not just the unnatrual tricks, its also the environment they live in and what they are fed...basically i really liked Perfbird's post because i think it listed a big variety of the issues that i am uncomfortable with. especially knowing the life spam.

I just dont like how people claim they need the "wow" factor of the shows to get ticket sales to keep the park going. I think my marineland example is great in showing that it is possible to have the same thing, even more hands on, and still have plenty of people coming to the park and enough money to maintain the animals. I'm sure the way the money is managed at sea world vs. marineland is extremely different. it also has to do with everything in america needing to be brand new, big, and flashy. but honestly i liked marineland better. i felt like i was in the woods with sea animals, it was crazy. they had TONS of land. and i got to pet a beluga whale and feed deer! If anyone has ever been to Grants Farm in MO, it was kind of like that. I love grants farm!!

juniorjumper-i do not know how much it is to pet and feed whales at seaworld, but i do know everything is over priced there. i just threw out the number 100 as an exageration of how over priced it is. if it is free, then great! i dont know how i missed that having been there multiple times. i know little kids get to pet them during shows but when i looked up swimming with dolphins the prices are always insane. if you can pet/feed them for free, how come i never see lines of people waiting there? at marine land there were huge lines and signs posted clearly by the exhibit. they also took your picture. it was less than 10$. and the place where you fed them was the same as their "habitat" so it was very big and deep. if you didnt want to feed them on top you could watch them swimming below. also, it was all up to their (belugas) mood, if they didnt want to come to the surface...then ud wait for someone else...at their own timing.
 
call me crazy, but I think there's a difference between training an animal, who most likely has no idea they have a choice in what they do, and training a human. I know I have options- if I don't want to sit at a desk all day, i can clean houses, or marry a rich guy, or sell my eggs. If i don't want to drive, or even learn how, i can walk. If an orca or elephant or dog doesn't want to practice and repeat on command some string of activities, what does it see as it's options?

without looking any further into this I gotta say that for the other whales not performing, behaving, whatever, probably looks like solitary confinement. Not much of a choice, huh?
 
^^I think bemoaning the lack of free will for animals is taking a dangerous first step across the welfare/rights line, to be honest..

turnandburn said:
What's the opposition to training an animal to do something "unnatural?" We train all kinds of animals to do "unnatural" things. Even amongst our own species- is it "natural" to sit at a desk 8+ hours a day? Drive cars? Eat Cheetos? I don't think "unnatural" means inherently harmful.
Click to expand...

Isn't domestication in itself "unnatural?"
 
What's the opposition to training an animal to do something "unnatural?" We train all kinds of animals to do "unnatural" things. Even amongst our own species- is it "natural" to sit at a desk 8+ hours a day? Drive cars? Eat Cheetos? I don't think "unnatural" means inherently harmful.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about disliking training unnatural behaviors, my point was about the LACK of natural behaviors. It's great that the animals get training and enrichment, but it's unfortunate that they can't ever exhibit any of their natural behaviors. That's all.

I won't even open the "but humans!11eleventy!1!" bit, as you really cannot compare the two.
 
Tried to look up feeding/petting for beluga whale. I found one that is 100$ (SeaWorld Orlando's Beluga Interaction Program) you get to feed, pet, and assist trainers in communicating with hand signals. It is for 30 min. and wet suits are provided. This seems exactly like what i did (minus the hand signals, and only 15 min). I did not wear a wetsuit, but really...do you need one?? You don't actually get to swim with them. seems like they spice up what you are really going to do so that you think 100$ is normal.
 
Marineland has shows in which they have orcas and dolphins do tricks and jumps and show off walruses doing entertaining tricks just like any SeaWorld or other aquarium park place and also has amusement park rides. While it might be slightly better in certain ways it is still the same in principle. I think there is good and bad to those parks but I don't think you can separate them into categories when making an argument either way.
 
Blackat, there are lines of people waiting to feed them. They only do feeding a couple times a day for the well being of the animals. But I assure you there are lines. And swimming with dolphins and petting them are entirely separate experiences. Swimming with them of course costs money - it requires 1-2 employees time on top of paying for the experience itself. It just blows me away that you seem to be questioning the motives of a place you have been but are still seemingly SO uneducated about.
 
JuniorJumper said:
Blackat, there are lines of people waiting to feed them. They only do feeding a couple times a day for the well being of the animals. But I assure you there are lines. And swimming with dolphins and petting them are entirely separate experiences. Swimming with them of course costs money - it requires 1-2 employees time on top of paying for the experience itself. It just blows me away that you seem to be questioning the motives of a place you have been but are still seemingly SO uneducated about.
Click to expand...

the price i posted above was not for swimming. it was for feeding, petting, and communicating thru signals. it did not say swimming anywhere. I guess i missed these huge lines when i was there. either way, if it is free then why is the feeding/petting/signaling a beluga whale so much more money? because you get to spend 30 min. communicating with it? ...no swimming.

i dont think they have bad motives (i never said that) i dont think the people who work there are evil. i do think that sea world has more pressure being the most popular marine place to go in the US.

marineland does have shows--but even the show i saw with the seals, walrus' and other animals were much low key. it did not have the "wow" factor and after seeing it i was a little dissapointed because of what i expected from seaworld. i think one reason their show was like this is because they dont push their animals as hard. and they dont play into the "looks" they dont have crazy digital shows on huge tvs that go along with the animals.

either way, i just voiced my opinion. everyone on here posting knows there will be no conclusion to this thread.

Im not against sea world or zoos. i love these places. the only problem i have is with the shows...and only certain parts of them.

does anyone who is defending seaworld want to explain why their opinion hasn't changed once they saw the life span numbers perfbird posted?
 
Since many people disagree with these animals doing shows or performances (yes I do at times think they are kind of long or go to some extremes) but still what is an alternative way to keep these animals in captivity, give them a “natural” environment, and still keep earning money? Providing an aquarium where you can only see these animals in a natural environment and allowing direct interaction (i.e. feeding them or being able to touch them) to me is not going to be enough to keep people coming to the aquarium especially since there will be competition with places that do the shows. Also, there will need to be some training involved because you can not expect a dolphin to just allow someone to touch it and how are you going to provide stimulation and provide veterinary care to these animals if they are not trained? Like I said previously, these “tricks” are natural to the animals, the only “unnatural” things are doing them on command and sticking a hoop into the air where the animal jumps. So, are you going to keep park employees after hours to make sure these animals get enough enrichment? (Just sticking them in a “natural-looking” tank to me is not enough for enrichment). And just because these animals are more difficult to house “naturally” does that mean they are less deserving of conservation efforts than are tigers? Tigers are given things to keep them stimulated that are not natural (hiding food in special toys to entice hunting instincts). So why is having an orca stimulated by jumping on command any different? (I agree with nyanko free will of the animal is taking a step over the AR/AW line). How else would you stimulate an orca? So, I am just curious of other peoples’ opinions. How do you think we should keep these animals (keeping in mind stimulation, environment and conservation efforts while still obtaining enough money to provide for them)? I definitely think there can be changes but as to exactly how or what or at what cost is a huge issue that is not very simple.
 
BlacKAT33 said:
does anyone who is defending seaworld want to explain why their opinion hasn't changed once they saw the life span numbers perfbird posted?
Click to expand...

I am not really defending seaworld because I agree with you some things need to be changed, but soon there will be no numbers for how long orcas live in the wild because there will not be any (endangered species and global warming) so the only alternative we have are conservation efforts within these aquariums...very disappointing situation.
 
Blackat, I can respect your opinion but it seems you DO have a problem with them charging for their services. I am not on either side of this debate, I just get irritated when people start saying things that are huge exaggeration or simply untrue.

Swimming, signaling, whatever it is is an "experience" past just basic interaction. It comes at a cost and I would bet that the money earned on these encounters goes right back to the animals. Also consider that Marineland in Canada most likely has much cheaper cost of real estate, taxes, etc than central Florida. Therefore they are probably able to offer experiences at a lower cost than Sea World. It just seems like a silly discussion to broach he topic of cost when, at the end of the day, it goes right back to keeping the animals fed and the employees paid.
 
nyanko said:
^^I think bemoaning the lack of free will for animals is taking a dangerous first step across the welfare/rights line, to be honest..
Click to expand...

Exactly! This really seems to be an issue where animal rights people are making themselves known.
 
Those of you arguing over how it's all about the education and not the money... did any of you even watch the video?

They said that his aggression is probably caused by him being undersocialized for so long, and that he was stressed before the show. They're not going to euthanize him because all of the $$$$$$$ the park will get from continuing to breed him.

And you guys are trying to argue that it's okay to keep whales like this because it's educational? Also, it obviously doesn't matter how many tricks they tried to teach him... it didn't make up for the fact his lack of socialization.

It's disgusting.

If this was a dog that was stuck in a kennel for several years with little socialization and little room to move, the public would think a lot differently... I'm just remembering back to an incident that happened in Halifax last year... woman had her "aggressive" dog seized, it sat in a kennel for over a year waiting for officials to decide what they were going to do about it, and the public got involved, signing petitions for him to be released to his owner and they gave a huge fuss over how the situation was handeled.

Stick a dog in a kennel, goldfish in a bowl, cougar in a cage, whale in a tank... I really don't see how it's that much different.
 
Perfbird said:
I won't even open the "but humans!11eleventy!1!" bit, as you really cannot compare the two.
Click to expand...

I must have missed that bit 🙄 But the point is clear that we have all kinds of "unnatural" expectations of other species.
 
BlacKAT33 said:
I just dont like how people claim they need the "wow" factor of the shows to get ticket sales to keep the park going. I think my marineland example is great in showing that it is possible to have the same thing, even more hands on, and still have plenty of people coming to the park and enough money to maintain the animals. I'm sure the way the money is managed at sea world vs. marineland is extremely different. it also has to do with everything in america needing to be brand new, big, and flashy. but honestly i liked marineland better. i felt like i was in the woods with sea animals, it was crazy. they had TONS of land. and i got to pet a beluga whale and feed deer! If anyone has ever been to Grants Farm in MO, it was kind of like that. I love grants farm!!
Click to expand...

You can't impose your own beliefs on the rest of the country. Maybe America is like this. You can't change the world though, and if it takes big, brand new, and flashy to draw people in, then that's what you have to do. I don't see anything inherently wrong in flashy info-tainment.
 
In my opinion the sources in Perfbird's post are inherently biased and unscientific, so personally I can't really integrate the "reduced lifespan" effect into the argument unless there's a more reputable source for it.

First is a bunch of data discussing the lifespan of orcas in captivity, but nothing about the lifespan in the wild.

The second one is "in prep" and who knows for how long. All of the references are from the 90's so I'm going to assume it's gone without peer review/been rejected by the peer review process for quite some time. In addition this source has one author from the HSUS (animal rights), and the references they hinge their argument on are from personal communications, HSUS meeting proceedings, WDCS (a biased source), unpublished data, magazines, review papers (secondary sources) and books. It is written in a very biased and accusatory manner.

Third is an actual publication put out by WDCS, again, a biased source.
 
Last edited:
scarcelyheard said:
They said that his aggression is probably caused by him being undersocialized for so long, and that he was stressed before the show. They're not going to euthanize him because all of the $$$$$$$ the park will get from continuing to breed him.
Click to expand...

They're not going to euthanize him because of public outcry, regardless of his breeding status.

On another note: What bothers me is that so many people on here want to free him. A captive whale has almost no chance out in the wild. He's never had to hunt on his own. Would it be fair to send him out into the wild?
 
dyachei said:
On another note: What bothers me is that so many people on here want to free him. A captive whale has almost no chance out in the wild. He's never had to hunt on his own. Would it be fair to send him out into the wild?
Click to expand...

What sucks is that it comes down to this:

- Let him live. He'll continue to be stressed, miserable and a danger to society until he kicks the bucket.
- Release him. He'll die.
- Euthanize him, but, oh no!, that's outragous!

The best out of those three is to put him out of his misery.
Or they could...
- Put him in a better environment, but that costs too much $$$$$
Ain't gonna happen! Even if they had the $$$, they'd probably put it towards the happy little dolphins who have never harmed a hair on anyone's head.
 
nyanko said:
In my opinion the sources in Perfbird's post are inherently biased and unscientific, so personally I can't really integrate the "reduced lifespan" effect into the argument unless there's a more reputable source for it.

First is a bunch of data discussing the lifespan of orcas in captivity, but nothing about the lifespan in the wild.

The second one is "in prep" and who knows for how long. All of the references are from the 90's so I'm going to assume it's gone without peer review/been rejected by the peer review process for quite some time. In addition this source has one author from the HSUS (animal rights), and the references they hinge their argument on are from personal communications, HSUS meeting proceedings, WDCS (a biased source), unpublished data, magazines, review papers (secondary sources) and books. It is written in a very biased and accusatory manner.

Third is an actual publication put out by WDCS, again, a biased source.
Click to expand...



👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

Must I rant about the need for unbiased peer-reviewed sources in these kinds of conversations again. If you don't have a reliable source to link to "as a proven fact", don't even bother, it just makes you look more unintelligent for believing everything you find on the internet.

And no, unbiased sources are not "savethewhalesblog.org" or "supportanimalright.com" They're opinions
 
Chapelle said:
I'm not convinced that improving the environment for these animals is an unrealistic goal nor that it would bankrupt SeaWorld. It just seems that it's not a goal SeaWorld has at this point, it's not a priority. I think it should be though. Instead, they are planning to build a new park in Dubai on an artificial island shaped like an orca 🙄.
Click to expand...

this is exactly what i think. why cant they have bigger environments to house the animals?? they keep building more and more parks everywhere why? to get more money

Turnandburn- about the big and flashy, no i dont think that you have to have this in order to bring people. They are just giving into the media and they like the hype and popularity they get from it. Yes land is expensive, especially in florida. but there are tons of theme parks expanding out there and there is no reason they couldnt just expand a tinyyy bit more for the orcas. they dont need a whole new park just for them, they just need a little bit more land. it really does seem like an easy fix considering how much money sea world makes. and just because the salaries of the people working there may be low (someone else said this) does not mean that sea world is scrapping by with money and only has enough for caring for animals and their employees. No, i dont have the facts. but id be willing to make a bet that they have huge profits and the "top" people who run it are getting lots of $
 
Chapelle said:
Ringling Bros. funds conservation too. Does that make their animal performances ok?
Click to expand...

All I did was point out that the information is made public and where to find it. I made no statement as to what my opinion is (or if I think that their contribution was 'enough'), I was careful about that when I posted. But, to answer your question, no. I think that comparing Ringling Bros. to Sea World and other (stationary) parks is not appropriate. Ringling Bros is a touring circus. The animals are carted around the country in trailers. Sea World has their animals in 3 locations around the country and they do not move them (unless they are transporting them to another facility). Different things if you ask me.

...and to those that want to set the whale free, think long and hard about that one. In my opinion, euthanizing the animal would be more humane. When your dog has become too aggressive, would you take him out to the a rural area and 'let him free"?
 
Chapelle said:
Finally, if their goal was really to put this money to good use, they should just donate to WWF or another established conservation organization so that more money could go to conservation instead of paying overhead. They don't do this though because they have to have their own fund to make themselves look good.
Click to expand...

SeaWorld and Busch Gardens (the two are together) along with Discovery Cove actually have a separate conservation organization that is completely non-profit and funds research as well as conservation. Also SW/BG/DC organization is parterned with WWF and many, many other conservation organizations.

Here is their website: http://www.swbg-conservationfund.org/

You can even sign up from the main page to get grants from them. They help fund the following areas through grants:

Species Research, Animal Rescue and Rehabilitation, Habitat Protection, and Conservation Education.

One of their specific grantees is the WWF. So they are donating money to these orangizations that you say they need to donate to.

The actual theme parks have contributed $20 million dollars to conservation efforts since 1970. They use the theme parks as a means to educate people and to encourage them to donate to their non-profit organization to help aid in conservation. Kind of similar to the effort of a zoo (show people animals, educate them, and get them to donate $$).
 
jpeterman13 said:
All I did was point out that the information is made public and where to find it. I made no statement as to what my opinion is (or if I think that their contribution was 'enough'), I was careful about that when I posted. But, to answer your question, no. I think that comparing Ringling Bros. to Sea World and other (stationary) parks is not appropriate. Ringling Bros is a touring circus. The animals are carted around the country in trailers. Sea World has their animals in 3 locations around the country and they do not move them (unless they are transporting them to another facility). Different things if you ask me.

...and to those that want to set the whale free, think long and hard about that one. In my opinion, euthanizing the animal would be more humane. When your dog has become too aggressive, would you take him out to the a rural area and 'let him free"?
Click to expand...

I am not saying particularly FREE the whales currently in captivity. However, I feel that keeping and breeding animals that we could NEVER EVER EVER possibly really keep in a comfortable and healthy environment is WRONG. This is my opinion. And yes, for me it extends to other animals as well...like elephants, large cats, primates. I know all you zoo people will hate me, but yes I believe it is completely wrong. However, this is simply my belief. We should WAKE UP and realize that putting animals in pools, blasting music, allowing children to sit on them (this happened every seaworld show in the 80's and early 90's, my sister's claim to fame is she sat on Shamu) is degrading. Not degrading to the animal even but to ourselves. Maybe these animals are ambassadors for their distant relatives that survive in the wild. Maybe someone who saw the Believe Shamu show will go home and start recycling. But I believe a whale watching tour and seeing these animals in their natural environment does just as good. And for those that say, well, go all PETA and not have even dogs. That is BS, dogs, as with other domestic animals, have been kept with humans since the birth of agriculture. These animals are genetically different than those we see in the wild, OBVIOUSLY, look at Quarter Horse and a Zebra, or a Duroc and a wild boar. Last time I checked, The killer whale wasn't kept in kiddie pools for the past 100 years. Alright, done with my rant. I do not care for Seaworld or their "rescue" missions which I have seen consistantly remove animals with no intention of returning them. SO FREE THE WHALES! MEANING NEVER TAKE THEM INTO CAPTIVITY IN THE DAMN FIRST PLACE!!!! 👍
And for all you Seaworld lovers, go rent The Cove or read up on how the HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES is asking people NOT TO GO TO THEIR DISCOVERY COVE.
 
Okay, here's what I don't get. People keep saying the enclosures are too small. What's the source for this? Any enclosure at all is "too small" in that it is smaller than the wild. All these parks' enclosures are of or bigger than legal size, or the parks wouldn't be open.

People keep recommending that the parks sacrifice in other areas to make the enclosures bigger, but there's no winning at that game. The enclosures will always be "too small", because they are not the entire ocean. The enclosures are large enough to support the animals that they contain, and so the parks stop at that point and divert funding to other things that help keep them in business.

There is always some gray to situations like this: yes, breeding more captive animals is not really justifiable. Yes, occasionally the educational value of the park is overshadowed by entertainment. However, these parks also provide essential services that many have mentioned that benefit marine mammals. While there is certainly room for change in some practices here and there, you can't really dismiss these facilities out of hand.
 
radio2020 said:
I am not saying particularly FREE the whales currently in captivity. However, I feel that keeping and breeding animals that we could NEVER EVER EVER possibly really keep in a comfortable and healthy environment is WRONG.
Click to expand...
I also did not mean Free Shamu literally as in releasing that individual whale back into the wild when its entire existence has been in a fishbowl. It would not survive very long in the wild. What I meant is that those animals as a species should not be kept in captivity and it should be illegal to breed them in captivity for the purposes of entertainment. I think that we have a lot to learn from other species and showcasing them in a horse and pony show is not the way to learn from them. They deserve dignity and respect, not to be showcased as circus performers.
 
radio2020 said:
so free the whales! Meaning never take them into captivity in the damn first place!!!!
Click to expand...

I completely agree!!!! I think that Sea World needs to evolve like most zoos have...they still seem to be in the barred cages and concrete floors era!! Hopefully this incident will stimulate this evolutionary process.
 
Last edited:
A lot of great points have been made by a lot of people. Yes, in a PERFECT world we would not need to showcase ANY animals in order to educate to public about their conservation needs. Unfortunately, I think it needs to be done, or there just wouldn't be enough of the public to care about what happens to ANY wild animals, much less donate money to help in concervation efforts. These same people are more than willing to fork over an INCREDIBLE amount of $$$ for a family day at a place that entertains them. The bottom line is that these are businesses that are all about the money, but the great ones (SeaWorld among them, IMO) also care a lot about the animals they have, rehabilitating injured animals, and contributing to efforts of wild concervation.

At these facilities the animals are not taught, or made, to do unnatural behaviors. Everything they do is based upon normal behaviors observed in the wild. Many things are done to encourage them to be problem solvers so that they are mentally stimulated. And like someone else mentioned, you can not MAKE a whale or dolphin do something it does not want to do😀

One point no one has mentioned yet, the behavior this whale exhibited was VERY natural. Killer whales are well known for doing the exact some thing to seals. To them it's pretty fun. In the wild they act very much like a cat playing with a mouse, grabbing a seal tossing it around, shaking it, and many times throwing it repeatedly into the air, but in the end not eating the seal, because it was never about food. This whales behavior was not nearly as excessive, but I can't help thinking that this may have been just a game to the whale.

Like I said, in a perfect world there would be no need for captive animals, but until more people start to care about more of the world than what is just outside their front door, I think they are a necessary evil.
 
radio2020 said:
SO FREE THE WHALES! MEANING NEVER TAKE THEM INTO CAPTIVITY IN THE DAMN FIRST PLACE!!!! 👍
Click to expand...

lyndaelyzoo said:
I completely agree!!!!
Click to expand...

Ok, so what should we do about whale conservation then? Considering someone mentioned earlier that whales are only taken out of the wild if they need to be rehabilitated and they are only kept in captivity if they are deemed (by the government) to be unfit to be released. And it seems that you are against breeding them in captivity as well. So do we just let them go extinct and stop all conservation efforts of marine mammals just because we can not give them a "really close to natural" environment in captivity? Do we basically say that marine animals are SOL when it comes to conservation?

I agree with what Tiktaalik said about the enclosures always being "too small" because it is not the ocean. Just like tigers, lemurs and other animals that you normally find in zoos are confined to areas that are smaller than they would be in "nature". These parks have to meet regulations with the sizes of the enclosures and if they did not then they would be shut down. I believe that it is a delicate balance between conservation, raising funds, education and even *gasp* entertaining the public (because the public could care less if they were just to stand in front of a "natural" exhibit and be "told" about these animals the entertainment does give them the "ahh" factor and probably contributes to an increase in funds raised). I do agree that many times these priorities are backwards or not in necessarily the proper order. (Like SeaWorld making the island shaped like an orca, which I do not agree with the $$ could be better sent elsewhere). But, this happens in just about every organization that $$ gets spent in an area that could have been better spent elsewhere; that is the problem when humans run things (we often do not have our priorities in the proper order). But at this point this is the only conservation effort that we have for marine mammals unless someone else has a better idea of how we can do it better....which is what usually happens growth in an upward direction.
 
If the human race wasn't idiotic, we wouldn't need to save the whales in the first place! We're causing them to go extinct. If we weren't ruining their habitat, we wouldn't have to stick them in kiddie pools and breed. It's going to catch up to them one way or another... they won't be able to breed enough to keep up with the ones that we're killing, and voila, extinction. We think we're doing them a favor, but it's a lose/lose situation.

I hate humanity. Hate it, hate it, hate it.

I watched a PBS documentry on how humans are causing the next mass extinction so I'm still a little bitter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Animal Midwife
Death Nommy - Game Thread
83 84 85 86 87
Replies
4K
Views
58K
Animal Midwife
Animal Midwife
WildZoo
Season 12 Mafia Championship Practice - Sign Ups
2
Replies
87
Views
4K
holdthemayo
holdthemayo
Animal Midwife
Season 12 Mafia Championship Nominations
2
Replies
77
Views
3K
holdthemayo
holdthemayo
WildZoo
  • Poll Poll
PokeWWon: A Wild Kanto Adventure - Champs Season 12 Practice Game Thread
87 88 89 90 91
Replies
5K
Views
62K
Animal Midwife
Animal Midwife
Animal Midwife
Season 11 Championship Practice - Sign Ups
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
kaydubs
kaydubs
Top