SeaWorld San Diego SeaWorld San Diego, OSHA rules and CCC ban on breeding

azcheetah2 said:
I agree. And they were influenced by PETA. There's apparently documented proof that the OSHA investigator had ties to or was influenced by PETA.
Click to expand...

How did that investigation of laura padgett end by the way? Let me guess, it never went anywhere?

I used to respect osha, now I don't.
 
Last edited:
wensleydale said:
How did that investigation of laura padgett end by the way? Let me guess, it never went anywhere?
Click to expand...

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

It just sort of disappeared. Oh no, OSHA wouldn't do anything sneaky or underhanded. They're on the up-and-up. :rolleyes:
 
azcheetah2 said:
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

It just sort of disappeared. Oh no, OSHA wouldn't do anything sneaky or underhanded. They're on the up-and-up. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I understand that peta has had difficulties using the USDA to cause trouble for SeaWorld (usually the USDA finds that SeaWorld isn't at fault) I wonder if this is a sort of switch in tactics for them. They can't use one agency to make any meaningful impact on the Park's operations, so they started using another agency instead. Also they are buying up as much stock in SeaWorld as they can, they have publicly stated that this to try and interfere with SeaWorld's operations. Hopefully they never have enough stock to make any kind of meaningful impact on the company. That kind of influence wouldn't just be bad for the SeaWorld branded parks, I bet they wouldn't be above going after say, Busch Gardens and sending all of their Elephants to "sanctuaries" ditto the Biog Cats, Great Apes and any other animal that happens to be kept there. Its enough to make me want to buy stock in SeaWorld just to make sure that peta can't buy it.
 
The Blue World Project has been approved by the CCC, however, it seems that the organization thought it would be fair to give both sides what they wanted, so if SeaWorld wants to construct BWP, then no killer whale must ever be born at the park for the rest of the company's existence. Therefore, SeaWorld has not made a decision, and they may appeal to this new amendment.
 
No breeding seems to not be in the best interest of the whales, given they thrive in matriarch societies. We are moving to multi generation elephant herds in zoos, it would seem that should also be a goal with orcas. I'm disappointed in this decision, I hope SeaWorld appeals. And although extreme, maybe they need to consider leaving California.
 
As well as not being allowed to breed the orcas anymore, they also can't transfer, sell, or move them.

I think the blue world project isn't worth it if it will only be used by the 11 orcas there and none else afterwords. They just shouldn't do the project since what would they use the tanks for after the final orca passes away?
 
A couple of concerns:
As the orca population at SWC ages and ultimately dies off, leaving one orca is incredibly cruel to said orca. Given what we know about social structure, the crazy activists will then be after SW for having a lone orca like they attack zoos with one or two elephants. Prohibition of breeding makes no sense.

Secondly, the crazy activists will not stop with orcas. They are after any animal in any sort of zoo or aquarium. They will be after elephant breeding (would argue already are), rhinos (clearly not appropriate given critical population numbers), lions, giraffes, and the list goes on. The zoo community and AZA must come out against the prohibition of orca breeding to preserve all other breeding programs including the SSPs.
 
This can not stand. I find this incredibly bothersome on a couple of levels,but mainly for two reasons. The first is that we're restricting extremely social,family-oriented animals from breeding. Is that really what people consider ethical these days? Dooming these animals to eventually die out,alone? That shouldn't be a possibility. I've never heard of a zoological institution being restricted from breeding a certain species,and it's absolutely ridiculous that it's a possibility. The second is that yet again we're seeing an organization that has no place to make decisions on animal welfare doing just that. The first time we saw that was when OSHA made their ruling on waterworks.
 
The park would be able to transfer animals with transport permits.
These include Shouka, Ulises, and Kasatka (as well as one other whale I believe?)

The CCC overstepped with the amendment as they are not an animal welfare oversight department, they are supposed to only approve or deny construction permits.
Which means the amendment would not hold up in court.

I could definitely see the company looking to expand SeaWorld San Antonio instead- downsizing the collection at San Diego and potentially reuniting Kasatka's matrilineal line with Takara and her two calves.

Time will tell.
 
Also, something to point out, is that nobody would even know what orcas were (other than zoo chatters) or want to save them if sea world didn't exist in the first place. Even if sea world does do a bad job (which is up to debate, I have a middle ground), they have raised incredible awareness, so they indirectly succeeded with a great part of their mission.
 
Shellheart said:
This can not stand. I find this incredibly bothersome on a couple of levels,but mainly for two reasons. The first is that we're restricting extremely social,family-oriented animals from breeding. Is that really what people consider ethical these days? Dooming these animals to eventually die out,alone? That shouldn't be a possibility. I've never heard of a zoological institution being restricted from breeding a certain species,and it's absolutely ridiculous that it's a possibility. The second is that yet again we're seeing an organization that has no place to make decisions on animal welfare doing just that. The first time we saw that was when OSHA made their ruling on waterworks.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm already mentally planning which parks the Killer Whales should go to if they need to be sent out of state to keep them from being subject to even worse nonsense. Hmm, Corky and Orkid should be kept together because they are like mother and daughter, heck, they are, Corky is Orkid's adoptive mother, Shouka is close to the two of them so they ought to be kept together. Keep the Kasatka family together. Maybe it would be cool if Keet could meet his grandmother Katina...
 
loxodontaafrica said:
The park would be able to transfer animals with transport permits.
These include Shouka, Ulises, and Kasatka (as well as one other whale I believe?)

The CCC overstepped with the amendment as they are not an animal welfare oversight department, they are supposed to only approve or deny construction permits.
Which means the amendment would not hold up in court.

I could definitely see the company looking to expand SeaWorld San Antonio instead- downsizing the collection at San Diego and potentially reuniting Kasatka's matrilineal line with Takara and her two calves.

Time will tell.
Click to expand...

I agree with you as well.
 
I don't really post much here, but I've had an account for several months. This decision by the CCC is the most ridiculous thing ever. What qualifies the panel of 12 people to say whether or not these animals should be allowed to breed? That is the complete opposite of nature. Isn't that ironic? Having breeding is super enriching for the whales and leaving a single whale to die alone is terrible. Were any actual scientists involved with the decision making on this?

The thing I don't understand from the anti-zoo side of this is whether or not you like SeaWorld or believe animals should be in captivity, why would you not want SeaWorld to use their capital to try and improve the lives of their Orcas?
 
colinc said:
I don't really post much here, but I've had an account for several months. This decision by the CCC is the most ridiculous thing ever. What qualifies the panel of 12 people to say whether or not these animals should be allowed to breed? That is the complete opposite of nature. Isn't that ironic? Having breeding is super enriching for the whales and leaving a single whale to die alone is terrible. Were any actual scientists involved with the decision making on this?

The thing I don't understand from the anti-zoo side of this is whether or not you like SeaWorld or believe animals should be in captivity, why would you not want SeaWorld to use their capital to try and improve the lives of their Orcas?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't want to wade too far into this debate again, as I know my position (that Sea World should not continue to breed its orcas or import more from the wild and that the current captive population should represent the end of the captive population) is far from popular on these forums (look at some of the my other posts for my full thoughts on Sea World - a few of us got into an interesting and civilized debate a while back), but I do want to make a point or two.

First, PETA is far from the only organization to oppose the continued breeding and maintenance of a population of orcas. There are others, like me, who have no problem with zoos in general but do not believe that orcas should be maintained in captivity. While PETA members may be the most vocal, they represent an extreme view (no animals should be kept in captivity ever). I know there are others here who have expressed doubts about the continued captive maintenance of cetaceans in general (and orcas in particular) who are, like me, fans of zoos as a general rule.

Second, it's hard to view Sea World's motives as altruistic. Sea World has shown an attitude of breeding at all costs, with breeding as an end to maintaining a captive population of orcas when there is little to no chance of future addition of new founders. Does anyone really believe that Sea World would have even suggested such a massive undertaking had it not been for Blackfish?

Third, while I would agree that on the surface the CCC would not be the best situated to make determinations as to the best welfare of the whales, many decisions about the way animals are kept in captivity are made by governing bodies of all sizes and types. The issue isn't so always about what entity is making the decision, but how the decision is made (including what information was relied upon in making the decision). I'd want to know more about how and why the decision was made before leaping to judgment.
 
jibster said:
Second, it's hard to view Sea World's motives as altruistic. Sea World has shown an attitude of breeding at all costs, with breeding as an end to maintaining a captive population of orcas when there is little to no chance of future addition of new founders. Does anyone really believe that Sea World would have even suggested such a massive undertaking had it not been for Blackfish?

Third, while I would agree that on the surface the CCC would not be the best situated to make determinations as to the best welfare of the whales, many decisions about the way animals are kept in captivity are made by governing bodies of all sizes and types. The issue isn't so always about what entity is making the decision, but how the decision is made (including what information was relied upon in making the decision). I'd want to know more about how and why the decision was made before leaping to judgment.
Click to expand...

In regards your question regarding SeaWorld,an upgrade was to come sooner or later. They've happened semi-frequently in the past,they would have happened semi-frequently in the future as well. Blackfish may have sped it up,but it would have happened regardless,and I blame the speeding up process for the plans we're left with now. Had a longer time frame of development been a possibility,a much better Blue World project could have been developed,but it is what it is.

On your point,you're right,plenty of governing bodies make rulings on animal welfare,and that's a problem. As far as I'm concerned,NOAA should be essentially the only organization deciding how marine mammal captivity should be handled,not PeTA,not anti-captivity groups,not OSHA,and not the CCC. I'm also curious as to the reason for the judgment. It seems to be some sort of compromise between the two opposing factions,one that many both in the middle ground and the pro side are understandably irritated by. I think "forced" breeding in the form of a.i. would have been a more logical thing to ban due to its unpopularity,but banning natural breeding and a.i. isn't doing anyone any favors,least of all the orcas,or at least in my opinion. One could argue SeaWorld continues breeding for the money, however there is no denying that there is a benefit to having some sort of family life for orcas.
 
jibster said:
I'd want to know more about how and why the decision was made before leaping to judgment.
Click to expand...

The decision was made at a public forum with the amendments being voted upon following presentations from seaworld as well as researchers such as Ingrid Visser and Naomi Rose (both of whom I personally respect), although neither presented anything of genuine scientific value to justify their positions...
It was more or less hijacked completely by animal rights politics rather than the true interest of the orca at SWSD.
SW spoke first, followed by those opposed, so they had no opportunity to rebuttal the claims against them and then the amendment was voted upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top