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

Sorry-but these are facts. For my point of new-I see not any "danger"in these people for zoos, but is sad how they betray their young members and live from their money.It is time to bring this truth to the public-and what Peta really does with donated money...
 
Bib Fortuna said:
Sorry-but these are facts. For my point of new-I see not any "danger"in these people for zoos, but is sad how they betray their young members and live from their money.It is time to bring this truth to the public-and what Peta really does with donated money...
Click to expand...

By all means, bring the truth to light; that is, if you have actual facts to back up your assertions (but I think this is clearly the subject of a new thread). I do not doubt that some members of PETA (like members of most such activist groups) are hypocritical (at least to some minds), but I doubt there is any high level conspiracy whereby those higher up are all hypocritical money-grabbers hell-bent on deceiving "young members."

To attempt to get this thread back on topic, my question is: Even if many (or most) members of PETA are hypocritical, what bearing does that have on the topic of this thread? Hypocrites can have good arguments, and they are not always wrong; just because some who espouse a particular view are hypocritical about it does not invalidate the view. I merely set out the proposition that people can have the same view on this issue as PETA does without it necessarily giving PETA any credibility or support on other issues. I take aim at those who seem to believe that because PETA is fighting for something, everyone who disagrees with PETA must necessarily be against it. It's funny how the very people who complain loudest about PETA's radical stances are so quick to adopt radical anti-PETA views.

To put this back in terms of the main thread, even though PETA may have been one of the most vocal proponents of the anti-captivity/captive breeding viewpoint considered by the CCC, that does not in itself invalidate said viewpoint. So many people seem to be upset by the CCC's decision on a visceral level, fueled by what appears to be a hatred of PETA and its tactics. My only issue with the decision, from a legal perspective, is whether or not the CCC has the legal authority to make it.
 
jibster said:
So many people seem to be upset by the CCC's decision on a visceral level, fueled by what appears to be a hatred of PETA and its tactics. My only issue with the decision, from a legal perspective, is whether or not the CCC has the legal authority to make it.
Click to expand...

I think the outrage is a combination of the CCC overstepping their bounds and PeTA's clear influence on this decision. Thankfully (or not,depending on how you feel about it),federal action can quickly remove this restriction,and since SeaWorld has a history of involvement with NOAA and other government agencies, I would not be shocked to see this overturned. I for one am curious to see how this plays out.
 
Shellheart said:
I think the outrage is a combination of the CCC overstepping their bounds and PeTA's clear influence on this decision. Thankfully (or not,depending on how you feel about it),federal action can quickly remove this restriction,and since SeaWorld has a history of involvement with NOAA and other government agencies, I would not be shocked to see this overturned. I for one am curious to see how this plays out.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see the outcome. I haven't seen any legal filings tmaking an arbitrary decision, as the Commission appears to have broad powers beyond mere zoning to protect marine resources. It's a interesting legal question. I don't think, however, Sea World's history of involvement with NOAA and other agencies will necessarily help it - it ought to (and probably will) depend on the law. Not to go too far in depth on the legal issues, but it would appear unlikely that there is an issue of federal preemption here (I may be totally wrong, of course, as I haven't spent the time fully researching the issue, but on first glance, I don't see that federal law would pre-empt state action in the areas).

As to the outrage, I agree with both the reasons behind it that you set forth, but the cynic in me can't help but think that the bigger issue for most people is PETA's involvement (and the argument about the CCC overstepping its boundary is merely a convenient way to de-legitimize the ruling).
 
ZooElephantsMan said:
I don't think they are overstepping their ruling, I just think it's unfair.
Click to expand...

Unfair to whom? In what sense? (And yes, I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts, not just being sarcastic.) I'm not sure I see anything unfair in this decision - again, one might disagree with the outcome, but I'm not sure what about the process was unfair.
 
zoomaniac said:
@jipster: Just for a better understanding why I was using the term "war":

Emails show state employees removed SeaWorld link after PETA complained - Orlando Sentinel

Those animal right activists use all the dirty tricks they can...
Click to expand...

I fail to see what about that article shows dirty tricks. PETA lobbied to get the Sea World link removed, an employee improperly removed it, and then she left her job (perhaps in response). No untoward actions of PETA - and even if the employee was a PETA member, her actions can hardly be attributed to the organization.

Of course, this is not to say that PETA (and Sea World, too) is entirely aboveboard and honest in its dealings on this issue. Both sides are engaged in a very public debate, and the advocacy, as it often does, can get heated, with both sides engaging in a bit of truth-stretching and distortion.

And ZooElephantMan, I thought after the fact that you may well have meant the process was unfair to the whales. I understand your point, but remember that the anti-cap side would use the same justification to argue for ending Sea World's captive orca program. I'd argue that there are many more aspects of Sea World's orcas husbandry that are far more inherently "unfair" to the whales than a decision that the breeding of more whales to perpetuate a line of performers in quasi-educational shows to pad the coffers of Sea World's stockholders must end. In the end, your fairness charge reflects your unhappiness with the decision (which is understandable), whereas my concern in the post in question was more with the fairness of the process that yielded the decision.
 
@jipster: You can also see it as PETA has FORCED a naive employee to do so ("Hey, haven't you seen the Blackfish report? Remove this miscredited company from your side or your authority will get big problems with the media") or this employee was an infiltrated PETA member (and then her actions were of course in accord and most likely in order of PETA, other thinking appear a little naive to me). Therefore "dirty tricks". Further investigations will maybe show it.
 
zoomaniac said:
@jipster: You can also see it as PETA has FORCED a naive employee to do so ("Hey, haven't you seen the Blackfish report? Remove this miscredited company from your side or your authority will get big problems with the media") or this employee was an infiltrated PETA member (and then her actions were of course in accord and most likely in order of PETA, other thinking appear a little naive to me). Therefore "dirty tricks". Further investigations will maybe show it.
Click to expand...

You can read anything you want to into this article, but there are no dirty tricks in the facts as presented. The example you provide of PETA "forcing" a naive employee to do anything is anything but - there is nothing wrong with PETA attempting to use pressure to get results (do you honestly believe Sea World doesn't do the same thing?). There is nothing to suggest that the employee is naive - you're reading too much into this; and the idea that the employee was someone sent by PETA to infiltrate the organization is a flimsy conspiracy theory (even if the employee was a PETA member before she got got the job).

It doesn't matter if you're a supporter or detractor of PETA - this article, based on the facts given, does not portray PETA in a bad light or show any dirty tricks. You suggest that there could be some dirty tricks behind it, and while that is possible, it's mere conjecture on your part. It's this need by many to constantly ascribe evil motives to an organization that one disagrees with that makes it so difficult to engage in any meaningful debate on such a polarizing topic. Note - I am not saying that I agree with PETA's pressure on the organization to de-list Sea World, nor with the organization's actual de-listing - I am simply saying that this incident, as reported, does not provide any evidence of "dirty tricks." Maybe there is more to the story, but maybe there isn't. In any case, if you're trying to build a case against PETA (and PETA has engaged in some behavior that is ethically questionable, as has Sea World), I suggest you rely on better evidence.
 
Jibster,

I actually am kind of fluctuant on my opinions about orca captivity, I just think that if we are gonna hav them in captivity, they should have the right to breed. They should never be forced to breed though. And there should be space for more orcas than they plan to hold in case there are unexpected pregnancies.

Also, I agree that both sides are being dishonest about a lot of things, but I've come to know that that is something that happens in most zoos in general.
 
ZooElephantsMan said:
Jibster,

I actually am kind of fluctuant on my opinions about orca captivity, I just think that if we are gonna hav them in captivity, they should have the right to breed. They should never be forced to breed though. And there should be space for more orcas than they plan to hold in case there are unexpected pregnancies.

Also, I agree that both sides are being dishonest about a lot of things, but I've come to know that that is something that happens in most zoos in general.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reasoned response, ZooElephantsMan. In theory, I might agree with you that if orcas are kept in captivity then they should be allowed to breed (in practice, many individuals of many different species are not allowed to breed for various different reasons, so I don't know that this argument really holds water if you consider the many individuals of many species which are denied the "right to breed"; this doesn't even consider the problems of breeding between individuals from genetically and regionally distinct subpopulations or other issues raised by the captive breeding of orcas). The problem, of course, is that if the decision is made that orcas are will no longer be maintained in captivity, then breeding must actually stop. That's the crux of the matter - a stop to breeding necessarily means an end to the captive population in the forseeable future. It appears the CCC has adopted the position that many people against orca captivity favor: an end to captive breeding so that the current population is allowed to die out.

As for the dishonesty, it's prevalent in all parts of life, particularly when concerning an issue that is so controversial - which is precisely why it's so helpful to try to discuss these issues in a rational and reasoned manner.
 
SeaWorld has published a rebuttal to a video claiming that Makani is bruising Kasatka (would she really allow that?) and that Kalia is too depressed to nurse Amaya.

Apparently they (the ones being rebutted) misidentified most of the animals in the video (ex. mistaking Makani for a younger animal who is still nursing) and claimed that the animals were resting excessively, amonmg other things. Admittedly I didn't watch the original but I don't the idea of driving them up in search results so I didn't.

These so-called killer whale experts have it all wrong (again)
 
wensleydale said:
SeaWorld has published a rebuttal to a video claiming that Makani is bruising Kasatka (would she really allow that?) and that Kalia is too depressed to nurse Amaya.

Apparently they (the ones being rebutted) misidentified most of the animals in the video (ex. mistaking Makani for a younger animal who is still nursing) and claimed that the animals were resting excessively, amonmg other things. Admittedly I didn't watch the original but I don't the idea of driving them up in search results so I didn't.

These so-called killer whale experts have it all wrong (again)
Click to expand...

It is rather amusing that a woman who claims to be a leading expert on orcas and a man who claims to know all of SeaWorld's "deep dark secrets" can't tell the difference between a 10 month old female and a 2 1/2 year old male. Even most park guests could probably tell the difference if asked.
Experts indeed.
 
The CEO has decided to phase out current performences for their orcas ("current" as in their style of shoes they've always done). It will be replaced with an all educational show similar to their rare occurring Shamu Close Up. As far as I know, this will occur only in San Diego.
 
Between the Shamu Adventure and Believe, San Diego had the Shamu Experience. It was in the Close-Up pool and was more of an educational type show. They showed how they trained the whales to do different behaviors and explained about how they praise the whales for doing the right thing or "punish" (I don't like using that word here because they aren't physically or verbally punished...it's more of a correction) them for doing it wrong. I think if the new program was like that, but stuck only with showing behaviors done in the wild such as tail lobs and side breaches then that would be okay. Shamu Experience had waterwork also to a smaller degree, but obviously they can't do that.

But it seems a lot of people think that the behaviors in the shows are unnatural and it would help dispel that myth if they showed video of wild orca doing the same behaviors. I've seen the Southern Residents so I know they do things like tail lobs, breeches and spy hops. The only difference is that Sea World trains them to do it on request and get food or some other reward for it.
 
azcheetah2 said:
Okay, so maybe not Roller Coaster World, but it's supposed to be a marine park, not an amusement park. The Skytower and the cable ride thing across the bay get a pass since they've been there forever, but there's Journey to Atlantis, Manta and as far as I know, Shipwreck Rapids is still in operation. JTA is a rollercoaster hybrid and Shipwreck Rapids is still a ride.
Click to expand...

SeaWorld has had entertainments as one of its main focuses for a while now. If you'll notice however,one of the rides shown is clearly mentioned to involve an animal exhibit,as with (almost) all of SeaWorld's rides. Wild Arctic has polar bears,belugas,walruses (or harbor seals), Manta was built into the pre-existing stingray exhibit,and more aquariums were added along the queue,Journey to Atlantis has an aquarium next to it (though I wish it still contained Commerson's dolphins) and even the new Mako ride over at Orlando will come with a new version of the Shark Encounter. It's not as if they're just demolishing animal exhibits all willy-nilly for rides instead, these rides coexist with either new or pre-existing animal exhibits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top