I did the math from my own personal perspective and I would pay nearly $500 more for a trip to the Pacific Northwest than it would for me just to drive to Orando, take a one day trip to SeaWorld, and stay in a hotel for two nights.
SeaWorld San Diego SeaWorld ending orca breeding
- Thread starter DavidBrown
- Start date
I did the math from my own personal perspective and I would pay nearly $500 more for a trip to the Pacific Northwest than it would for me just to drive to Orando, take a one day trip to SeaWorld, and stay in a hotel for two nights.
Great discussion we have going on here. While I'm unsure about killer whales in captivity, if like to respond to the comments about exhibits. I think across the board all accredited/legitimate animal parks should be more careful about how they represent animals through keeper talks, signage, exhibits, etc. While Sea World did a lot to raise awareness of the existence of killer whales and inspired many, they relied too much on theater and not enough education. (Those two ideas don't have to be separate. Also, I'm talking about in the eyes of public opinion, not extremists who are set in their opinions.)
I've enjoyed reading all this. I, too, am unsure about orcas in captivity. I think with enough money, it could be done- but enough money is far beyond all reason. The way animals are presented in general need to be focused on education and conservation. Entertainment comes just from seeing the animal. A further form of entertainment could be educational as well- for example shows where the animal (I've seen this done with sea lions) recycles, demonstrates ecosystems, and other educational aspects. I wonder what the upcoming orca experiences will bring.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, the articles make the point about SeaWorld giving HSUS legitimacy, not individuals who find themselves temporarily aligned.
Elsewhere on the site I've made the same argument as you that Orcas are not the first and only line of defence against AR activists and that it's fine to take a more nuanced view.
Not to mention that whale watching tourism can have negative impacts on wild cetacean populations...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258387585_The_Negative_Impacts_of_Whale-Watching
taun
Well-Known Member
Maybe Sea World should change their name to Sea World Sanctuary then they would be happy.
The only city with a SeaWorld park in it where you have any sort of significant hope of spotting an orca is San Diego,and even there it's still abysmal.
San Diego whale watching: $48 with a specific 3 hour time slot. Absolutely no guarantee of seeing whales,and tiny chance of seeing an orca (when orcas are seen off the San Diego coast,it makes the news)
Single Day Admission to SeaWorld San Diego: $69,but huge time slot,and guarantees of seeing BND,Pilot Whales,beluga whales,and orcas.
Logistically speaking,for the majority of people in Texas,Florida,and California (plus a few of their surrounding states),it's far easier to go to one of the SeaWorld parks. Also there's significant evidence that whale watching is harmful to wild cetaceans.
During five years, I spent my holidays trying to see orcas in the wild, in the Strait of Gibraltar. Never had success, in a total of 11 whale watching trips. And in some of those trips, with no cetaceans from any species. With all the money I spent during that time I could have gone three times to USA, literally. And in fact, that´s what I did at the end, go to SeaWorld. I also made another whale watching trip in LA (mainly for Grey Whale, but also with certain hopes for orca), and of course, no orca was seen. I know about people that have gone to British Columbia, supposedly the best place for see them, and also have failed. And not to mention that many whale watching companies are not precissely respectful with the animals. But even if was really cheaper and with 100% chances of success, what would happen to the declining orca populations, if all the people that now see them on the aquariums will go to see them on the sea?
wensleydale
Well-Known Member
Never mind getting on a whale watching boat boat simply isn't accessible for a lot of people. A lot of the elderly or disable people I have met in my short life probably couldn't pull off something like that, especially the wheelchair and/or ventilator dependent ones. When you have a place like SeaWorld the UVA at the very least is handicapped accessible. And lets not forget those prone to motion sickness, going on a boat is a no no for a lot of them. Not everyone can handle the side effects of dramamine.
azcheetah2
Well-Known Member
Something anti-captivity supporters don't realize or refuse to admit is that sea pens still equal captivity. The whales would still be confined to a specific, likely fairly small area and still rely on humans for food because they don't know how to hunt for live food plus their echolocation probably won't work properly in a sea pen in order to hunt for their own food. But they still see it as a better thing than captivity.
They say, and I agree, that orca are highly social animals who live in family groups that make up sometimes several generations. Sons stay in their mother's pod for life. So, if Sea World stops breeding, eventually these highly social animals begin dying off and before long, you have a solitary orca. Isn't that something the activists want to prevent? Isn't that one of their arguments...about how Sea World separates families? What is their response about that?
*edited*
For the record, I've had the pleasure of visiting the San Juan Islands and seeing orca in the wild. It certainly cost more than an overnight trip to San Diego and Sea World, aside from the fact that I walked out of the Shamu show when I was there. Anyway, I prefer to see them in the wild, but as others have said, it's cost prohibitive for many.
wensleydale
Well-Known Member
Completely agree with you.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
This argument is completely unreasonable. Activists believe that keeping Orcas is wrong. In fact, they believe it is deeply evil. So why on earth would they support continued captive breeding in order to preserve family groups? I am sure they are unhappy about the solitary endgame, but in their worldview it is necessary, the lesser of two evils.
If you want to disagree with them, then you need to do it from first principles. This particular point really doesn't contribute anything to the debate.
I've heard rumors that SeaWorld is planning to separate males and females when the females are in estrus. I'm not sure how valid these rumors are,but unfortunately they do make sense. Birth control in orcas probably isn't 100% effective if other large mammals are any indicator,so male and female separation is the only "logical" solution. Funny how many claim they care about mother and calf separation,despite the fact that before the end of the breeding program,mother/calf separation had seemingly been out of practice since 2009 with Trua being the last I can find. Now we're gonna see mother and calf separation fully brought back with mothers who are in estrus and their calves who'd reached sexual maturity.
Overall I can't seem to wrap my head around this obvious P.R. move. I know what they were hoping to accomplish,improved ticket sales,but if you look at almost every single anti-cap,the vast majority are saying that this was a good move,but they're still never going to visit SeaWorld. Literally speaking,SeaWorld would have to remove every single animal from their collection except for temporary rescued animals before they'd be able to please their opponents. The only thing this has successfully done is driven their fans against them as well,many of whom are doing the whole "Boycott SeaWorld thing" in a rather amusing "fill the tanks" movement,if you will.
Overall I can't seem to wrap my head around this obvious P.R. move. I know what they were hoping to accomplish,improved ticket sales,but if you look at almost every single anti-cap,the vast majority are saying that this was a good move,but they're still never going to visit SeaWorld. Literally speaking,SeaWorld would have to remove every single animal from their collection except for temporary rescued animals before they'd be able to please their opponents. The only thing this has successfully done is driven their fans against them as well,many of whom are doing the whole "Boycott SeaWorld thing" in a rather amusing "fill the tanks" movement,if you will.
I've heard rumors that SeaWorld is planning to separate males and females when the females are in estrus. I'm not sure how valid these rumors are,but unfortunately they do make sense. Birth control in orcas probably isn't 100% effective if other large mammals are any indicator,so male and female separation is the only "logical" solution. Funny how many claim they care about mother and calf separation,despite the fact that before the end of the breeding program,mother/calf separation had seemingly been out of practice since 2009 with Trua being the last I can find. Now we're gonna see mother and calf separation fully brought back with mothers who are in estrus and their calves who'd reached sexual maturity.
Overall I can't seem to wrap my head around this obvious P.R. move. I know what they were hoping to accomplish,improved ticket sales,but if you look at almost every single anti-cap,the vast majority are saying that this was a good move,but they're still never going to visit SeaWorld. Literally speaking,SeaWorld would have to remove every single animal from their collection except for temporary rescued animals before they'd be able to please their opponents. The only thing this has successfully done is driven their fans against them as well,many of whom are doing the whole "Boycott SeaWorld thing" in a rather amusing "fill the tanks" movement,if you will.
As for your first paragraph, I refer you to FunkyGibbon's well-articulated response above. The circular argument of some seems to be that since orcas are currently held in captivity and it is best for orcas to be maintained in social groups, it is therefore unfair to phase out the population because it will eventually lead to orcas being kept in too small numbers. By this logic, there is no way to phase out any social species from captivity. A similar flawed logic seems to go that animal rights groups have not obtained any real victory since there will be no reason for Sea World to work to improve the lives of the orcas it currently holds if there is no future (hence the demise of the Blue World program). If the goal is to end captive maintenance of orcas, that goal will at least be met at some definite point in the future.
As to your second point, I think your post reflects a failure to see beyond the most vocal critics of Sea World to the numerous others who have problems with orcas in captivity. Yes, there are those who will never visit Sea World because they are against animal captivity in almost all circumstances. But there are many others who had problems specifically with the orca program (including, perhaps, many influenced by Blackfish) who will view this as a positive change. You seem to see things in terms of a dichotomy - either one is for Sea World (and views this change negatively because it's caving in to extremists and removes the educational opportunity for people to get close to orcas) or one is against Sea World (and views the change negatively since it requires the continued captive maintenance of orcas in Sea World parks). This oversimplifies. For the most part, people who have been coming to Sea World will continue to go to Sea World (those who might view this as bad precedent are probably unlikely to boycott the park in large numbers) and such a proposal might encourage those who have no problem with Sea World or aquariums overall but did have a problem with their orca problem to visit. I know of at least one person more likely to visit a Sea World in the future due to this change: me. And I know there are others like me, probably even some members of these forums. Futhermore, the public relations reasons alone were probably enough to justify such a change (not to mention the immediate rise in stock prices).
You simply clearly showed that animal rights ideology lacks internal logic by itself.
Giving birth and caring for young is vital part of natural behavior of any mammal, especially in very social, slowly maturing species. Adult-young interactions are significant part of behavior of killer whales, not just the mother, but all members of the group. By arguing to stop breeding, animal activists force killer whales to significant abnormal behavior.
By activists' own logic, killer whales don't care and didn't consent that in the best interest of their kind is to go extinct by not breeding.
Besides, activists are guilty of what they themselves disagree with: picking human opinion what animals should do and enforcing it on the animals.
Going more broad: the ideology on 'animal rights' is flawed inherently, and that is why it creates paradoxes and solves no problems. Not breeding killer whales is not objectively more humane than letting killer whales enjoy their maternity and life in multi-generational herds.
wensleydale
Well-Known Member
I second you, Jurek7.
Im pleasantly surprised how much" pro-cetaceans in captivity" there is on this thread. Quite simply if Killer Whales were not suitably adapted for captivity they would not have survived,indeed prospered,for generations.Really enclosure size is not the biggest problem here..even the female at Miami Seaquarium seems in good health(as evinced by her upright dorsal fin and longevity) those that come up with the "not large enough" complaint re enclosure size should consider that the same point could, and is, made about any other captive species.Condors,elephants,..any species that naturally migrates - where do you stop?Oh..and by the way,what is to stop Sea World importing captive -bred Killer Whales from Japan for instance? Ive yet to see a statement that says they wont get any more animals...just that THEYRE stopping breeding(or have I missed that one?).
No,they made a pledge not to accept any wild-caught cetaceans nor any genetic material (i.e. sperm) from any wild-caught cetaceans back in 2014 under the Virgin Pledge (that's what they called it). As for the point you make,I agree completely. In any other case, ZooChatters would nearly jump at the ability to tell someone that enclosure size isn't necessarily reflective of animal welfare,and that stimulation is what's required. Lolita is inarguably in good health and has clearly prospered in her environment (animals don't reach ~50 years old in horrible,understimulating environments),and even though I believe it should be expanded simply due to the amount of animals in there and it's fairly outdated,Lolita is an excellent individual to refer to in the case that stimulation is what truly matters in zoological environments. The argument that no tank can be built large enough to hold an orca because they're used to traveling vast distances is hilarious to me,as the same could logically be said for nearly every bird species,especially since many bird species kept in captivity have been known to show signs of rather high intelligence,and yet I've yet to see the "Empty the Aviaries" movement really take root. The same could be said for elephants as well,although a growing amount of people have boycotted zoos for elephant ownership.
Actually I do not stop with orcas. I believe most zoo exhibits I have seen - including aviaries - are too small.
Believing an enclosure is too small and wanting a species banned from zoological institutions are very separate things.