SeaWorld San Diego SeaWorld ending orca breeding

Release by SeaWorld: https://seaworldcares.com/Future
This worries me. A) the activists won and B) what happens to SeaWorld? They have a lot of orcas that they now can't breed. What will happen to their orcas which are on loan to other institutions? What about their belugas, bottlenose dolphins, pilot whales, white sided dolphins, or other cetaceans? Now that the orcas are gone, the "activists" will push for the rest of it to be gone as well. This could end up as a very bad turn of events for marine mammal holders.
 
jayjds2 said:
Release by SeaWorld: https://seaworldcares.com/Future
This worries me. A) the activists won and B) what happens to SeaWorld? They have a lot of orcas that they now can't breed. What will happen to their orcas which are on loan to other institutions? What about their belugas, bottlenose dolphins, pilot whales, white sided dolphins, or other cetaceans? Now that the orcas are gone, the "activists" will push for the rest of it to be gone as well. This could end up as a very bad turn of events for marine mammal holders.
Click to expand...

I think we have to be careful about extrapolating from this decision on Sea World's part to any larger decision to end the captive management of cetaceans or any other species. While it is easy to say that "the activists" won (and there is little doubt that some activists will see it this way), there are many people (including many members of these forums) who agree with Sea World's decision to end its orca program when its current population dies off. There is nowhere near the same public sentiment toward ending the management of all cetaceans (for many different reasons).

As to your second point: what will happen to Sea World? I think it important to note that this decision was not made for Sea World - Sea World made the decision itself; it's not that Sea World can't breed its orcas, it's that Sea World has decided to end the program. For all its benefits to conservation, Sea World is ultimately a business, so the company must have made a determination to shift its focus elsewhere. In the face of a well-publicized revenue problem for several years, it has been obvious that Sea World could not continue operating the same way it had been if it were to remain viable (due, at least in part, to the Blackfish phenomenon, but that is hardly the only reason for Sea World's problems, at least to my mind). Many of us can probably remember a time when Sea World was a different kind of amusement park, far from the theme parks like Disney or Six Flags: the now-defunct Ohio Sea World (where I visited annually growing up before later becoming an employee and later a season pass holder) never had a "ride" of any kind, whereas Sea World Florida is now putting the finishing touches on the tallest roller coaster in Orlando.
 
The activists won't be done arguing here. They want sea pens, they want the Dolphins and whales gone. The rides have certainly been springing up more and more frequently. People can't reasonably argue too much against them. It'll be interesting to see what the chain becomes in the coming years.
 
It's also worth pointing out that 'stopping breeding' is a very different thing from 'stopping keeping'. I'm not sure how recently they had a calf, but SeaWorld could potentially still have Orcas for the next forty plus years.

So much could happen in that time. The decision calculus will change and future management will not feel bound by this decision for ever.

Additionally, although the announcement is not specific on this point, the following extract is noteworthy:
SeaWorld will increase its focus on rescue operations — so that the thousands of stranded marine mammals like dolphins and sea lions that cannot be released back to the wild will have a place to go.
Seaworld have rescued Orcas and not released them fairly recently. They may well continue to do so.

It will be interesting to see if activists now push for sea-pens or if it falls off the table as a perceived victory. Whether or not you agree with Orcas in captivity, virtually all of us will bemoan the loss of the Blue World project. It's a shame they won't go through with it anyway. An aquarium will surely always find a good use for a large tank.
 
jayjds2 said:
The activists won't be done arguing here. They want sea pens, they want the Dolphins and whales gone. T
Click to expand...

Sure they will continue, they are activists. But their popular support will go down and they have much less opportunities to make their point... Though it will be impossible to predict the future, I think this Sea World decision might well be a victory for Sea World as well, especially on the longer term.
 
I agree with what you both said. Blue World could be used for so many things... A shame that it isn't going to happen. Even as just a fish aquarium it could have been spectacular. It will be a while before we see any other organizations willing to put forth 100 million dollars on anything to the same scale.
 
lintworm said:
Sure they will continue, they are activists. But their popular support will go down and they have much less opportunities to make their point... Though it will be impossible to predict the future, I think this Sea World decision might well be a victory for Sea World as well, especially on the longer term.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Some activists won't be happy as long as there are animals in captivity in any form, but Sea World, from a business standpoint, is probably making the correct decision for its future. As noted, Sea World will continue its rescue operations (and may well house stranded orcas in the future), and even without breeding, the whales will still be represented in Sea World collections for years to come. For many, like me, the phasing out of the orca shows and the end of continued breeding represents a welcome step by Sea World, and ends one of the largest complaints with the company's animal management practices.
 
FunkyGibbon said:
It's also worth pointing out that 'stopping breeding' is a very different thing from 'stopping keeping'. I'm not sure how recently they had a calf, but SeaWorld could potentially still have Orcas for the next forty plus years.

So much could happen in that time. The decision calculus will change and future management will not feel bound by this decision for ever.

Additionally, although the announcement is not specific on this point, the following extract is noteworthy:
SeaWorld will increase its focus on rescue operations — so that the thousands of stranded marine mammals like dolphins and sea lions that cannot be released back to the wild will have a place to go.
Seaworld have rescued Orcas and not released them fairly recently. They may well continue to do so.

It will be interesting to see if activists now push for sea-pens or if it falls off the table as a perceived victory. Whether or not you agree with Orcas in captivity, virtually all of us will bemoan the loss of the Blue World project. It's a shame they won't go through with it anyway. An aquarium will surely always find a good use for a large tank.
Click to expand...

I strongly agree with this! Orca's are extremely long lived, and there could very well still be female animals living at Seaworld 60 years from now assuming they stay true to their non-breeding clause. They currently have 3 whales under the age of 4, and another female currently pregnant.

Additionally, just like FunkyGibbon said, 15-20 years from now, once the whole hubabaloo has settled down, they will still have a number of breedable females and males, and could just as easily resume breeding again, should the desire.

My main qualm with they way Seaworld went about things is their new partnership the the Human Society of the Unite States. This is a well known anti-any animals in captivity group, so I do worry about the potential ripple affect this may have in the future. Additionally, although they tout how this will bring new and better changes for Seaworld rescue and rehabilitation, they already have an exemplary program for this and certainly do not need the aid of the HSUS in any aspect regarding their operations.
 
In a move that should surprise exactly nobody,the Humane Society of the United States has announced this to be a victory,and has commented on their status that this is simply "Baby steps". Anyone who loves zoos and aquariums,regardless of their feelings on SeaWorld,should regard this as a loss. To be honest,it feels vaguely like the beginning of the end.
 
jibster said:
...there are many people (including many members of these forums) who agree with Sea World's decision...
Click to expand...

Me being one of those members. It is physically impossible (or at least impractical) in my opinion to build a tank large enough to properly house killer whales.
 
Arizona Docent said:
Me being one of those members. It is physically impossible (or at least impractical) in my opinion to build a tank large enough to properly house killer whales.
Click to expand...

Thanks for chiming in, ArizonaDocent. I know there are other out there, too.

As for Shellheart's doom-and-gloom belief that this is the beginning of the end, I respectfully disagree. The problems with orcas in captivity are unique to that species, its needs, and its captive husbandry. Even if Sea World's decision can be seen as more than a business decision (as a for-profit corporation, Sea World is driven by different factors than your typical not-for-profit zoo), there is little here to suggest that this choice by one institution to stop breeding of one species will have any significant greater effect on the future of animals in captivity. As I have stated before elsewhere, in my view, the recognition that certain species may not be suited for captivity cannot be extrapolated to suggest that therefore all species should not be kept.
 
Hyak_II said:
Orca's are extremely long lived, and there could very well still be female animals living at Seaworld 60 years from now assuming they stay true to their non-breeding clause. They currently have 3 whales under the age of 4, and another female currently pregnant.
Click to expand...

When is she due? I think coming on the heel of this announcement that birth will cause a certain amount of embarrassment!
 
They didn't release a specific due date, however they stated she became pregnant in the latter part of 2015 (most likely to replace the deceased whale Unna), so her calve will most likely be here in early 2017.

They did actually mention this in their release about the breeding stop, so I don't think it will cause to many problems for them. The nice thing is that it is Takara at Seaworld San Antonio, so the park will maintain a very close family unit for the rest of it's time holding orcas.
 
They didn't release a specific due date, however they stated she became pregnant in the latter part of 2015 (most likely to replace the deceased whale Unna), so her calve will most likely be here in early 2017.

They did actually mention this in their release about the breeding stop, so I don't think it will cause to many problems for them. The nice thing is that it is Takara at Seaworld San Antonio, so the park will maintain a very close family unit for the rest of it's time holding orcas, as it consists of Takara, her 2 (soon to be 3) calves, and 2 un-related but well bonded males.
 
jibster said:
Thanks for chiming in, ArizonaDocent. I know there are other out there, too.

As for Shellheart's doom-and-gloom belief that this is the beginning of the end, I respectfully disagree. .
Click to expand...

+1

Here in the Netherlands we just had a ban on keeping wild animals in circuses (which affected 100 animals or so) and these were exactly the same arguments used by people against this decision. But if a zoo cannot distinguish itself from a circus or if a zoo cannot distinguish their orca program from their dolphin / ape etc. program, then they also do deserve the rest to be banned honestly.... Fortunately a good zoo would be able to show the huge differences between the two...
 
-1

I allow myself to respectfully disagree with jibster, ArizonaDocent and lintworm.

First: I think you can't draw a CLEAR line between "show" and "training/presentation of an animal as an ambassador for its kind". The transitions are fluently (does this phrase exist in English?).
Second: Shellheart is absolutely right imo. It's a loss. Not only for orca interested visitors who are maybe never able to see this species in live otherwise and so maybe will never have an interest to care for it but also for the future of SeaWorld. The orcas are (were) the biggest attraction of the park, no matter how many rollercoaster they built. When you ask people to say what comes up to their mind by the word "SeaWorld" 95 percent will say "orca" or "shamu". But why should people go to SeaWorld in future, when they can go to other amusement/theme parks or aquariums for (much) less money? What makes SeaWorld unique then? The dolphins? - No. There are many other parks with dolphins. And beside that, the bann of breeding (and keeping) other cetaceas will be one of the next steps of the animal rights activits (I'm ready to bet on it, anyone else?)
And this brings me to point No 3: By following the development of the animal rights activists and their actions, it's clear that this was just the beginning. Their goal is to close all zoos and aquariums. They do it step by step. It began by the bann of keeping wild animals in circuses (e.g. in a few European countries), the stop of import dolphins - from the wild and from captivity (in Switzerland), unfair restrictions (stop breeding orcas to get allowed building a better orca exhibit at San Diego) and will lead to the bann of keeping elephants, big bears, big cats and specially primates.

To be clear: I'm absolutely not against improvements. They are necessary even/specially at the SeaWorld parks. But lets be fair and give them the chance to do this improvements. I compare it with a hospital: You would not close the heart surgery just because some patients has died there and the infrastructure isn't sufficent. You would built a new and better heart surgery unit, wouldn't you?
 
zoomaniac said:
-1



Second: Shellheart is absolutely right imo. It's a loss. Not only for orca interested visitors who are maybe never able to see this species in live otherwise and so maybe will never have an interest to care for it but also for the future of SeaWorld. The orcas are (were) the biggest attraction of the park, no matter how many rollercoaster they built. When you ask people to say what comes up to their mind by the word "SeaWorld" 95 percent will say "orca" or "shamu". But why should people go to SeaWorld in future, when they can go to other amusement/theme parks or aquariums for (much) less money? What makes SeaWorld unique then? The dolphins? - No. There are many other parks with dolphins. And beside that, the bann of breeding (and keeping) other cetaceas will be one of the next steps of the animal rights activits (I'm ready to bet on it, anyone else?)
Click to expand...

While I think many might be inclined to agree with this point, it is crucial to recognize that Sea World itself made the decision to end its breeding program, and there were sound business reasons for its decision to do so (stock prices rose 8% yesterday after the announcement, so investors at least seem pleased). Yes, there was pressure from animal rights groups and a legally questionable decision by the CCC, but ultimately, this decision was made by Sea World and not forced upon it by governmental action. That's a key distinction to note. It's comparable in some ways to the decision by some zoos to end their elephant programs because those specific zoos decided that they could not (or did not want to pay to) meet the requirements of their elephants. Because Sea World kept the last minimally viable population of orcas in the United States, its decision functionally means the eventual end of the captive maintenance of the species (given the restrictions on any institution ever acquiring orcas again in the absence of a great change in the legal system), but this is, to my mind, far less of a threat to captivity in general than a governmental ban on the keeping of orcas would be.
 
jibster said:
While I think many might be inclined to agree with this point, it is crucial to recognize that Sea World itself made the decision to end its breeding program, and there were sound business reasons for its decision to do so
Click to expand...

Fine they made the decision but it is from pressure from animal rights activists they have done so, which has now condemned them to living in what animal right activists call unsuitable conditions.

Why will any place spend money on improving facilities when they are basically going out of keeping them?

So they can jump around calling this a victory when in fact they have helped mistreat (their words) these animals. But at least they can sleep easy behind their keyboards knowing that in 30/40 odd years there will be no more orcas in captivity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top