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

MidwestFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

The point I'm about to raise has been debated on this forum before, but I think it's important enough to repeat here.
Also, for context, I'm on the fence still on orca captivity, but I have a certain sympathy for people who oppose it on this site, as I think they are sometimes belittled/shouted down.

I don't think it's logical to argue that you must be 'pro-orca' if you are pro-zoo. It's not some kind of first line of defense like you suggest. We should make up our own minds about what we want to see in zoos, and what we think is appropriate from an animal welfare perspective (and we should put science at the heart of this decision process).
Animal welfare groups are always going to choose the most extreme examples to make their case; this inevitably means that sometimes they are going to be correct. This is not to say that they are right about the bigger picture things, but when they argue that a polar bear should not be in a tiny cage with not enough water to swim in, almost all of us would agree.
We can't just kneejerk into opposing animal-welfare groups at every turn, to do so would involve adopting some pretty ugly moral positions. Opposition should be considered; where zoo enthusiasts see necessary change, we should argue for it ourselves, so that this change can be shepherded and supported by a pro-zoo mindset.

colinc said:
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...

I think it's because they are so anti-zoo that they would rather have animals in bad conditions that make their argument easier, than healthy animals in large exhibits with lots of enrichment, but still lacking the most important feature of all, 'freedom'.
(Hopefully you can sense my sarcasm here)
 
I agree completely with FunkyGibbon above. Although I believe in theory orcas could be held in captivity given enough space (like a massive seapen), I believe in practice it is virtually impossible to build an adequately large exhibit.

Some (many) ZooChatters seem unwilling to admit what I believe: some animals simply cannot be housed in captivity.
 
Arizona Docent said:
I agree completely with FunkyGibbon above. Although I believe in theory orcas could be held in captivity given enough space (like a massive seapen), I believe in practice it is virtually impossible to build an adequately large exhibit.

Some (many) ZooChatters seem unwilling to admit what I believe: some animals simply cannot be housed in captivity.
Click to expand...

Amen. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I would alter your statement just slightly - orcas are animals that should not be housed in captivity, even if they can be.
 
I agree that some animals cannot be housed in captivity, but I think that some people put too many animals on that list. I am really unsure as to whether I support orca captivity or not, but I know I really dislike it when people say that elephants shouldn't be in captivity.
 
jibster said:
Amen. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I would alter your statement just slightly - orcas are animals that should not be housed in captivity, even if they can be.
Click to expand...

Agree, but NO Animal should be hold in Captivity, even if they can be...it's wrang to took them their freedom, even if they born in a jailhouse-of course including all pets and the poor animals people EAT-I guess, their lives are much more poor than of the poor orcas at Seaworld.

All Animals ere equal, but some are are MORE equal....?
 
Bib Fortuna said:
Agree, but NO Animal should be hold in Captivity, even if they can be...it's wrang to took them their freedom, even if they born in a jailhouse-of course including all pets and the poor animals people EAT-I guess, their lives are much more poor than of the poor orcas at Seaworld.

All Animals ere equal, but some are are MORE equal....?
Click to expand...

This is exactly the kind of mocking comment that I was referring to above. Why not engage with jibster's statement in a mature way?

(I realise that maybe I was slightly guilty of this myself in my other post. Practice what you preach and all that....)

In reference to your last sentence, is it so hard to believe that across the entire spectrum of the animal kingdom there might be separate categories that deserve different treatment and protection?
 
There are definitely animals that can't be held in captivity,but can orcas really be counted as one of them? As far as captivity programs go,cetacean captivity is still quite young,however I'm quite optimistic about it. Things have certainly changed over time. There was a time when an orca calf wouldn't survive in captivity for over a month,and SeaWorld faced at least one orca death each and every year. It's been five years since the last deaths,and healthy calves are born nearly every other year. I think with time and improvements orcas could certainly be semi-comparable to elephant and great ape captivity,however I'd also like to point out that I think,at this point,very few facilities have gotten orca captivity "right". To me,a failed captivity program would be like pangolins or Sumatran rhinoceros,in which almost all individuals have died out and breeding has failed. The state of orcas in captivity doesn't yet seem that abysmal to me.
 
Seaworld is now on their way to fight the CCC's new amendment stating the obvious that they do not have jurisdiction over animal welfare laws as those laws are only protected by the state along with the country itself
 
Moebelle said:
Seaworld is now on their way to fight the CCC's new amendment stating the obvious that they do not have jurisdiction over animal welfare laws as those laws are only protected by the state along with the country itself
Click to expand...

Good. God willing the courts will throw out the silly ccc amendment and construction can proceed.
 
Moebelle said:
Seaworld is now on their way to fight the CCC's new amendment stating the obvious that they do not have jurisdiction over animal welfare laws as those laws are only protected by the state along with the country itself
Click to expand...

Here are some news articles on the plan to sue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/seaworld-to-fight-ban-on-breeding-killer-whales-at-san-diego-habitat.html
SeaWorld will sue Coastal Commission over orca restrictions - LA Times
Although I personally do not believe orcas can be sustainably managed as a captive population with optimal standards and welfare (for the best interest of the animals be phased out of captivity), the California Coastal Commission has no right to ban breeding, sale, and trade of animals. If the agency wanted to, they had the power to deny SeaWorld's request for construction, under the agency's oversight of land use. But the California Coastal Commission wanted to please both the animal rights advocates as well as SeaWorld, unfortunately the compromise did not work out so well...
 
@Falcosparverius: Agree with you in the last point you're refering.

@To all who don't wanna have Orcas or any bigger whales in captivity:

First: It is proven that they CAN be kept in captivity (or rather human care if anyone prefer that term). The question is, if they SHOULD be kept! Do we give them all their needs, although their environment is a surrogate? My opinion is yes, but I can accept a contrary opinion.

The more important point imo is (and this was told/written from other zoochat fellows here already): For the animal right activists, this will be just the beginning. Because they are not able to close all zoos, aquarias and marine parks right know, they concentrate on specific (and charismatic) animals by getting a ban to keep them. They start with cetaceans, then elephants, apes and polar bears, then big cats, seals and so on until zoos become so boring for ordinary visitors so they will get financial problems and have to close by theirselfes.

So, fight against those "weird" (I prefere other terms) people, and - for the wellfare of the animals, whom breeding and raise their youngs is an important and natural behaviour - go on and fight against those stupid CCC regulations and built a new and better exhibit for the orcas without stopping breeding them!!!!!
 
Falcosparverius said:
Here are some news articles on the plan to sue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/seaworld-to-fight-ban-on-breeding-killer-whales-at-san-diego-habitat.html
SeaWorld will sue Coastal Commission over orca restrictions - LA Times
Although I personally do not believe orcas can be sustainably managed as a captive population with optimal standards and welfare (for the best interest of the animals be phased out of captivity), the California Coastal Commission has no right to ban breeding, sale, and trade of animals. If the agency wanted to, they had the power to deny SeaWorld's request for construction, under the agency's oversight of land use. But the California Coastal Commission wanted to please both the animal rights advocates as well as SeaWorld, unfortunately the compromise did not work out so well...
Click to expand...

I agree with this in principle, though without a closer look at the laws in question, I don't know that I agree that the CCC has no "right." I would agree that even if it is legal, it is improper.

As to zoomaniac's statement, this is the very same logic that has been earlier addressed in this thread. The argument anyone who supports zoos must support the continued breeding and exhibitry of orcas is not well-supported. In essence, it's an all-or-none argument, and the world just doesn't work in this way. Sure, it may be that anti-captivity activists are focusing on orcas as a first case and will then expand their activities to other types of animals, but this does not mean that anyone who isn't with them must oppose this action. If one were to adopt zoomaniac's logic, no one could agree with anti-cap arguments over the often appalling conditions at unaccredited roadside zoos - because this is also a "gateway" toward the banning of all zoos. Not to get too political, but this process of attempting to discredit whatever opponents say for fear of allowing them to gain any ground is much of the cause of our Congress's political gridlock.
 
@jibster: It was not my intention to force anyone here to change his mind. I only wanna point out the danger, if we say "amen" and "yes" to all the demands of the animal rights activists. Also I did not write "MUST support the continued ...". The meaning was on the term "SHOULD". And when we take an example from politics: Remember the way of "appeasement" from the allies before WW 2. It wasn't really the right way to deal with Hitler, was it?

In your phrases, you imply that anyone with the same opinion like me does divide the world in black and white only. But this is not the case (for myself at least. I prefere the way to find compromise NORMALLY. I'm Swiss, we invented compromises;)).
If animal activists (or anyone else) has scientific based arguments, why keeping of a specific species in captivity should be improved, then we should discuss this and - if it is scientifically proven to be right - convert it. The focus is on improve/optimize, not on close or ban!!!!!!! (not just black or white).

Finally, in this special case, I deeply hope that you are right about that trend/progress and I'm not! But what if I'm right? Then it will probably to late...
 
zoomaniac said:
@jibster: It was not my intention to force anyone here to change his mind. I only wanna point out the danger, if we say "amen" and "yes" to all the demands of the animal rights activists. Also I did not write "MUST support the continued ...". The meaning was on the term "SHOULD". And when we take an example from politics: Remember the way of "appeasement" from the allies before WW 2. It wasn't really the right way to deal with Hitler, was it?

In your phrases, you imply that anyone with the same opinion like me does divide the world in black and white only. But this is not the case (for myself at least. I prefere the way to find compromise NORMALLY. I'm Swiss, we invented compromises;)).
If animal activists (or anyone else) has scientific based arguments, why keeping of a specific species in captivity should be improved, then we should discuss this and - if it is scientifically proven to be right - convert it. The focus is on improve/optimize, not on close or ban!!!!!!! (not just black or white).

Finally, in this special case, I deeply hope that you are right about that trend/progress and I'm not! But what if I'm right? Then it will probably to late...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, zoomaniac; in re-reading your earlier post, it appears I may have misread it slightly. My problem is with the idea that we must fight anti-cap activists because to allow them any ground or acknowledge any common ground is tantamount to surrender on all fronts. This is not a war (hence my belief that the analogy to Hitler's appeasement is faulty); the tendency of some to see the need to pick sides is silly. We do not have to disagree with PETA on everything to feel that PETA's overall anti-captivity argument is misguided.

Furthermore, it appears you might be missing my point (which might have been inartfully made): The black/white distinction I was making was not in reference to the question of keeping orcas in captivity but to the question of whether one can agree with any position of PETA without agreeing with PETA's overall agenda.
 
@jipster: First: Thank you for your reply and an interesting conversation. I guess IN GENERAL - and leaving the point, if orcas should be kept in zoos aside - we're more agree in this thematic then disagree. Also, regarding that English isn't my native tongue, I must confess that my expression/verbalism isn't as good as I wish and can (or will) lead to mistakes and misunderstandings sometimes.

And yes: 100% acceptance with your last phrase.

And to all: Sorry for being off topic.

PS: Would be interesting to hear/read, what your experiences with animal rights activists have been. Mine were close to a (verbal) war...;)
 
zoomaniac said:
@jipster: First: Thank you for your reply and an interesting conversation. I guess IN GENERAL - and leaving the point, if orcas should be kept in zoos aside - we're more agree in this thematic then disagree. Also, regarding that English isn't my native tongue, I must confess that my expression/verbalism isn't as good as I wish and can (or will) lead to mistakes and misunderstandings sometimes.

And yes: 100% acceptance with your last phrase.

And to all: Sorry for being off topic.

PS: Would be interesting to hear/read, what your experiences with animal rights activists have been. Mine were close to a (verbal) war...;)
Click to expand...


I think we do agree more than disagree, with our main point of contention rlating to orcas. Always interesting talking to you. And I figured English might not be your native tongue - you do write very well (better than many native English speakers), so I meant no criticism of that. I just wanted to point out the one or two points that we are in disagreement on.

As to my own experience with animal rights activists, it's limited to virtual interaction; I haven't had face-to-face encounters with anyone in the anti-cap camp (at least not where any of these issues have been discussed).
 
It is naive to think that animal rights activists fights for animal rights just because of the animals-they don't care what happens to animals.

What matters is solely the money that can be earned with animal welfare, and that really only works with popular species. The Peta bosses live in luxury houses, driving luxury cars, wear expensive clothes, even leather and fur, of course eating animals, and even visit zoos with their Families..only the stupid, naive young members of Peta and Company really belive, what Peta does, does it for animals....and the bosses do live their lifes in luxery...they do not want to be the zoos closed, because they would loose one of their main sources of money.....so don't worry about them...as long as Peta is existing, even our beloved zoos will be exist...even Seaworld,the fattest cow what can be milked....
 
Bib Fortuna said:
It is naive to think that animal rights activists fights for animal rights just because of the animals-they don't care what happens to animals.

What matters is solely the money that can be earned with animal welfare, and that really only works with popular species. The Peta bosses live in luxury houses, driving luxury cars, wear expensive clothes, even leather and fur, of course eating animals, and even visit zoos with their Families..only the stupid, naive young members of Peta and Company really belive, what Peta does, does it for animals....and the bosses do live their lifes in luxery...they do not want to be the zoos closed, because they would loose one of their main sources of money.....so don't worry about them...as long as Peta is existing, even our beloved zoos will be exist...even Seaworld,the fattest cow what can be milked....
Click to expand...
...

[Sigh]... What a great way to counter any hyperbolic arguments made by PETA... If anyone thinks PETA has the corner on ridiculous over-generalization and biased, unsupported allegations, look no further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top