Oh believe me, there are people who want them back in the ocean. There's plenty of "release Tillikum" or "Free Corky" petitions. The general public will have no idea of the issue of imprinting and will undoubtedly want them in the ocean.
SeaWorld's New Blue World Project
- Thread starter Moebelle
- Start date
The Vegan
Well-Known Member
To answer own question:
"It is a multi-million dollar expansion of their existing killer whale enclosure at all three of their parks. The entire project is projected to cost $300 million" (New details revealed about SeaWorld San Diego's Blue World project)
I have no idea if this is a reliable source, nor if that estimate is just for San Diego's extension or for all three parks. The article seems to say the latter, though I expect that a single "Blue World" could cost just that much.
In any case, I think it's really quite obvious that this endeavor is a reaction to the Blackfish uproar - no matter what SW might claim - and for that matter, it's not exactly a concession. It will be interesting to see what will happen in SeaWorld's future.
"It is a multi-million dollar expansion of their existing killer whale enclosure at all three of their parks. The entire project is projected to cost $300 million" (New details revealed about SeaWorld San Diego's Blue World project)
I have no idea if this is a reliable source, nor if that estimate is just for San Diego's extension or for all three parks. The article seems to say the latter, though I expect that a single "Blue World" could cost just that much.
In any case, I think it's really quite obvious that this endeavor is a reaction to the Blackfish uproar - no matter what SW might claim - and for that matter, it's not exactly a concession. It will be interesting to see what will happen in SeaWorld's future.
To be honest a tank upgrade would have happened sooner or later anyways,but Blackfish probably sped up the process. Personally I felt there were other exhibits more in need of an upgrade at the moment, but the plans for the Blue World Project seem amazing. I'm excited to see what it'll actually look like when it opens.
Jobs cut at SeaWorld Entertainment 
:
SeaWorld Entertainment cuts 320 jobs in wake of attendance drop
:SeaWorld Entertainment cuts 320 jobs in wake of attendance drop
wensleydale
Well-Known Member
I suppose cnn is feeling very smug right now. I hope to god that these aren't animal care staff jobs.
Unfortunately, the jobs were Zoological Operations (to include Animal Care and Training) and Culinary.
Of course. Why cut administrative positions? It's not like the health and welfare of their primary revenue source will be compromised by firing caretaker staff.
I think it's time for us to heavily consider what's going to happen when SeaWorld closes. It doesn't seem like a far-fetched possibility.
wensleydale
Well-Known Member
Of course. Why cut administrative positions? It's not like the health and welfare of their primary revenue source will be compromised by firing caretaker staff.
You're being sarcastic right?
wensleydale
Well-Known Member
I have this fantasy where some equity group steps in and takes them private again, who knows maybe it will happen. Surely the place has potential. Maybe the company that owns MSQ and Marineland Antibes. But I know it would be a stretch.
wensleydale
Well-Known Member
God willing the animals don't end up the the hands of the ar loonies. I'm not confident that won't happen though, if SeaWorld closes. Curse the selfish woman who made blackfish.
Maybe not, but for all the woe about Sea World's financial straits, I find it far more disturbing that they're cutting animal care professionals. It seems to me that this bolsters the point that some of the animal rights protesters have made about it being disturbing that a for-profit company is in charge of these animals' welfare.
It could be that two years ago at their last massive layoff they trimmed the fat as much as they could in those other areas, and are finding ways to streamline their animal care operations. The Zoological Operations department does include those educators that speak about exhibits, and the folks that sell fish in the feeder booths for the pinnipeds. While not ideal, the animals might not feel the loss of those roles directly. I do know, however, that a few senior folks directly involved with the animals are among those let go.
I did read one article which speculated that they would imagine the rescue program could be cut. While extremely sad for the thousands of animals SeaWorld helps every year, the rescue program is a money pit to the company, aside from the brownie points it procures from those that likely already see the value in what SeaWorld does.
I know the activists won't be rolling up their sleeves to schlep through the mud, be in danger of bites and other conditions, and lose hours of sleep nursing the stranders back to health... if they even had the knowledge of where to start rehabilitation.
Sad all around.
@steno : Considering the reasons that SeaWorld is in the mess it's in right now, I think they have more to lose than brownie points by cutting out their rescue program or anything else they might do that actually contributes to conservation and animal welfare. They'll also begin to lose whatever credibility they have left as a zoological institution.
Plenty of other reputable zoological institutions do NOT participate in rehabilitation programs, for a variety of reasons, some, I'm sure to include, financial. I don't think one can insinuate that zoological credibility is lent to rehabilitation programs. SeaWorld contributes a lot to conservation efforts around the globe, arguably more than other institutions.
SeaWorld employees and fans were told that the killer whale breeding ban was to ensure a future for SeaWorld. The way Manby saw it was a either a SeaWorld without killer whales, or no SeaWorld. The same can be said of their rehabilitation program.
@steno : You're right that a lot of reputable zoological institutions do not participate in rehab programs. I don't think that's the only measure of zoological credibility, but I do think that it is one form of measure. For me, it's more about the overall picture of what SW contributes to wildlife conservation. Cutting anything related to that means that they are contributing less; so, while cutting their rehab program certainly doesn't take away all of their credibility, it does diminish it to some extent IMO.
I would be interested in hearing more about how much money SW contributes to conservation, because the numbers that I have read indicate that they spend a very minute fraction of their profits on conservation. I won't argue that it contributes more than other institutions, but to me the proportions are more important than the amounts. I am sincere in wanting to know if I'm wrong: I always strive to be reasonable and adaptive to new evidence and opinions.
I would be interested in hearing more about how much money SW contributes to conservation, because the numbers that I have read indicate that they spend a very minute fraction of their profits on conservation. I won't argue that it contributes more than other institutions, but to me the proportions are more important than the amounts. I am sincere in wanting to know if I'm wrong: I always strive to be reasonable and adaptive to new evidence and opinions.
I don't believe we've ever gotten exact amount spent on conservation,even if for one year. What we do have is their counter which shows how many animals they've saved (presumably over their 50 year history) which is currently at an astonishing 29,727. Personally I think seeing the amount of animals saved is more important then hearing about the money spent. It helps give a concrete idea of what their efforts go to versus dollar amounts with no real specific direction of spending.