The future of SeaWorld

What should SeaWorld focus more on?

  • Animals

    Votes: 58 69.9%

  • Rides

    Votes: 6 7.2%

  • Both equally

    Votes: 19 22.9%
  • Total voters
    83
Moebelle said:
If you're referring to practicing it with killer whales, no one has ever died from waterworks. Also if you're referring to the incidents involving Tilikum: the trainer fell in the sea pen and it was never proven that he caused the attack. A visitor stayed after night and jumped into the tank with an animal that was already prevented from performing waterworks. Lastly, Tilikum grabbed a trainer off of the deck and brought her into the pool. The other incidents at the parks, which are very few, happened with known causes. Each one had an answer from the park and precautions were taken. Typically resulting in ending waterworks with that particular animal. There were many animals such as Kalia, Corky, Ulises, Katina (the most dominant whale), Keet, Nakai, and Kayla reportedly never having an incident. In 2014, a video was released of the trainers practicing an in water session with Ikaika (including the trainer riding on him). Work with Ulises had to stop because he supposedly liked them too much - if you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying it's not a risk, but no trainer at SeaWorld has ever died from waterworks.
Click to expand...

I was not aware that the trainers were not in the water during those incidents, so I will retract my statement about waterworks being responsible for those two deaths. It does not, however, change my opinion in the slightest.

Two of the incidents I was referring to involved Tilikum. Whether he was responsible for that trainer’s death or the other orcas were is irrelevant; it was a death by captive orca attack. The trainer killed at SeaWorld was initiating direct contact with the orca at the time, which to me carries a lot of the same risk that waterworks does. I was not referring to the incident with Dukes (note that I said “marine park employees”) because that was clearly a different situation. The other death I was referring to was at Loro Parque.

I would not say “very few” incidents have occurred from working with orcas as a whole. There have over 35 reported incidents since 1970, which averages to more than one incident every 1.5 years, and this is probably lower than the true number. I don’t know how many happened due to waterworks, but I have no doubt that bringing it back would increase the number.

Personally, I think that there’s a lot of merit to ending orca shows altogether, but I think that a protected contact, hands-off approach is at least better. Waterworks has the potential to produce deaths and injuries for no tangible benefit. Claiming that it hasn’t caused much problem yet is not a good argument: something *could* happen, and I think it would just be a matter of time and not overall likelihood.

The “cause” of the known incidents is simple: orcas are large predators whose behavior can be aggressive and/or unpredictable. All orcas are capable of hurting or killing humans, regardless of whether they have displayed such behavior. When contact occurs, it is an accident waiting to happen. Reputable zoos stopped doing shows with large carnivores a long time ago; I wish that SeaWorld would follow suit.
 
jibster said:
A few points I wanted to make here:

First, I agree with Shellheart fully that waterworks on its own is unlikely to make any noticeable improvement to Sea World's attendance. I don't necessarily agree the waterworks is either a safe or commendable practice (and I imagine that some of the reason Sea World discontinued the practice was to avoid the specter of the government stepping in to ban the practice), but at this point, its return would probably not appreciably help Sea World.

Second, while I do not doubt that some fans of Sea World were disappointed by the breeding ban and a small number probably did stop frequenting the parks for that reason, I don't think it had quite as large of an effect as people here seem to believe it did. As I noted previously, there was a decline in Sea World's attendance prior to the release of Blackfish, and I would imagine that declines post-Blackfish are at least partially due to the documentary (whatever one believes about its merits). I could imagine that the ongoing negative publicity before the announcement of the breeding ban caused a much greater loss of patronage than the breeding ban itself did.

Third, I think that strong pro-captivity advocates need to watch making hyperbolic claims as much as the anti-cap crowd does. While you might view the breeding ban as caving in to anti-cap demands, Sea World most likely viewed it as a business decision in the face of troubling financial times. And I would certainly disagree that the imposition of a breeding ban represents an instance of Sea World not "caring for their [sic] animals," as there is nothing about an end to a breeding program that suggests Sea World is abandoning its care for these animals (to the contrary, Sea World has admirably pledged to continue caring for the orcas currently in captivity, while recognizing that the orca program has a finite ending). For various reasons, many animals kept in captivity are not bred, and I would never presume to argue that the decision not to breed is tantamount to not caring for the animals (or for caving to pressure from anti-caps).
Click to expand...

My problem with this is that there's nothing to suggest the ideas of caving to animal rights pressure and SeaWorld making a business decision are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd rather strongly argue the opposite, as they seem, to me, like they are a rather direct cause and effect (activists pull together strong outreach program against orca captivity, public listens and responds to this program, public stops going to SeaWorld due to orca captivity, SeaWorld adjusts accordingly by ending orca breeding to try to regain public support). Also, I don't think it came across, but I was simply stating general opinions of former fans of the brand and pro-caps, who feel that the breeding ban symbolizes SeaWorld not caring for their animals. I don't necessarily agree with that opinion. Personally speaking, I feel SeaWorld cares for their animals, but with their recent strategy of rides first, they are ignoring some improvements that need to be made.
 
Shellheart said:
My problem with this is that there's nothing to suggest the ideas of caving to animal rights pressure and SeaWorld making a business decision are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd rather strongly argue the opposite, as they seem, to me, like they are a rather direct cause and effect (activists pull together strong outreach program against orca captivity, public listens and responds to this program, public stops going to SeaWorld due to orca captivity, SeaWorld adjusts accordingly by ending orca breeding to try to regain public support). Also, I don't think it came across, but I was simply stating general opinions of former fans of the brand and pro-caps, who feel that the breeding ban symbolizes SeaWorld not caring for their animals. I don't necessarily agree with that opinion. Personally speaking, I feel SeaWorld cares for their animals, but with their recent strategy of rides first, they are ignoring some improvements that need to be made.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's very likely (in fact, nearly certain) that the business decision of Sea World was impacted in part by the effects of animal rights pressure - but what would you have Sea World do? It's not a non-profit - failing to act in the company's best financial interest could expose management to liability to shareholders (either in the form of lawsuits or in the form of replacement). Just because a fervent animal-rights group espouses a position does not mean that a zoo or aquarium should reflexively oppose it (this is my whole problem with those people who say that the real problem with Sea World's actions is that it gives PETA and others a win that they will then use to target elephants or great apes - Sea World is at least attempting to act in its own interests, and arguing that it should act against those interests to take a moral stand against anti-caps on principle is poor business practice). I am not a fan of many of the positions adopted by or tactics utilized by PETA and other similar organizations, but I do not oppose everything these groups stand for.

Thank you for clarifying your position about Sea World caring for its animals. It's this type of blanket statement that bothers me - like people who say that Sea World is denying its orcas a central facet of their existence by not allowing them to breed "naturally" (as if animals in captivity are not already curtailed from acting "naturally" in many more fundamental ways). I wholeheartedly agree that Sea World's current practices are problematic - I would argue that the real problem is that Sea World has been far too reactive (waiting until public outcry reached such a level that they had to act in a way that could too easily be seen as simply caving to anti-cap pressure;. frantically trying to add thrill rides in an attempt to boost attendance while straying from the very things that made Sea World unique among other theme parks, wholesale reductions in staffing such that those attractions that do remain are poorly maintained or operated). While I do not think that timmychompchomp's proposals from earlier in this thread are necessarily feasible (though I do think many would be fascinating and some have been things I've dreamed when thinking what I would do if I ran Sea World), I like that they are proactive, and refocus Sea World to make it stand out from its competitors and allow it to play to its strengths.

I've been thinking about the Sea World conundrum a lot for several years, as I have a deep connection to the parks despite many misgivings about the corporation's current direction. I grew up making at least annual visits to the now-defunct Sea World of Ohio (as well as sporadic visits to both the Orlando and San Diego parks), worked at that Sea World for several seasons, knew most of the animal trainers and became close friends with many, and was a season-pass holder for several years. My personal position on orcas has evolved such that I am no longer a fan of Sea World's orca program and agree with the company's self-imposed breeding ban (to a somewhat lesser extent, I have some similar issues with the other cetaceans Sea World holds), but I would love to see Sea World succeed, for I appreciate much of the work it has done (particularly in animal rehab/rescue). I am thinking I may draft a longer post in this thread with some of my personal thoughts about Sea World in the near future.
 
One aspect of Sea World's problem that has not been discussed much here is that they are trapped in a hyper-competitive war for market share with Disney and Universal. Even if they had managed to defuse their orca problems before they became so toxic, they would still likely be in the very difficult position they are.

They do not have the deep economic pockets to fund expansion or access to popular cultural intellectual property that their competitors in Florida and Southern California do. Penguins and sharks and generic roller coasters with ocean theming are not doing well against Harry Potter, Toy Story, and Star Wars.
 
Just a thought, but maybe phase out Orcas phase in more pilot whales into their orca exhibits? Also some porpoises or unique dolphins?

While pilots are not as charismatic as the orcas it would be a decent replacement.
 
Last edited:
The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
Just a thought, but maybe phase out Orcas phase in more pilot whales into their orca exhibits? Also some porpoises or unique dolphins?

While pilots are not as charismatic as the orcas it would be a decent replacement.
Click to expand...

Well, all of these things would require wild captures, which are strongly outlawed. While SeaWorld does have pilot whales, they only have 6. Pilot whales have also never been bred successfully in captivity, which is the major problem. They only have their current pilot whales due to strandings, but NOAA governs stranded animals, if they're kept or released.

What is more easily fixed is the idea that pilot whales aren't charismatic. Orcas were only considered charismatic after a very strong effort by marine parks. Prior to that they were a pest species to fishermen, and the US Navy allegedly used them for target practice. With enough effort pilot whales could easily become as charismatic. It's just a matter of getting more pilot whales.
 
pachyderm pro said:
@timmychompchomp hit the hammer right on the nail. If SeaWorld wants to be saved, they need to drop roller coasters and similar items and become a true marine park. In fact, I have an absolutely pie in the sky, so unrealistic idea, that it feel a little foolish to bring it up now, but what if SeaWorld is turned into a completely different park. More specifically...

The San Diego Zoo Aquatic Park!

Its crazy, I'm aware. But what if a third San Diego Park was built in its place a la San Diego Zoo Safari Park, though with marine animals. Knowing that San Diego Zoo owns the place will already give it a better rep with the general public. I know it may never happen for a multitude of reasons, but if it ever does, watch this post.
Click to expand...
I like this idea!
 
I know it's been a while since this thread was commented on, but I want to add my 2 cents.

Does anyone think that SeaWorld might potentially be forced into bankruptcy, what with declining attendance, multiple companies cutting ties with them, and executives coming and going? Even with their decision to end orca breeding, I highly doubt they'll ever be reaccepted by the public ever again, mostly due to the larger movement to abolish cetacean captivity for good, and they may quickly cease to exist.
 
NVP said:
I know it's been a while since this thread was commented on, but I want to add my 2 cents.

Does anyone think that SeaWorld might potentially be forced into bankruptcy, what with declining attendance, multiple companies cutting ties with them, and executives coming and going? Even with their decision to end orca breeding, I highly doubt they'll ever be reaccepted by the public ever again, mostly due to the larger movement to abolish cetacean captivity for good, and they may quickly cease to exist.
Click to expand...

It's a bit early to say, but I'm going to go with "no", at least not in the immediate future. SeaWorld reported that attendance for 2018, and quarter 3 especially, has exceeded expectations. Currently they are facing a slight upturn. Combine that with the fact they still own Busch Gardens, and they have plans for 2 more parks, I don't see them folding just yet.
 
Shellheart said:
It's a bit early to say, but I'm going to go with "no", at least not in the immediate future. SeaWorld reported that attendance for 2018, and quarter 3 especially, has exceeded expectations. Currently they are facing a slight upturn. Combine that with the fact they still own Busch Gardens, and they have plans for 2 more parks, I don't see them folding just yet.
Click to expand...
I didn't want to speak to soon but I was going to say that I read SeaWorld actually had a positive year compared to the last few.
 
Moebelle said:
I didn't want to speak to soon but I was going to say that I read SeaWorld actually had a positive year compared to the last few.
Click to expand...

SeaWorld is in a unique position in the major destination of Orlando. They've been able to make more thrilling rollercoasters than the other parks, and at the same time offer animals and boast significantly lower admission costs. They're also very fortunate to have Discovery Cove, which is rated as the 2nd best attraction in all of Orlando on TripAdvisor. In San Diego, they're the only park with rollercoasters, and offer cheap season passes, which means they've got a lot of appeal in a city of just under 1.5 million, and in San Antonio they are the largest attraction by far. They have a lot going for them, it was just hard to see in the backlash.
 
Moebelle said:
I didn't want to speak to soon but I was going to say that I read SeaWorld actually had a positive year compared to the last few.
Click to expand...

Definitely a positive 2018, but a very devastating start to 2019 with the death of Kayla. :(
 
Mai Thai said:
Sea World is currently working to purchase the Cedar Fair Company for $3.4 billion! This would make Sea World lean more in the direction of rides as they would buy 13 amusement parks. Who knows, maybe Sea World Ohio will return?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/01/ced...ed-after-report-of-seaworld-takeover-bid.html

P.S. Sorry to bump the thread, I just thought this would be worth sharing.
Click to expand...
It would be cool if Ohio returned, if memory serves me, parts of the park are kind of still there, just abandoned.
 
Mai Thai said:
I meant that they would turn one of Cedar Fair’s park in a marine park as well.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. SeaWorld has been looking to expand for many years now, and I’d imagine they’d definitely be open to be converting one of the parks into a new SeaWorld.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top