Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

News: PETA Files Suit Against SeaWorld


Recommended Posts

^ you do realize any animal they capture they have to rehab it and the US fish and wildlife service decides weather for them to release it. I have given thought to there claim. The fact is that a lot of what they are claiming isn't true. In all reality those animals have the life. They got huge tanks, free food and no predators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

^ So do people in jail. (Well, sometimes, they do run afoul of predators, but it's not for meat....)

 

And if you were 5-10 tons and your home is the Atlantic Ocean, I doubt you'd call a small tank at Sea World, huge or luxurious.

 

Would you choose to spend the rest of your life eating free food in a jail cell, if you couldn't get out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ , and make them eat meat.

 

^ That was 3 questions so you are now out of questions, sorry.

 

1. The other places you mentioned won't get PETA in the news like Sea World will.

 

2. Closing places like SW will always be the mission of PETA. They claim to have been planning this for 18 months. Maybe that's true but it also doesn't hurt that Sea World has gotten some bad press lately.

 

3. Sea World probably doesn't raise many animals for release as much as rehabilitate. Thet do have working hatcheries for fish. I don't 100% know the answer but I would say zero other than fish. They have programs with other zoos and marine parks, I would bet they would move it to another park if not keeping it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure what PETA is out for here. It's not like all the orcas in Sea World can be just thrown back into the wild Free Willy-style. The orcas they're claming to defend would most likely die shortly after being released.

 

Like I said the fish and wildlife service determines that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I half sympathize, I guess. I don't really think captivity works at all for animals like dolphins/orcas because of their extreme sensitivity to noise and stress (I could go into a whole wall of text explaining how that actually causes physical harm, but you can research it you really want to know).

 

However, a lawsuit is NOT the way to make a point and get positive results. This is making the cause look like a bunch of insanely obsessed hippies whining at a multimillion dollar conglomerate (PETA represents only a minority of the anti-captivity movement). There are good ways of making a statement; this isn't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do we, as human beings, automatically have the right to do anything to any animal on the planet -- no matter how intelligent? Or should there be some limits?

 

It's called Natural Selection.

The way life should be run.

 

And I would much rather be the center of attention at Seaworld than be out in the open waters trying to survive.

 

--James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do we, as human beings, automatically have the right to do anything to any animal on the planet -- no matter how intelligent? Or should there be some limits?

 

It's called Natural Selection.

The way life should be run.

 

And I would much rather be the center of attention at Seaworld than be out in the open waters trying to survive.

 

--James

 

Considering how much damage we've done to the planet in so short a time, you may come to regret those first words if you manage to live a long lifetime.

 

And perhaps YOU would choose to live in captivity (and yet, you haven't), but is that OUR choice to make for the orcas and dolphins? After all, when humans hunt them, they DO try to escape. So, they have made their choice, even if they don't fully understand the options.

 

And I do specify orcas and dolphins, because I do recognize the difference between the more intelligent animals (those, apes, chimps and maybe a very few others) and those who aren't so intelligent.

 

Again, I'm not talking here as some sort of expert, or some kind of higher morality. I'm actively asking these questions of myself, as well as the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish someone would provide me with a a multi million dollar place to live, top notch health care, protection from things that might try to kill me, introduce me to girls to hook up with and make me world famous. If PETA wins this lawsuit, you know who to call SeaWorld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering how much damage we've done to the planet in so short a time, you may come to regret those first words if you manage to live a long lifetime.

 

This reminds me of this standup act from George Carlin, which shows exactly how I feel about "humans hurting the planet."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

 

And Seaworld helps the planet out with their fundraisers that are made to save and help animals, I cannot believe anyone would have a problem with them. It's like getting mad at a wildlife preserve.

 

--James "PETA is a joke, regardless of what anyone says" Flint

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously from my username: this post is biased

 

My view on the subject is this, without SeaWorld and most other zoological parks and aquariums through the world many people who don't have the ability to travel the world in search for wild animals would never get the chance to see them. By seeing these animals, by watching them in amazement, they really feel more connected to them. From this many people end up donating to a conservation fund or buying souvenirs that donate money to the funds.

 

Further more, compare the results of WWF or Busch's efforts on the environment to PETA's. Over the past years, SeaWorld has saved hundreds of injured Manatees from getting killed, prolonging their lives and helping the total population of the species. PETA has done nothing similar to this, but rather protested those who saved the animals. And of course Manatees aren't the only animals these wildlife funds support. WWF alone has easily saved over a hundred different species, while PETA can't claim they've saved one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously from my username: this post is biased

 

My view on the subject is this, without SeaWorld and most other zoological parks and aquariums through the world many people who don't have the ability to travel the world in search for wild animals would never get the chance to see them. By seeing these animals, by watching them in amazement, they really feel more connected to them. From this many people end up donating to a conservation fund or buying souvenirs that donate money to the funds.

 

Further more, compare the results of WWF or Busch's efforts on the environment to PETA's. Over the past years, SeaWorld has saved hundreds of injured Manatees from getting killed, prolonging their lives and helping the total population of the species. PETA has done nothing similar to this, but rather protested those who saved the animals. And of course Manatees aren't the only animals these wildlife funds support. WWF alone has easily saved over a hundred different species, while PETA can't claim they've saved one.

 

 

This post was entirely too informed, logical, and sensible. DEFINITELY not PETA approved. I suspect PETA will now file a retaliatory lawsuit against the enslavement of the Kraken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Seaworld helps the planet out with their fundraisers that are made to save and help animals, I cannot believe anyone would have a problem with them. It's like getting mad at a wildlife preserve.

Not trying to stir up a fight, but I have to say something:

 

Captivity can help some animals flourish, and others fighting to survive; dolphins and whales fall into the latter. TONS of individuals have dies at less than half their expected life span. That should be a red flag. San Antonio stats:

 

Source

 

NOTE: This is not a defense of PETA's actions or cause. I actually completely disagree with their course of action.

 

*Braces for inevitable flaming*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I know this isn't whale park review (and honestly I don't really care about animals either way as I'm a terrible person), but one could argue that even if whales in captivity live shorter lives than whales in the open ocean, their public display brings money, attention, and political action to their conservation.... To put it more succinctly, if Shamu wasn't on view at SeaWorld, would the United Nations, WWF, IWPO and other PR based organizations be putting so much pressure on countries like Japan to curb their whale hunting efforts?.... By Displaying Whales, Pandas, Bald Eagles, or effing Sugar Gliders in an area where the public can connect with them, brings attention to the need to protect and help them on a much more macro level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Using marine parks to protest Japan is a total contradiction. A lot of marine parks/dolphinariums import their dolphins from the wild. Where do most of them come from? Japanese operations that capture a number of dolphins, give some to parks, and kill the rest. By attending the parks, we are essentially increasing demand for more dolphins; thus fueling the Japanese dolphin captures and slaughtering. Look up "Taiji dolphins" in Google and see what comes up; it's not pretty.

 

[/rant]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^While I don't agree with capturing wild whales/dolphins for captivity, wouldn't that be better than killing the dolphins? I watched a documentary on dolphin killings once and I remember that they normally butcher the dolphins for blubber and meat.

 

EDIT: Just saw the death-rate chart. While it's true that captive animals have shorter life spans than those in the wild, I'm wary of those numbers. They are based on a very small data pool and there have been incongruences. How would you explain the dolphin at SFDK that lived longer than dolphins in the wild?

 

I was a killer whale enthusiast long before I was a coaster enthusiast (the former sparked the latter eventually) and this debate always unnerved me. If it weren't for captive whales, I never would have cared about whales and (so far) I would have never seen a real live whale. If all whale captivity ceased, the only people that would be able to enjoy them are the rich, who can afford to take extravagant trips, or get the right degrees to actually go study them. The average person would never get a chance to appreciate the beautiful animals.

 

However, I always felt sad when I compared the lives of captive whales to free whales. It's a Catch 22.

Edited by RAWKIN_coaster38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the federal money, conservation efforts, donations, legislation and breeding programs exists mainly because of the the public's emotional attachment to the animals because of our experiences seeing them up close and personal. Some may suffer so more may live?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/