Robb, There are two official accounts of Keiko's situation. According to documentation from the Keiko-Free Willy Foundation, the non-profit that sponsored his move to the Oregon Aquarium and then to wild, everything was a success, with the whale hunting on his own and being accepted into an existing family of Orcas.
However, a scientific paper by a team of European and American researchers that tracked Keiko after release tells a much different story.
I go into more detail here on this ThemedReality blog post. Whether or not you or anyone else agrees with other things I say in the post, this is an important fact that those pushing for freeing the orcas are either unaware of or don't want to admit. Animal rights groups have an agenda and the truth isn't always part of it.
TPDave wrote:Not surprised, I just hope people start to think objectively about this.
Good luck with that!
I think this is quite illustrative of the problems that come up when at least part of the news media takes one side of an issue, in this case CNN is obviously on the side of Blackfish, and so puts all this support behind things like kids being on their side and advocating boycotts of Sea World. Why do those viewpoints suddenly have more weight than entire schools having annual field trips to Sea World for educational purposes? They shouldn't, but because CNN decided to take a side, now they will. Ignorant people will believe the spin, and the misinformation provided to defend that spin, and become even more ignorant than they were before.
Going back to the kid saying school shouldn't go to Sea World for a moment, I have to wonder...did no human ever have the capacity to think how those whales got into that tank, or realize that the whales were in a tank, before "Blackfish" was aired? I don't get it. "Blackfish" only really stated the obvious with a HUGE negative spin on everything, along with citing some misinformation. The faculty, at least, at that school had to have seen those whales were in captivity during those trips to Sea World, and still went every year anyway. But now that "Blackfish" aired and the kid says school shouldn't go, suddenly the kid is propped up as some crusader in the fight for animal rights? Isn't that indirectly claiming EVERYONE associated with that school is incredibly dumb for not realizing those whales were in captivity? Then, why does one kid's voice against going to Sea World matter more than the voices of millions of kids who demand their parents/schools take them to Sea World every year?
It's amazing how willing some people are to go along with whatever they're told to think, even if it directly flies in the face of their own personal experiences, to say nothing of logic and reason itself...
Hercules wrote:What is wrong with a rational middle ground?
Nothing, however I think at a fundamental level you're either OK with animals being kept by humans (whether in zoos, theme parks, on farms or as pets) or you're not. I fall into the first group, and think SeaWorld are doing a great job.
Frankly it would be more appropriate for these activists/PETA to focus their efforts on people who keep goldfish in tiny bowls. But I guess pet owners aren't a big corporation so there's not the same level of community outrage. Gotta fight the Man!
Of course, this documentary has its own questionable agenda. Is this genuine concern for orcas or an attempt for career advancement? I think Michael Moore is an excellent example. He is worth about $50 million dollars, so his authentic concern for the "underdog" might be disingenuous, especially as he continued to produce films. With any animals, there is the possibility of attack. Zoos also enclose animals. Then there are circus performers and those like Siegfriend and Roy. In fact, Roy Horn was viciously mauled by his tiger. I suppose that one can follow the slippery slope and argue that all zoos are wrong to keep animals captive. Based on this reasoning, schools that cancel trips to Sea World should cancel their trips to zoos.
Last edited by Intaman on Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:32 pm.
I'm glad Sea World is finally fighting back, though I think it is already too late. But I agree with Robb that this probably had to go through so many reviews before being approved, so that was probably the hold up. I hope they will remain aggressive in trying to show the good they do as well.
It is weird they waited so long to fight back..they should have been ready to counter on day one. They're kinda in a tough spot now..I don't see this ending without at least some changes to their orca program.
Intaman wrote:Of course, this documentary has its own questionable agenda. Is this genuine concern for orcas or an attempt for career advancement? I think Michael Moore is an excellent example. He is worth about $50 million dollars, so his authentic concern for the "underdog" might be disingenuous, especially as he continued to produce films. With any animals, there is the possibility of attack. Zoos also enclose animals. Then there are circus performers and those like Siegfriend and Roy. In fact, Roy Horn was viciously mauled by his tiger. I suppose that one can follow the slippery slope and argue that all zoos are wrong to keep animals captive.
There are movements and campaigns against zoos and circus performers and everything else you had mentioned, not just against SeaWorld. And the director of the film is already on record as saying that she had no real intention of making the film pro x or x in either way and she does not side with either side.
I guess where I am coming from on this is (not to get political at all but this is just an observation) but it just seems to be a Democrat vs. Republican type of argument. One side is calling another side idiots, while the other side is calling the other side idiots, each without really rationally and, in an education fashion, explaining their side of things and, in turn, listening to the frustrations of the other side. Or better yet, it is kind of like the latest Duck Dynasty saga with the guy making gay and racial remarks, where his supporters claim freedom of speech, where, if it were a gay person or a civil rights leader making a statement of some sort those same people would be telling that person to shut up (contradicting their so-called stance on freedom of speech).
I just think that people are unfairly clumping and generalizing people on both sides of the argument.
Personally, I am against holding animals in captivity for purposes of entertainment. I can have fun without going to see animals perform. And before someone jumps on me, yes, I went to Marine World (for the kids out there, the name of the park before it became Six Flags Discovery Kingdom) when I was 7, and went to a SeaWorld park at the age of 12, so I have been to a park. I am an advocate for sanctuaries, and rehabilitating animals in need. And I do give credit to Busch/SeaWorld for the work they do to help animals and the money they have provided over the years. However, I am against keeping orcas and dolphins in captivity for the entertainment purposes they provide. I am not ignorant enough to say that they should all just be thrown into the ocean because that is where they belong. I'm educated enough on the topic to know that they wouldn't have much of a chance of acclimating to their new, vast environment because they have spent all or most of their lives in captivity. I do firmly believe in the off shore sanctuary. However, I do realize that there are some ignorant radical types that would probably be keen on cutting a new of some sort (which is where I have come up with a concept for a large reinforce retaining wall).
I do seriously believe that the trainers, and many other staff do really care for the animals they care for at the parks. I do not think they are stupid for thinking they are doing a good thing there. They love the animals. But I am also not blind to know that the executives of the parks do run these parks as businesses, and they are not charities. Their main attractions are these animals. And since they are blocked from a lot of shores in order to capture the animals to bring in to captivity, they breed (which is something else I am not a huge advocate of). I don't consider it conservation when, let's face it, the main reason they are breeding the animals is to keep their parks alive and operational, and making money.
So, with that said, I won't pay to get in to a park (I will say that I am going to SeaWorld San Diego in September for a networking event, where I will not be attending any of the shows - I will do my business and leave), but I also will not defame someone who does choose to go in to a park. It is their choice. I respect people's opinions. When I start to lose respect for people, which is happening more and more every day for me on the side of the pro-SeaWorld people and the whatever you would like to call them's, is when name calling starts and there is no middle ground sought by either side.
These pages are in no way affiliated with nor endorsed by SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Cedar Fair, Legoland, Merlin Entertainment, Blackstone, Tussaud's Group, Six Flags, Universal Theme Parks, the Walt Disney Company or any other theme park company.
photos and videos on this website were taken with the permission of the park by
a professional ride photographer.
For yours and others safety, please do not attempt to take photos or videos at
parks without proper permission.
You need a sense of humor to view our site,
if you don't have a sense of humor, or are easily offended, please turn back
Most of the content on this forum is suitable for all ages. HOWEVER! There may be some content that would be considered rated "PG-13." Theme Park Review is NOT recommended for ages under 13 years of age.