Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with turning a profit? That's just more incentive to keep the animals healthy.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Nobody is arguing that profits are evil. However, if you exist to make a profit, that is what you will primarily worry about it. As a for-profit corporation, Sea World's primary concern is making a profit. This is so self-evident as to be a tautology. Sea World, a for-profit company, exists to make a profit.

And therefore, it does less for conservation than the National Zoo?

Therefore, its primary motivation is to make a profit.

But PP said the National Zoo does more for conservation than SeaWorld. I would like to know why she believes that.

I do go to the zoo, because I believe the zoo is focused on conservation in a way that Sea World and Ringling Brothers are not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with turning a profit? That's just more incentive to keep the animals healthy.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Nobody is arguing that profits are evil. However, if you exist to make a profit, that is what you will primarily worry about it. As a for-profit corporation, Sea World's primary concern is making a profit. This is so self-evident as to be a tautology. Sea World, a for-profit company, exists to make a profit.

And therefore, it does less for conservation than the National Zoo?

Therefore, its primary motivation is to make a profit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with turning a profit? That's just more incentive to keep the animals healthy.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Nobody is arguing that profits are evil. However, if you exist to make a profit, that is what you will primarily worry about it. As a for-profit corporation, Sea World's primary concern is making a profit. This is so self-evident as to be a tautology. Sea World, a for-profit company, exists to make a profit.

And therefore, it does less for conservation than the National Zoo?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with turning a profit? That's just more incentive to keep the animals healthy.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Nobody is arguing that profits are evil. However, if you exist to make a profit, that is what you will primarily worry about it. As a for-profit corporation, Sea World's primary concern is making a profit. This is so self-evident as to be a tautology. Sea World, a for-profit company, exists to make a profit.

Anonymous wrote:Because the captive breeding program will continue as long as there is profit to be made. Why not just phase it out, stop breeding these animals, and let the captive orcas in the tanks become a thing of the past?
The Sea World supporter on this thread can't answer why we should continue to captive breed.

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with turning a profit? That's just more incentive to keep the animals healthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because I know you have nothing to back that up, except your perception of for-profit vs. non-profit.

I don't know much about Ringling Brothers, so I can't comment. SeaWorld and the National Zoo (using it because it's local and has been referenced several times in this thread) are both committed to conservation. Their business plan is the same: display animals to educate and promote a conservation message. Both organizations are accredited members of AZA, which means they meet stringent standards for animal husbandry. Both organizations run conservation institutes. But because SeaWorld is a for-profit corporation, the assumption is that it is evil.

Why does money scare people?

Actually, the assumption is that the motivation of a for-profit corporation is to make a profit. That seems like a reasonable assumption to me. Does it seem unreasonable to you?

Sure it has to make a profit. But that does not mean it does any less for conservation than a non-profit, does it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because I know you have nothing to back that up, except your perception of for-profit vs. non-profit.

I don't know much about Ringling Brothers, so I can't comment. SeaWorld and the National Zoo (using it because it's local and has been referenced several times in this thread) are both committed to conservation. Their business plan is the same: display animals to educate and promote a conservation message. Both organizations are accredited members of AZA, which means they meet stringent standards for animal husbandry. Both organizations run conservation institutes. But because SeaWorld is a for-profit corporation, the assumption is that it is evil.

Why does money scare people?

Actually, the assumption is that the motivation of a for-profit corporation is to make a profit. That seems like a reasonable assumption to me. Does it seem unreasonable to you?

Sure it has to make a profit. But that does not mean it does any less for conservation than a non-profit, does it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because I know you have nothing to back that up, except your perception of for-profit vs. non-profit.

I don't know much about Ringling Brothers, so I can't comment. SeaWorld and the National Zoo (using it because it's local and has been referenced several times in this thread) are both committed to conservation. Their business plan is the same: display animals to educate and promote a conservation message. Both organizations are accredited members of AZA, which means they meet stringent standards for animal husbandry. Both organizations run conservation institutes. But because SeaWorld is a for-profit corporation, the assumption is that it is evil.

Why does money scare people?

Actually, the assumption is that the motivation of a for-profit corporation is to make a profit. That seems like a reasonable assumption to me. Does it seem unreasonable to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was candida. A yeast infection. That crap is PAINFUL.

I watched Blackfish and there is a part where they say the orca mother is making a long range call for her calf. So sad.

Except that that wasn't actually an orca vocalization. The producers dubbed some other animal making a vocalization over that scene.

Ok, to the Sea World defender on this thread -- just because you don't know where the orca sanctuary might be, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Second, even if an orca call to a calf were dubbed, it's totally believable that these high order mammals do in fact vocalize to one another and a dubbed call might not be misleading -- omitting it would be misleading if the video recording didn't capture the audio. Also, even if no vocalization had been made, that's irrelevant. A large and growing contingent of the public find the captivity of orcas at Sea World to be unethical.

Here are whale sanctuaries! https://iwc.int/sanctuaries

Anonymous wrote:

Because I know you have nothing to back that up, except your perception of for-profit vs. non-profit.

I don't know much about Ringling Brothers, so I can't comment. SeaWorld and the National Zoo (using it because it's local and has been referenced several times in this thread) are both committed to conservation. Their business plan is the same: display animals to educate and promote a conservation message. Both organizations are accredited members of AZA, which means they meet stringent standards for animal husbandry. Both organizations run conservation institutes. But because SeaWorld is a for-profit corporation, the assumption is that it is evil.

Why does money scare people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the dolphin show at the National Aquarium is bad too?

The National Aquarium stopped doing the dolphin show, I think because they felt bad for the dolphins. I'm not weighing in either way on the Sea World thing, because I'm not super educated on it, but I just wanted to share that information. There's a really interesting interview with the director about the dolphin situation here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140520-bottlenose-dolphins-national-aquarium-sanctuary-captivity-oceans-science/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you that won't go to Sea World because of the animals in captivity, do you also not go to see the circus with your children? How about the National Zoo?
I'm not trying to be snarky, just legitimately want to know.

I go to circuses that don't use animals other than dogs and horses, which are domesticated.

I do go to the zoo, because I believe the zoo is focused on conservation in a way that Sea World and Ringling Brothers are not.

This is laughable.

Who's laughing? You? If so, why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was candida. A yeast infection. That crap is PAINFUL.

I watched Blackfish and there is a part where they say the orca mother is making a long range call for her calf. So sad.

Except that that wasn't actually an orca vocalization. The producers dubbed some other animal making a vocalization over that scene.

Ok, to the Sea World defender on this thread -- just because you don't know where the orca sanctuary might be, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Second, even if an orca call to a calf were dubbed, it's totally believable that these high order mammals do in fact vocalize to one another and a dubbed call might not be misleading -- omitting it would be misleading if the video recording didn't capture the audio. Also, even if no vocalization had been made, that's irrelevant. A large and growing contingent of the public find the captivity of orcas at Sea World to be unethical.