Orca seriously injured at seaworld
- Thread starter Mount_Prion
- Start date
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree.
I know that is certainly the goal of the staff, and you guys are very serious about animal care and conservation. I don't dispute that.
But the parent company of large amusement parks is what determines the overall the goal, and that goal is entertainment and profit. Believe me, if they could get away with not hiring professional scientists, and if they could exploit the animals for entertainment without having to present it as educational or for conservation they would, just as they did before laws were put into place and before the public became concerned about such things. They didn't alter their business strategy for altruistic reasons, but with changing times and regulations.
IMO, that's the big reason parks like Seaworld present their programs as conservation and educational oriented, because the public expects such, and to get permits, tax breaks, and privileges.
You said yourself that a lot of regulations and permits are required. What do you think the likelihood of them being able to get such to present, import/export, keep, and breed marine mammals would be if they didn't tout such programs?
If their goal was strictly conservation and education they could do a lot of things different. For instance, most major zoos don't advertise several repeated daily shows with their animals, and the admission does not go directly into their public stock holdings, but often toward either funding local programs, research/education, etc..
Places like Seaworld need to balance conservation and educational facets in order to get permits and priveliges, with enough entertainment to draw crowds for a profit to please their stockholders. This isn't a GUESS on my part, Seaworld is a publicly owned for profit company and some of their financial information is available, especially overall profit for investor information, as is a lot of information on their non-profit ventures (as required by law) and the amount that goes into that vs overall profits. Seaworld actually claims their profits to be larger than what is shown through objective estimates, so it's not like those estimates are animal rights activists trying to overstate their profit margin or something.
See above, overall profits and stockholdings vs non-profit rosters. Division by division that would be hard to determine. Seaworld is as non-transparent as legally possible. Though if most of their money went into rescue and conservation I'd expect they wouldn't mind touting such publicly - they don't.
I agree. My problem stems from when they present themselves as a conservation/educational facility like most major zoos, and with massive advertising campaigns surrounding their non-profit rescue organizations, which are NOT the main part of their business making people think that a large portion of the admission they pay is going toward that.
Again, I disagree. It's hard to get exact figures, but it's pretty easy to estimate general percentages viewing public information on their yearly profit, public stockholdings, vs their non-profit information. I don't have exact figures, but I know their profits are generally in the multibillions, and what they put toward their rescue orgnization is in the millions. I don't call that mostly going toward rescue. While it's significant, people would be better served donating directly. Not that part of the blame doesn't also lie on people feeling they have the right to be entertained by animal shows.
This is Seaworld specifically I'm referring to as I said, because I certainly don't have the time nor inclination to research or keep up with each and every park.
The whole reason I tend to keep up with Seaworld is there used to be a park in Cleveland when I was a kid, and they were constantly in the news for some such crap.
And consider that a large portion of the millions going toward their non-profits, like I said, are not coming out of the profits from their entertainment facilities.
This is just from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaWorld_&_Busch_Gardens_Conservation_Fund
$8 million in grants. Grants are where a large portion of the non-profit funding comes from. That is not an insignificant number.
With Seaworld, unless you are contributing donations to those above groups, or directly to their non-profit you're not contributing much directly through visiting the parks.
I'm not the one underestimating what profits go to their rescue and conservation funds. I've been keeping up with them for years, and while some of their profit does go to that massive advertising campaign touting their conservation efforts, which does help generate revenue for that by getting people's attention, they don't bother to mention to people that visiting their other entertainment facilities isn't directly funding those organizations for the most part.
Want to go to Seaworld? Whatever, don't care.
Do they have the right to operate those parks? Sure.
But, are they also misleading and disingenuous toward their customers regarding the amusement parks as related to the non-profits? Yes.
This is who they're owned by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone_Group
That's where most of the profit goes.
This is just from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaWorld_&_Busch_Gardens_Conservation_Fund
$8 million in grants. Grants are where a large portion of the non-profit funding comes from. That is not an insignificant number.
With Seaworld, unless you are contributing donations to those above groups, or directly to their non-profit you're not contributing much directly through visiting the parks.
I'm not the one underestimating what profits go to their rescue and conservation funds. I've been keeping up with them for years, and while some of their profit does go to that massive advertising campaign touting their conservation efforts, which does help generate revenue for that by getting people's attention, they don't bother to mention to people that visiting their other entertainment facilities isn't directly funding those organizations for the most part.
Want to go to Seaworld? Whatever, don't care.
Do they have the right to operate those parks? Sure.
But, are they also misleading and disingenuous toward their customers regarding the amusement parks as related to the non-profits? Yes.
This is who they're owned by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone_Group
That's where most of the profit goes.
Presidential Debates Gone Wild! I'd pay $49.95 to watch Barry beat ol' Mitt down.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
I didnt say that to try and validate my argument. e.e just that I am familiar with enrichment. It was more for discussion's sake than to try and boast qualifications, because obviously I am not the most seasoned in the field of captive animal care in this thread... not even close. I just thought that would make clearer that I know what enrichment is.
i did not originally take it that way but thanks for the clarification. see ya around the boards
To Me it seems the only disagreement is about where the money goes. I don't hate sea world or any attraction of it's kind. I've been watching NatGeo today. One of the commercials, www.causeanuproar.org says that there are more Tigers in captivity than in the Wild... I don't see a lack of ethics here. If we are to hold in dominion, We must understand everything on the face of the earth. I've been wondering lately if Animals are going extinct for the benefit of Mankind. What place would dinosaurs hold in todays society? Necessary evil I say. domesticate/study whatever you can. We won't evolve if we dont.
this is the only post I read