I know how dare they not put a positive spin on blatant neglect and animal cruelty! They even have the cheek to cite independent research from those with relevant experience and qualifications. What next! But it's ok I'm sure SeaWorld do loads for 'conservation' which seems to be the justification for any wrong doing in any zoo or aquarium
Well, firstly the only research they directly cite is that of a vet who works for them in their Captive Animal Law Enforcement department, which is hardly "independent research". I daresay that if Seaworld released a similar article solely founded on a vet working for *them* disputing every single point in this article, citing their experience and qualifications as proof the article was correct, many would dismiss it out of hand due to the lack of an independent point of view. Secondly, the only other research mentioned at all is a passing mention of a paper on "dolphin pox" which they never actually give a citation for but which (on further research online) turns out to be a 1979 discussion of the disease being commonplace in *both* wild and captive populations - and said mention comprises an out-of-context paraphrase of a single sentence. So yeah, I'd find the article a lot more credible if it provided more than the one source, and actually cited any secondary material mentioned within, per good scientific practice.
I should be more critical of PETA claims, especially when no other vets or professinals corroborate the accusations. I might even get curious and Google the accuser to see whether her credentials held up to scrutiny. I might find links like these: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/heather-rally/9/736/3b8 http://www.awesomeocean.com/2014/10/21/petas-animal-abuser-accuses-seaworld-abuse/ SeaWorld Veterinarians: We're Offended by PETA Charges - Times of San Diego While those links may have no more credibility than PETA, they do paint another side of the picture and should lead us to be less gullible. I would also, when posting such articles on Zoochat, first take an on-line course in "Recognizing Sarcasm in Comments."
I personally pity anybody who believes any of that twaddle. On the same website that go on about how awesome breasts are, is that who you should get advice from? All of the pages are very[B/] biased, and use several persuasion techniques to make you believe the crap they must have come up with while drunk on vegan vodka..........
What's wrong with breasts and vodka? I'm certain nobody on ZooChat has ever indulged in either... If you can disprove PETA's claims about SeaWorld instead of using ad hominem arguments, I would love to hear it. In any case, I find SeaWorld to be a deplorable organization for reasons too innumerable to list in this thread (although I will likely list them someday soon). But I believe the most obnoxious action is this: SeaWorld is spending 300 million on their "Blue World Project" while committing 10 million dollars to conservation...Is that responsible conservation policy? To spend 30 times more on a single exhibit than on conservation? Especially during a time of intense public criticism?
I think Awesome Ocean is perhaps the least credible, most biased source possible: their very own "About" page claims "We don’t believe the activist-hype and we plan to spend a good deal of our time debunking their myths." They also have a total of -13- articles attacking John Hargrove. Hmm...
PETA spends 34 million dollars a year on advocacy to ban keeping animals in captivity and 0 dollar on conservation. The claim to fight for an ethical treatment of animals but they kill more than 90% of the animals in their care. So I am wondering who is the deplorable organisation.
How dare they try to discredit John Hargrove. He's done a good enough job discrediting himself....And you're rattling on about bias yet you're supporting an article about a veterinarian on PETA's payroll visiting SeaWorld and published on PETA's page? Bias indeed. And then you claim their most obnoxious action is to improve the lives of their animals? How dare they! How on Earth could they ever think of improving the quality of life of the animals they care directly for. Didn't they know every single orca in the ocean is their responsibility too? Please,get real.
Biased or not the injuries are clear to see. The enclosures are ridiculously small for the animals they are keeping meaning they are unable to express natural behaviours.
The only clear injury is that of the killer-whale and that should indeed have been prevented. The other so called injuries I do not see. On the size of the enclosures I cannot judge as I have not been to Sea world. Have you been? And have you observed the behaviour of the animals?
Yes I have been, not that is relevant, I haven't been to Guantanamo Bay but I know it's not a great place to be. The enclosures are designed for the viewing public not for the needs of the animals
I completely disagree as it is relevant for you to make a judgement. And human rights is still a very different thing as animal rights. People held in a prison without trial is incomparable with animals in captivity.
To cite another very divisive collection, I dislike South Lakes and have little to no desire to ever return - but I would still strongly suggest anyone wanting to discuss the collection see the place for themselves so that they can come to their own informed judgement.
Fair enough. But the vet's own Linkedin profile really tells us all anyone needs to know about her credentials
I have to agree with Dave - you should visit before judging. I do not think they should keep Orca's but PETA and Blackfish are persistent liars and many of those lies can be disproved simply by visiting the collection.
At least prisoners at Guantanamo bay have a chance or release. Animals at SeaWorld have no chance of being returned. Prisoners also end up in Guantanamo bay as they are or have connections with terrorists. Animals at SeaWorld are imprisoned because halfwit tourists want to see them do stupid tricks. Prisoners also get to act out their natural behaviours whereas those at SeaWorld do not.
