I found this article/blog in LA times. Is there a new owner in the works for SeaWorld? Could it be PETA? | L.A. Unleashed | Los Angeles Times
That seems a bit pointless to me... Not every animal there could be released into the wild, and surely they could be using the millions it would cost them to buy the place for something more worthwhile?
i cant see this happening. and even if it did, the organisation would cop so much flak over it. the money from tourism alone that the different sea-worlds generate would mean that many groups would oppose any such plan. if peta has that much money to waste and throw around, id suggest it invests in some low-grade zoos and aquariums in developing nations where real animal welfare issues persist, or put it towards their campaign against terrible road-side zoos and the like. the whole idea seems very sensational to me, but then thats PETA for you. sure animals should be in the wild, but the research seaworld has conducted on its killer whales alone could never be acheived with wild whales.
PETA is very inefficient in spending their money. I remember they send people to Spain to protest against "running with bulls" in Pampelona since over 20 years, and this didn't help a single bull.
Inbev has swalloed Anheuser now, but I don't know, if they willr eally sell the Seaworld parks, who has money enough to buy them ? Michael Jackson ? Petas has surly not the money to buy Seaworld, but maybe the colelct it from people in the big malls, with a plush orca on their side... And if they buy Seaowlrd, they never will get the permission to free the marine mammals. But if the Peta people see, how much money they can earn wiith Seaworld, I bet, they would change their opinion... By the way, does anybody know how large are the annual running costs from a Seawolrd Park, San Diego for example ? So I mean what they have to pay for the animals food(this must be huge ), all the technical enviroment and of course the costs for the staff. I know, Seaowld dosn't pay very much to their staff. But the annual costs must be enormous, but nevertheless, the Seaworlds makes a lot of money.
Actually, this whole "affair" is not worth paying even the slightest attention to. All in all, it's just media-savvy hogwash... May it be Holocaust comparisons, nude "starlets" or now alleged "Serious SeaWorld Takeover Talks"-PETA does everything to stay in the news. And taking such escapist yackety-yak seriously (" virtual reality exhibits"-what a typical empty phrase...) by even discussing about this megalomaniac publicity stunt only supports PETA's agenda. The best one can do is to elide such canards - and PETA...
I may get a lot of flak here, but sometimes I just can´t understand all the contempt some of you guys throw at the animal liberation people. I am not defending for instance PETA´s every move, but take the example that Jurek7 raised: The disgusting "Running with the bulls" event in Pamplona, Spain, is a world known example of the total disrespect for animal welfare issues that sadly still prevail in Southern Europe. Sadly, also, every tabloid in Europe show off this idiotic event as something "funny", a curiosity to amuse the readers. If PETA, in the end, could make a difference by contributing to stop this particular madness, I think a lot of good could follow from it - for instance in terms of rasing awareness of animal welfare issues in Southern Europe.
Dan, you seem very anti-zoo to be a member on a zoo forum. That's the point about PETA: if they have so much money and actually care, then why don't the do something more than just send people to protest about the running of the bulls? If they have enough money to "buy Seaworld", I think they should be using it to support something really worthwhile, not some huge publicity stunt.
I really don't think Jurek7 was in any way saying that the running of the bulls was a good thing. I'm sure most members here would support the idea of the animal lib people protesting or trying to stop such things as bull-fighting, dog-fighting, canned hunts, etc etc etc. The problem that sensible people have against animal liberationists is the very fact that animal liberationists are not sensible themselves. They are typically extremist in their views, many being even against such activities as keeping pet dogs and cats, or farming livestock for food. The attitude of most animal liberationists is all or nothing: NO zoo should be allowed to exist, NO animals are suited for keeping as pets, NO animals should ever be harmed to provide human sustenance, etc etc etc. That is why they are "treated with contempt".
There was a very big rumor going on in Disney Forums where they were talking about how Disney was very interested in buying Seaworld. I think that's the only company that probably has enough money to buy Seaworld.
Disney isnt the only company in the rumor mills...Universal & Disney are really the only America possibilites. Then there are the Dubai investors that are building a Sea World and Busch Gardens over there. And possibly several European companies.
I really don't see Disney making that investment right now. The way they build parks it would be cheaper to build one from the ground up, than to try and turn someone elses "theme" park into a Disney park.
I heard that they wouldn't change anything at all, all they would do is advertise it by saying that it belongs to Disney.
Yeah, that doesn't jive with anything the company has ever done. This one. Not happening. Just my opinion.
These information terrorists advocate the keeping of only "companion pets" like cats & dogs. This group discourages keeping any animal including reptiles.
In response to my critics in this thread - ashely-h, zoogiraffe and (to some exent) Chlidonias: I wrote: "If PETA, in the end, could make a difference by contributing to stop this particular madness*, I think a lot of good could follow from it - for instance in terms of rasing awareness of animal welfare issues in Southern Europe." * = "The Running of The Bulls" in Pamplona, Spain. How you guys can have a problem with a statement like this I honestly cannot understand.
No one had a problem with that statement. I just seem to think PETA are all talk and don't seem to do much for their cause. Protesting doesn't stop anything.
Also, my only comment was that you seem very anti zoo to be on this forum. I've never seen you post anything good about any zoo is all.
To ashley-h: "Protesting doesn´t stop anything". I don´t agree! I seem to recall lots of things in human history being stopped or at least affected/altered by protesting - wars, political things, social movements etc etc. "...you seem very anti zoo to be on this forum." See my Introductions note, see my various comments on pictures in the Gallery. You will find that I am not anti-zoo as such, but a very strong advocate for animal welfare in general. I find it a bit surprising that this (by some) can be regarded as a controversial stance at a forum such as this.
