SeaWorld sees profits plunge 84% as customers desert controversial park - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48399994]If you haven't seen it, check out the documentary Blackfish. It's on Netflix, I believe. It's very powerful, and Seaworld can owe almost all of its current publicity problems to that film. It put a spotlight on a dark world of abuse, death, lies, misinformation, and corporate coverups. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ou5DqfkZ8[/media][/QUOTE] Excuse me if I'm dead wrong; but wasn't a lot of misinformation found in this documentary? I remember hearing so much about sketchy filming practices following its release. Just a quick google brought me this [quote=skeptoid]Is Blackfish an anti-SeaWorld propaganda film or a compelling view of the exploitation of marine mammals? To be fair, my feelings about the orcas in captivity are conflicted, and I may have some bias. In my opinion it is illogical to think that an intelligent, social, apex marine mammal would enjoy living out their life in what amounts to a small pool. I also know that SeaWorld (and others) have profited from forcing these animals to perform tricks for people’s amusement. Yet I have been in those audiences on occasion, and I have been amazed and thrilled by these animals. My feelings about captive orcas are, as I said, conflicted. So what about the movie? What does it really add to the debate about these animals? As with many of these social documentaries, there are too many factual inconsistencies to feel that this movie is a fair evaluation of the animal, the trainers, or the park. There is evidence of fabrication of facts, or at least of editing to produce a consistently biased narrative. Sea World raises their following objections. [B]The film depicts a killer whale collection in Washington State that occurred 40 years ago. It leaves viewers with three false impressions: (1) that SeaWorld continues to collect whales from the wild to this day; (2) that Tilikum himself was collected by SeaWorld; and (3) that the collections done four decades ago were illegal. None of this is true. SeaWorld does not collect killer whales in the wild, and has not done so in over 35 years. Tilikum was not collected by SeaWorld. And the collections four decades ago were conducted in compliance with federal laws, pursuant to federally-issued permits at that time.[/B] [B]The film highlights two separations. In one instance, involving a whale named Takara, the film leaves you with the impression she was a calf when separated. In fact, Takara was 12 years old when she was moved. In the second, involving a whale named Kalina, the film misleadingly shows footage of a calf that is only days old. Kalina was moved when she was 4 ½ years old because she was disruptive to her mother and other whales.[/B] [B]The Film includes a SeaWorld video of a female trainer riding a killer whale, while one of the cast members, Samantha Berg, talks about her “experience” at Shamu Stadium. This segment misleadingly implies that Ms. Berg had relevant experience when, in fact, the video used in the film was shot 10 years after Ms. Berg had left SeaWorld. The trainer depicted in the video is not Ms. Berg but rather is a current SeaWorld employee. Of just the 3 years Ms. Berg spent working at SeaWorld, she spent only one year working with killer whales and she never conducted direct training with Tilikum.[/B] [B]The film misleadingly cobbles together separate pieces of innocuous training and performance footage, synced with the actual 911 calls, to mislead the audience into believing it is viewing the actual footage of Ms. Brancheau swimming with Tilikum prior to the fatal incident. In fact, the opening sequence does not depict either Ms. Brancheau or Tilikum, or an attack of any kind. From the date Tilikum arrived at SeaWorld, no one was allowed to swim in the water with Tilikum, and Ms. Brancheau never did so[/B]. [B]The film includes a recording of an EMT technician, subsequently proved to be mistaken, suggesting that Tilikum swallowed Ms. Brancheau’s arm during the incident. This is false.[/B] [B]The Sealand of the Pacific incident was mischaracterized and several key facts were left out. Keltie Byrne, a 20-year-old marine biology student and competitive swimmer, slipped into the pool containing Tilikum, Haidi II and Nootka IV while working as a part-time Sealand trainer. The three orcas submerged her, dragging her around the pool and preventing her from surfacing. At one point she reached the side and tried to climb out but, as horrified visitors watched from the sidelines, the orcas pulled her screaming back into the pool. Other trainers responded to her screams, throwing her a life-ring, but the orcas kept her away from it. She surfaced three times screaming before drowning, and it was several hours before her body could be recovered from the pool. Both females were pregnant at the time, which was not known to the trainers. Which may have made them aggressive or more dangerous.[/B] [B]SeaWorld does not starve their animals to train them. They are fed the same amount every day performing or not and have a very precise diet. It is true that other parks have used starvation method. [/B] Beyond twisting the facts, I have a problem with the major unstated premise of the film. Namely, that getting in water with any marine mammal can be completely safe. Even well fed apex predators are unpredictable. Trainers know when you get in the water with a 22 ton marine mammal you are at their mercy. The filmmakers make a strong case that lethal orca attacks only occur in captive animals. That is technically true. I would not agree that this is somehow a result of mental disease due to captivity. In almost every case the extremely powerful animal seems to be playing with the people. I don’t mean in a kind, fun way. I mean wild orca often play with their pray; flinging them around, dragging them under the water. The wild orca eventually eat the prey or share it with other orca. In all of the human cases, there was deadly injury and drowning, but no eating. This behavior could be characterized as normal for a wild orca, or as boredom. Hardly unusual behavior for this animal.[/quote] source: [url]https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/04/23/blackfish-documentary-or-propaganda/[/url] where the guy gets the seaworld info from -->[url]http://seaworldcares.com/the-facts/truth-about-blackfish/[/url]

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48395377]to give them the equivalent amount of space you'd need an absolutely enormous enclosure[/QUOTE] Which is why they shouldn't be kept in captivity at all imo.

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;48400106]Excuse me if I'm dead wrong; but wasn't a lot of misinformation found in this documentary? I remember hearing so much about sketchy filming practices following its release. Just a quick google brought me this source: [url]https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/04/23/blackfish-documentary-or-propaganda/[/url] where the guy gets the seaworld info from -->[url]http://seaworldcares.com/the-facts/truth-about-blackfish/[/url][/QUOTE] I don't doubt that the truth was embellished in Blackfish, it is in pretty much every feature length documentary, but that doesn't mean SeaWorld isn't a terrible place.

Let's just hope this doesn't damage Aquatica. Aquatica is one of my favorite water parks. (For those unfamiliar, Aquatica is owned by the same company as SeaWorld.)

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;48400106]Excuse me if I'm dead wrong; but wasn't a lot of misinformation found in this documentary? I remember hearing so much about sketchy filming practices following its release. Just a quick google brought me this source: [url]https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/04/23/blackfish-documentary-or-propaganda/[/url] where the guy gets the seaworld info from -->[url]http://seaworldcares.com/the-facts/truth-about-blackfish/[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah but almost all the criticism listed there are artistic in nature(in the sense that they embellished the records of events to make it into a feature length movie like adding the 911 calls and mixed footage etc...) and I thought the main point the movie was trying to make was that a known aggressive whale was still kept in captivity and used for breeding and it was not known how much of this aggressiveness would pass on to its offspring, putting other parks and trainers at risk. Also all the cover up and silence surrounding the aggressive whales and why they might be becoming aggressive. Honestly it is pretty one sided as a documentary, but using stock/unrelated footage does not invalidate the questions it raised.

[QUOTE=Fetret;48401997]Yeah but almost all the criticism listed there are artistic in nature(in the sense that they embellished the records of events to make it into a feature length movie like adding the 911 calls and mixed footage etc...) and I thought the main point the movie was trying to make was that a known aggressive whale was still kept in captivity and used for breeding and it was not known how much of this aggressiveness would pass on to its offspring, putting other parks and trainers at risk. Also all the cover up and silence surrounding the aggressive whales and why they might be becoming aggressive. Honestly it is pretty one sided as a documentary, but using stock/unrelated footage does not invalidate the questions it raised.[/QUOTE] From the official blackfish site I see this from the "About" page [quote] Blackfish tells the story of Tilikum, a performing killer whale that killed several people while in captivity. Along the way, director-producer Gabriela Cowperthwaite compiles shocking footage and emotional interviews to explore the creature’s extraordinary nature, the species’ cruel treatment in captivity, the lives and losses of the trainers and the pressures brought to bear by the multi-billion dollar sea-park industry. This emotionally wrenching, tautly structured story challenges us to consider our relationship to nature and reveals how little we humans have learned from these highly intelligent and enormously sentient fellow mammals.[/quote] but don't get me wrong, I totally see what you're saying and I'm not trying to discredit the questions the film did bring up; I'm glad they brought up the issues for the world to see. I also totally forgot about how those pregnant orcas killed that 20 year old in such a brutal way, pretty heart wrenching to think about

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;48399026]Yes, good job PETA for taking the initiative to most likely kill the whales before SeaWorld does! Great job![/QUOTE] I get that you're just being snarky but the whales already in captivity are unsavable. If they've grown up in captivity they won't have the capability to survive in the wild.

man they are [I]sea[/I]ing a huge difference in sales seaworld isn't having a [I]whale[/I] of a time with this decrease :v:

Are you dolphinished making puns yet

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;48396035]By giving Seaworld money? That's literally all they do and have managed to do[/QUOTE] From my (limited) understanding of how stocks work, if PETA gets enough shares, they can vote people on to the board of directors at will because of how many votes they have, so PETA can just vote tons of hardcore animal rights activists on to the board of directors and destroy the company, and then when there done they can pull out all of their shares and get most of their money back.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;48403675]Are you dolphinished making puns yet[/QUOTE] I don't sea how this could end whale.

[QUOTE=DohEntertainmen;48394779]Yup. Either that, or start SeaBrothel. :v:[/QUOTE] I don't doubt you could already bribe an employee there for that kind of experience. Sounds like a pretty scummy company.

[QUOTE=Toro;48404142]From my (limited) understanding of how stocks work, if PETA gets enough shares, they can vote people on to the board of directors at will because of how many votes they have, so PETA can just vote tons of hardcore animal rights activists on to the board of directors and destroy the company, and then when there done they can pull out all of their shares and get most of their money back.[/QUOTE] In theory yes but all PETA has done is put one person in the shareholder's meeting yelling about animal rights while giving the company money

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;48405182]I don't sea how this could end whale.[/QUOTE] These terrible puns are making me loose all porpoise in life.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;48405660]In theory yes but all PETA has done is put one person in the shareholder's meeting yelling about animal rights while giving the company money[/QUOTE] Can't buy out the whole thing in one go.

[QUOTE=OvB;48394505]Sea Worlds so fucked that PETAs been buying their stock so they can destroy it from inside. Employees: jump ship while you can.[/QUOTE] is this actually true? seaworld, even now, is valued at around 1-2 billion and peta's yearly income is only around 30 million. it would take a very, very long time for peta to have a significant impact on seaworld* if they were attempting to do this

I wouldn't mind it if they expanded most of the park to become just tanks and have tall suspended bridges over said tanks looking down on the somewhat better conditions.

[QUOTE=Bobie;48405961]is this actually true? seaworld, even now, is valued at around 1-2 billion and peta's yearly income is only around 30 million. it would take a very, very long time for peta to have a significant impact on PETA if they were attempting to do this[/QUOTE] They don't have very much. Barely enough to wiggle in activists into shareholder meetings.

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;48405579]I don't doubt you could already bribe an employee there for that kind of experience. Sounds like a pretty scummy company.[/QUOTE] It is one.