What is your view of Sea World?

[forbey]

You cannot love that which you do not know.

I've heard that hunters are more likely to be protective of the environment than those who do not hunt. Huh. Interesting.

Today, there are thousands more deer in Illinois, not because of anti-hunters, but because of hunters and groups of hunters like White Tail Unlimited. They not only "thin" the herd, allowing the environment to better provide for smaller herds. They also develope new areas for wild life to go.

Legislation known as the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 taxes hunting and fishing equipment to fund wildlife restoration in American. Our State and Federal parks benefit from these funds. Yet, the anti-hunters who like to wander the parks with their cameras and binoculars and enjoy the efforts of Pittman-Roberson funds, DON'T PAY ANYTHING to support the parks.

Modern day fisherman (especially in America) work to ensure the survival of the species the fish.

Unfortunately, some facilities still lack what is necessary to keep captive animals healthy and housed to best suit the needs of the residents. Again, this is where volunteers, patrons, support groups and zoo boards come in. Don't just refuse to go, GO and insist they improve ... involve yourself to make them improve.

OR, ignore them, refuse to go there, funding drys up and the animals there suffer. Till one day they begin dying from lack of care. Then, when they close or get shut down ... the animals get shifted around to find them a home for problem animals or they get put down.

Zoos, circuses, carnivals, and exhibits have drastically improved of the past 100 years ... BECAUSE of the involvement of outsiders. Keeping our youth excited, being involved and educating the public is the only way to keep them on their best behavior and searching for better ways to present their programs.

 

[MonicaMc]

"Herd thinning" brings up another, separate theory.

Is thinning the herd really best for the environment? Can the environment actually provide better for smaller herds?

On the flip side, is killing the animals also killing the earth? What if it's the larger herds that are encouraging larger growth of plant life? And by killing off the herds, you are therefore also not allowing the plants to get the required nutrients to grow?

The plants rely just as much on the animals as the animals rely on the plants. It's a cycle. Allan Savory talks about desertification and restoring grasslands to the world. Of course, this is a controversial subject, but I find the theory interesting nonetheless.


That's all for another topic, though! Forbey, I do agree with what you've said.

 

[forbey]

"Herd thinning" brings up another, separate theory.

Is thinning the herd really best for the environment? Can the environment actually provide better for smaller herds?

On the flip side, is killing the animals also killing the earth? What if it's the larger herds that are encouraging larger growth of plant life? And by killing off the herds, you are therefore also not allowing the plants to get the required nutrients to grow?

The plants rely just as much on the animals as the animals rely on the plants. It's a cycle. Allan Savory talks about desertification and restoring grasslands to the world. Of course, this is a controversial subject, but I find the theory interesting nonetheless.


That's all for another topic, though! Forbey, I do agree with what you've said.

Thanks, MonicaMc. As a trained hunter safety instructor in the state of Illinois, oe of the things we teach is called "carrying capacity". Carrying capacity is defined as the number of animals a piece of land can support without the land and the animals suffering from over-population. If an acre of property will support 50 deer ( or Cockatoos, raccoons, mice, etc.) and you have 150 living in the same space; food, water and shelter gets maxed out. Food starts to become scarce and the herd becomes undernourished. With deer, the end result is undernourished deer, growth of vegetation begins to drop, consumption increases. Deer start looking for other food sources. Deer cross roads and get hit. Disease increases.

The city parks of Detroit are a prime example. The parks were ugly, chewed up, lots of dead dear. A small group of bow hunters convinced the city to allow hunting. Within 2 years the popuklation had ben reduced to BELOW the carrying capacity of the parks. Vegitation rebounded. Park goers soon began seeing deer again and there were fewer deer related accidents. (All deer harvested were given to emergency food centers.) The group finally passed the baton to another group of hunters and the bow hunting group disbanded.

The HUNTERS were responsible for the rescue of the parks, the vegitation and the deer.

Places like Sea World raise millions of dollars each year to help the wild counterparts of the animals they display. Frequently they also work to restore wild habitat and the research they do helps scientists understand the health, diet and habitats so they can better work to save the animals.

 

[kiwiS]

"Herd thinning" brings up another, separate theory.


Places like Sea World raise millions of dollars each year to help the wild counterparts of the animals they display. Frequently they also work to restore wild habitat and the research they do helps scientists understand the health, diet and habitats so they can better work to save the animals.

That still doesn't justify what they are doing to the animals in their park. It is obviously a publicity stint to help their bad reputation exposed to the public. Please stop promoting Sea World, it really is not doing these lovely animals any good. Thanks

 

[MonicaMc]

That's pretty interesting about the parks!

I do agree that if grazing animals remain in one area, they will deplete the available resources... but if they are moved around, to a different location that is not overgrazed, and they kept being moved from spot to spot, would this help to replenish the plants? It's not quite the same as what the hunters did with the Detroit parks.


Anyway, thanks for the info!

 

[Abigal7]

"Herd thinning" brings up another, separate theory.


Places like Sea World raise millions of dollars each year to help the wild counterparts of the animals they display. Frequently they also work to restore wild habitat and the research they do helps scientists understand the health, diet and habitats so they can better work to save the animals.

That still doesn't justify what they are doing to the animals in their park. It is obviously a publicity stint to help their bad reputation exposed to the public. Please stop promoting Sea World, it really is not doing these lovely animals any good. Thanks

If Sea World is for conservation and admit they did not know a lot of stuff when they started and still have things to learn (and are improving) then I can not demonize them since their focus on ocean life is something most zoos and wildlife places do not focus on or know anything about. The only thing I had a problem with in the movie The Cove was Ric O'Barry's life being lies. From his involvement with the tv show Flipper that sold the lie dolphins are nice and sweet animals. His idea that it was okay for him to capture and train dolphins while no one else should be able to. Right now my concern is with the Japanese fisherman's who seem to kill any dolphin on sight. Unless neighbors such as China give them cash for a female dolphin (that they want for their show).

 

[Abigal7]

You cannot love that which you do not know.

I've heard that hunters are more likely to be protective of the environment than those who do not hunt. Huh. Interesting.

Today, there are thousands more deer in Illinois, not because of anti-hunters, but because of hunters and groups of hunters like White Tail Unlimited. They not only "thin" the herd, allowing the environment to better provide for smaller herds. They also develope new areas for wild life to go.

Legislation known as the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 taxes hunting and fishing equipment to fund wildlife restoration in American. Our State and Federal parks benefit from these funds. Yet, the anti-hunters who like to wander the parks with their cameras and binoculars and enjoy the efforts of Pittman-Roberson funds, DON'T PAY ANYTHING to support the parks.

Modern day fisherman (especially in America) work to ensure the survival of the species the fish.

Unfortunately, some facilities still lack what is necessary to keep captive animals healthy and housed to best suit the needs of the residents. Again, this is where volunteers, patrons, support groups and zoo boards come in. Don't just refuse to go, GO and insist they improve ... involve yourself to make them improve.

OR, ignore them, refuse to go there, funding drys up and the animals there suffer. Till one day they begin dying from lack of care. Then, when they close or get shut down ... the animals get shifted around to find them a home for problem animals or they get put down.

Zoos, circuses, carnivals, and exhibits have drastically improved of the past 100 years ... BECAUSE of the involvement of outsiders. Keeping our youth excited, being involved and educating the public is the only way to keep them on their best behavior and searching for better ways to present their programs.

I will admit American hunters have played a active role in saving native species. My dad said when he was a child you were lucky if you saw a turkey (now it is more common for you to see them). But I do not think I can say the same for the Japanese fishermen on The Clove.

 

[forbey]

That's pretty interesting about the parks!

I do agree that if grazing animals remain in one area, they will deplete the available resources... but if they are moved around, to a different location that is not overgrazed, and they kept being moved from spot to spot, would this help to replenish the plants? It's not quite the same as what the hunters did with the Detroit parks.


Anyway, thanks for the info!

Unfortunately, grazing animals (whether grazing on grass, seeds, berries, fish or plankton) migrate for a myriad of reasons (seasons, currents, etc.) As discussed in another thread sometime back, a flock of Cockatoos can migrate in and decimate the local agriculture and then move on. Sheep were hated by western cattlemen because they could graze through an area and eat everything, including pulling the roots. Animals like wild hogs and deer aren't migratory animals, they tend to hunker down in an area and make themselves at home.

If nature is allowed to run as designed, vegetation thrives, vegetarians and omnivores then thrive, followed by carnivorous predators. Each keep the other in check. Mankind has done much to throw that equillibrium off. First we worked to control the preditors for self survival, then we ate of the other wildlife and finally we started taking their habitat to convert it to farm land for our food.

Since the mid 1900s we have done a great deal to repair the harm. But, it is still a balancing act and there is much more to do. And the struggle continues.

 

[MonicaMc]

I've actually seen far less deer, antelope, eagles and falcons than I did back when I was in elementary school... and deer in my area migrate. They don't hunker down and stay in an area, so the amount of deer that one could see would vary depending on the herds.

I actually miss the animals!

 

[forbey]

I will admit American hunters have played a active role in saving native species. My dad said when he was a child you were lucky if you saw a turkey (now it is more common for you to see them). But I do not think I can say the same for the Japanese fishermen on The Clove.

I am not, nor will I ever be a Japanese fisherman. I can tell you that fisherman from America, Europe, Australia, etc. have been putting pressure on the Japanese industry to increase habitat conservation, species protection and neighborly behavior. But, it won't be done over night.

Another point that is frequently left out is the political adgendas of those making movies like The Cove. They are just as likely to skew their storyto benefit their adgenda just as much as the Japanese fishing industry will for theirs.

Case in point, look up the PETA page on the "Fish Empathy Project".

Humans don't always start out with good intentions, but we usually come around.

 

[forbey]

"Herd thinning" brings up another, separate theory.


Places like Sea World raise millions of dollars each year to help the wild counterparts of the animals they display. Frequently they also work to restore wild habitat and the research they do helps scientists understand the health, diet and habitats so they can better work to save the animals.

That still doesn't justify what they are doing to the animals in their park. It is obviously a publicity stint to help their bad reputation exposed to the public. Please stop promoting Sea World, it really is not doing these lovely animals any good. Thanks

There are occassionally incidents at Sea World that hit the media, maybe even some that don't, that are unfortunate, even cruel; however, the good work that they do far outweighs the bad. As for other similar establishments I will make my decisions on park at a time and when possible, I will chose to make my positions known proactively rather than reactively.

I will NOT suggest that you do not have the right and priviledge to boycott Sea World or any other zoo-like establishment, because you most certainly do. On the same note, I will continue to support whom I chose to support. I chose to do so with an educated and open-minded outlook. I'm not one to run my opinions based on my emotional state. (If I did, my yo-yoing effect would drive my nuts!)

 

[kiwiS]

It doesn't matter how you word it - and it's not just about you or me or what WE want to do with our lives. This is a public issue and this is a public forum. Sometimes children will get on and read what you have to say.

I am a very liberal and open-minded person. But I know wrong when I see it, and I am not afraid to defend it. There is no excuse for what they are currently doing, and will continue to do so long as they have the public's support.

Please be careful what you say, and how you influence other people. Sometimes it's better to let things go, then argue yourself into a corner and cause more hurt than help.

 

[WannaBeAParrot]

I'm glad to see this topic come up. I don't go to zoos any longer. I will only go to natural habitats, such as The Everglades, where animals can be seen on their own terms (mostly), or on a Whale Watch boat trip where the whales decided if they want to show their faces and can stay as long as they like. I loved visiting zoos for as long as I can remember. Having grown up in NYC, there was ample opportunity to visit the Central Park Zoo, the Bronx Zoo, and outside the city to places like the Catskill Game Farm (which no longer exists). I loved it because I could see these other creatures that I thought were like people that looked different... I could see them and would wonder if they think like I do, if they like it in there, what would it be like if they lived in my room with me. When I was old enough to go on my own, the empathic me started to feel mixed emotions about my visits with these creatures that had no choice but to be exactly where they were until they were no longer healthy enough or kind enough to be stared at or perform.

I agree that there are some places where animals are kept in captivity that might be the best sitaution for those animals for abandoned creatures, disabled or unsafe in the wild for any reason. A rescue or sanctuary for an animal that needed to be saved and cared for is not in the category of a zoo, in my opinion. I prefer that these sanctuaries and conservations sites don't have regular "open" visiting hours like a zoo. However, I totally understand that they may need to do so because of funding requirements. But it should be done where the animals have some choice, i.e. some birds might love love love interacting with visitors, and some might hate being stared and sitting on a perch all day, or some may have different preferences day by day. It is far from a perfect situation, but I think if it is done right, it would benefit all parties, including the creatures, as much as possible.

For Profit Zoos that are businesses exist for one main reason, to make profit. Their first priority is how to make money and the most possible. The best ones spend money to make the environment as good as possible for captive animals, just like many of us do inside our homes. The difference is the vast majority of us are not keeping them in our homes to make money, i.e. by breeding or renting them out for parties. They are living with us (however they got here) because we love them and want them to love us back and enjoy life as much as possible in these circumstances. This is not the case with the zoos. Yes, many of the employees and volunteers have loving relatioships with the animals, but these creatures are surely the property of the zoo. They are likely listed as an asset or a liability and part of their inventory. They are not listed as employees or family members and these creatures have essentially no choice but perform.

I don't discourage people from going to zoos. I do, however, talk up the natural settings where one gets to go in to the creatures' natural habitats and hope they will show their faces.

 

[Abigal7]

I will admit American hunters have played a active role in saving native species. My dad said when he was a child you were lucky if you saw a turkey (now it is more common for you to see them). But I do not think I can say the same for the Japanese fishermen on The Clove.

I am not, nor will I ever be a Japanese fisherman. I can tell you that fisherman from America, Europe, Australia, etc. have been putting pressure on the Japanese industry to increase habitat conservation, species protection and neighborly behavior. But, it won't be done over night.

Another point that is frequently left out is the political adgendas of those making movies like The Cove. They are just as likely to skew their storyto benefit their adgenda just as much as the Japanese fishing industry will for theirs.

Case in point, look up the PETA page on the "Fish Empathy Project".

Humans don't always start out with good intentions, but we usually come around.

I want to be clear that I am not with any group that has a agenda (such as Petta). Nor did I make this thread for a agenda. I am concerned about the oceans and lands ecosystem and hope more people become aware and want to be stewards. As I already pointed out Ric" O'Barry has been living a life on lies and if I remember correctly he lied to the Japanese officials saying he did not leave his room at night, etc. I am also shocked by the subtle lie implanted that Sea World and other Western countries buy dolphins from Japanese fishermen. Sea World breeds their own dolphins and to be honest they desire baby dolphins born in captivity that they can train tricks and also teach to be nice to humans (Kind of how some people are picky about what dogs and parrots they will take). However, I hope the film does cause a discussion about the oceans ecosystem. I do hope the other fishermen can get Japan to listen to reason.

 

[Featheredsamurai]

One place I was impressed with was the Henry Doorly Zoo, they took a step above other zoo's and made entire habitats. They have the jungle, and the desert dome/creatures of the night. I don't like the desert dome/creatures of the night as much, the animals are much more restricted.


Their crowning achievement is their indoor jungle, one of the largest indoor forest in the world. The birds really have it good here, they have free range and fly all around. I remember seeing horn bills, blue crowned pigeons, and lots of smaller species. They also have huge flying foxes flying given free range.

The above photos are from google, I took the below photo of their scarlet macaws

 

[DallyTsuka]

personally, to each their own, and i greatly respect the differing views here. i like GOOD zoos that provide good homes and proper stimulation and space to their animals. i report bad zoos to the proper authorities. zoocheck canada is the go-to people here in canada to deal with poor zoos.

i wont go into a long rant of details. but for the most part, forbey speaks a lot of my own views as well. so i wont repeat a bunch of things already expressed.

do you know what first peaked my interest in birds in the wild? when i was a young kid, i went out playing hide and seek with my cousins out in a marsh. it was late november and a light snow was falling, just enough to make the marsh quiet, nothing but the red winged blackbirds and the wind around. i forgot about the game and just listened. a red tailed hawk landed in a stand of cottonwoods in a nearby field and made that characteristic call it makes. and it was simply the most amazing sound i've ever heard in my life. and that right there got me hooked on birds. i wanted to know more about them, i wanted to see and hear every single one of the birds in my area. i became more aware of the natural world around me. internet and television never sparked that in me, nothing ever caught my attention like actually seeing it in person.

as for pet birds, it was first seeing the cockatiels at petsmart as a kid run up to my fingers wanting me to play with them that got me loving pet birds and it was then that i made up my mind that i wanted to own birds one day.

nothing replaces the real thing, you just can't experience the things you can over the internet or television.





ETA:
the photos from the walk-in zoo is amazing! that is a place to go, for sure. that right there is what i mean by proper stimulation.

ive seen some horrid places, and ive seen some really good ones. many are better than others, but like so many things, the bad things tend to get more noticed than the good things, so when all we hear is bad media, people tend to paint all things one colour, without realizing that there are a lot of good zoos and such out there. i think its best to make personal judgements with our own eyes and own experiences, rather than letting others paint our own views for us

 

[forbey]

Is Sea World a "for profit" establishment, or do they charge entrance fees and all the other costs to raise funds to support building new habitats, caring for their animals and covering the high costs associated with hiring the best zoologists, zoo keepers, veterinarians, maintenance staff, food, medicine and supplies that they can find. I, personally, have never been to Sea World ... too far away. I have been to many zoos in the midwest (my favorites are the Brookfield Zoo in Chicago and the Indianapolis Zoo) as well as the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. They all appeared to concentrate on a quality life for thier animals, enlarging and updating habitats, encouraging interaction with the public (especially the youth) and openly promoting responsible stewardship of our planet.

If it weren't for the likes of places like Sea World, and the world's best zoos, the advancements in wildlife protection, the advancement in habitat creation and the advancements in veterinary medicine for wild animals would still be in the 1920s, housing their critters in tiny cages, tanks and pens

From my earliest years, visiting the elephants at the circus, to going to zoos and sitting in the forest on the opening day of hunting season, I have always been in love with animals. I grew up watching "Wild Kingdom" with Marlin Perkins and Jim (whatever his last name is). But Wild Kingdom never really got it done for me ... it was those all too rare encounters at the circus, the carnivals, zoos, etc. that gave me the burning desire to engage in biology and zoology. (Resulting in training in horseshoing, a degrees in biology and Animal Science.

When my children were still at home we always took vacations to zoos, parks, fairs and exhibits. We went to farms and milked cows. We went to horse shows. Now as grand parents, we look forward to taking our grand children to experience animals ... where ever possible.

Over the 56 years of my life, the industry of presenting the worlds animals to the public has had many great advances. With any luck, I will be able to share to wonder of the "wild" in the eyes of my great grand children.

AND YES, I will continue to support the scientific and physical needs of our local zoos as well as the common sense concerns for improvements WITHOUT alowing myself to get caught up in the emotional hysteria of far left fear-mongering groups producing panicky, "save the world from chicken abuse" movies and videos.

FYI: I eat MEAT, I love SUSHI, BACON is my friend, my belt, my boots and my motorcycle vest and coat are all made out of LEATHER! AND, I LOVE MY PETS LIKE THEY WERE MY FAVORITE KIDS! LOL

AND, for fear of inciting a Cyber-riot, I will move on to another thread.

B-Bye!


After-Note: The following was copied from the Wikipedia page for Sea World:

Alleged drive hunt captures[edit source | editbeta]

In response to criticism leveled at SeaWorld and other marine parks by the award-winning documentary film The Cove which accuses them of obtaining dolphins obtained in drive hunts, SeaWorld spokesperson Fred Jacobs stated that, "We think we're being unfairly criticized for something we're opposed to."[29] He adds that, "SeaWorld opposes the dolphin hunts documented in The Cove. We do not purchase any animals from these hunts. More than 80 percent of the marine mammals in our care were born in our parks. We haven't collected a dolphin from the wild in decades."[30] Since 1993 there have been no permits issued to facilities in the United States to import dolphins acquired through drive hunt methods.[31] Marilee Menard, the executive director of the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums, has also stated that she believes that The Cove filmmakers are "misrepresenting that the majority of zoos and aquariums with dolphins around the world are taking these animals."[29]

 

[MonicaMc]

What I find kind of amusing is the fact that people criticize zoos for having small habitats for their animals.

How's that any different to having a pet bird inside a cage? And many of them clipped?

It may be comparing apples to oranges, but what's the difference?

The animals in the zoo may not have enough space to get the proper amount of exercise that they should be getting, but parrots aren't, either.


There's talk about animals in zoos getting mistreated, but many zoos also provide enrichment activities to their animals. They train their animals to do a variety of tricks for the publics eye, which is also another form of enrichment for the animals. If a marine mammal didn't want to perform a trick, they could just swim to the bottom of the tank and avoid you!

If we don't teach our pet parrots how to be independent and play/forage with their own toys, and they don't know how to, it doesn't matter how full we fill the cage with, those items are not providing enrichment to our birds. Clipping their wings prevents them from properly exercising. And then, we don't often teach them many behaviors beyond step up, therefore we may not be enriching their brains enough.




-just letting my brain ramble on....-

 

[Abigal7]

Thanks for the feedback everyone and it is nice to see different views. I agree with Monica that I do not think whales and dolphins hate performing tricks. Now that I am a adult and thinking more about Sea World it now occurs to me that Killer Whales do not just eat fish but also thing some would consider cute like seals and penguins.

 

[AussieChris]

Hello,

We all surrounded by many well meaning people, but unfortunately they think their opinion is fact. Zoos like people can be good or bad. They all vary. Most would have started as a private collection that became a Zoo to recover costs. Others are run by a City, and they have to be accountable for all that goes on. A supermarket would be a better business to run than a Zoo.

Imagine trying to get a large Crock to eat Tofu because eating meat is wrong. Hunting and predators keep the population of game healthy and smart, without it food will run short and disease can take an entire population out. Predators will ensure their survival. Now if numbers in the wild are dwindling, a single event could eliminate the entire population. Having animals in Zoos means they can be bred up to re-establish the population. As I see it, every animal has evolved to fill a nich better than anything else. And any could hold a cure for cancer.

Enclosures in new types of Zoo are made like the natural environment. The keepers hide the food, so the animal is occupied feeding itself. Enclosure size ? It needs to be big enough to enable some exercise, dont forget that animals have a big territory to have sufficient food. Dogs dont dream of a holiday and seeing the Alps, they want to sniff and roll in stuff and whiz on different trees.

I wont comment on Whales and Dolphins as I dont know a lot about them. To have a valid opinion on a Park, I think you would have to work there and see first hand what goes on. Fundraising, education and bringing an awareness to inspire people to research and protect the inhabitants will always be a side benefit.