We need to educate PETA members

[POP]

I think it's worth noting too the whales in SWUS (the whole point of Blackfish) are kept in small enclosures. How do you see whales at  SWGC? Oh that's right you hope on a boat and go out to sea. Honest question, how are, as the GP, supposed to do our bit to save wildlife if we know nothing about it? That's why we have zoos and marine parks. There's this term called edutainment. Entertainment while learning. Have you seen the dolphin show before? It literally spends the duration of the show talking about the history of dolphins and facts about how and where they live. Is that what you call doing tricks for entertainment?

What about polar bears, sea lions, dolphins, etc who are all enslaved to Sea World for their life span merely so you can be entertained? I'm disgusted.

[joz]

None of Sea World's Polar Bears were captured from the wild.  The closest were twins Nelson and Hudson were abandoned by their mother and not expected to survive.  The Sea Lions at Sea World are pretty much all either standings born in captivity, and that's also true of the dolphins.  The mammals in Sea World's care have no prospect of survival in the wild. 

[Brad2912]

You are seriously trolling. Right?

You know the shark nets that line the beaches from the Sunshine Coast to the north down to Byron Bay to the south? You know how Dolphins, whales, sharks, turtles and all sorts of sea life get trapped in said nets? You know who rescues them?? Sea World. You know what Would happen if they didn't? Those animals would die. The government or councils don't save sea life. 

Those animals are released. If injured they are rehabilitated in world class facilities and then released. If they can't be released due to their injuries, they have a safe permanent home. 

Stop comparing the US SW chains with what our SW here does.

[djmcbell]

You keep repeating yourself, saying that SWGC is "enslaving and mistreating" their animals.

Please provide proof of this.

As it stands, the current opinion is that SWGC rescues animals that wouldn't survive otherwise and seeks to free them wherever possible. And yes, that includes polar bears, including I believe a bear that was posing a danger to a small town - had SWGC not taken it, it probably would have been shot, and perhaps killed a few people in the process.

So SWGC seek to rehome these animals and, wherever possible, set them free. Which sounds fine and dandy. And I believe they have some of the best facilities in the business. If they are to be rescued, there is scarcely a better place.

Is it the "doing tricks for entertainment" business you take umbrage with? In that case, I can partially agree, but reading the article from SWGC's owner, animals are not coerced into performing - they receive some additional food, but aren't starved. They (apparently) only perform if they want to.

However, how is SWGC supposed to survive? Shows and so on bring in the crowds. If they didn't have them, then they'd get no money and have to close down. Then what would happen to the animals that need rescuing? Perhaps it is not SWGC that you should be turning your eyes upon, but instead the fact that people wouldn't give it money if it didn't have a dolphin show.

As I say, it may well be that SWGC imprisons animals for life, neglects them, doesn't feed them unless they perform etc. If that's the case however, provide proof. Otherwise, all you're doing is unsubstantiated ranting.

Edited October 28, 2015 by djmcbell

[bladex]

WOW this thread is still here?

[Life]

Wow... The hell did I just read, this guy needs a serious dose of common sense... What next, are you going to Boycott Australia Zoo? They are pretty much the same thing... An attraction full of either rescue or born in captivity animals which cannot survive in the wild, with profit diverted into rescue programs to ensure the health of other animals...

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Sea World Australia has never been about Capturing Animals - in truth it has always been about  Rescue AND CONSERVATION! 

 

I'm going to regret providing more ammunition for this maggot, but in the interests of setting the record straight - this may be the case now, but Sea World GC was once involved in the capture of wild animals for it's exhibits - and Trevor Long himself was involved in that. It is a past the park regrets, but it was back in a time when nobody knew any better, and I don't think that should be held against them now.

Why take them out of the wild in the first place? Oh, for our "entertainment". 

The last time i went to Sea World, all the animals especially the Polar Bears look distressed and/or depressed. The Polar Bear enclosure is the WORST. It's dreadful. 

That link is nothing more than propaganda paid for by SeaWorld. They have a vested interest in spinning the line that everything is all fine n dandy since they profit from your ignorance.

 

And your ignorance astounds me. There are two sides to every story, and yet you're only prepared to listen to one, despite the very clear obvious slant from the 'other side'. You have to take both with a grain or salt.

SW GC shouldn't be making money at all, not off the torture of animals which can lead to a life long psychosis and other mental disorders. Oh but they're animals so they don't have feelings right?

Imagine if someone separated YOU from your family when you were 5 years old and stuck you in an enclosed bath for the rest of your life. Think about that.

And is that your expert marine-veterinary medical opinion? or are you just rabbiting what the angelic movie directors told you? You keep going on about concrete pools and enclosed baths. First of all - sit in a bath. Now stretch out without crossing the edge of the tub. You can't move, can you?

On the other hand, i've seen numerous animals in SW swimming, lazily or at high speed... So i'd say we're dealing with more than a bath tub. Yes they have small quarantine pools, but usually the Quarantine area is for an injured animal that we probably don't want swimming lots anyway - at least until it is healthy.

A family friend of mine was heavily involved in animal behaviours at Sea World Gold Coast for many years. I can vouch for the fact that the animals are not forced to do anything they do not wish to do. this is why no two dolphin shows are the same, and you never see the same number of dolphins doing the same trick every single show. the show is tailored and altered depending on which dolphins are in the mood to play... and the word is PLAY not perform.

None of them are starved - each receives food appropriate to their weight, health and diet. What they receive during shows are rewards, and this is over and above their regular daily feeds.

 

 

So very tired of uneducated cocksuckers thinking they know better than parks that make a business out of conservation and rescue, especially after seeing a movie (or filming one!!!)

[Theme Park Girl]

I'm in the same boat at Joz. As a former Sea World employee twice over, who has also worked in the animal care department at one stage, I feel I have a valid opinion to contribute. However, tbh, I would only feel like I would be wasting my time in a similar fashion to the way I have with animal activists bombarding their Facebook page. Its obvious such people have such one-sided views and a specific agenda that they don't care about the actual facts or information at hand, and therefore won't listen.

Yes, I've watched Blackfish recently on Netflix. Did it change my opinion about the US marine parks overseas? Perhaps. At the very least it did make me think twice about supporting their current practices. Did it change my opinion about our unrelated marine park here? Certainly not. And I am proud to say that, because I know of the fantastic job our Sea World has done over many years with marine animal conservation and rescue. I also know the efforts they go to in order to ensure their own park animals are well taken care of, none of which have been allegedly "stolen" from the ocean as it has been claimed by numerous keyboard warriors, but are either a) been rescued and rehabilitated but unfit to return to the wild, or b ) Are generations of offspring of said animals.

Remember what happened to Keiko when they attempted to return him to the ocean after so many years in captivity? Here's an article which may jog your memory: Why freeing Willy was the wrong thing to do. So imagine what would happen to an animal which has been born in captivity and NEVER learnt how to survive in the wild?

Animals at our Sea World are NOT ripped away from their parents at any stage. Dolphins and their offspring are usually kept together for many years, as are other animals. In fact, when Henry the Polar Bear was recently sent overseas to live in a conservation park in Canada, I recently witnessed naive comments from people on the SW Facebook page... "poor Henry, being ripped away from his mum" and "I wonder how is mum will feel having her baby ripped away from her" etc etc....  Truth be told, if these people had actually bothered to READ UP on Polar Bear facts instead of just jumping to their own conclusions, they would have learnt that polar bear cubs of Henry's age in the wild (sometimes even younger) are fully weaned from their parent. Their mum either abandons them or chases them away. It would have been more dangerous to keep Henry and Lia together after this time than to have separated them the way they did.

Ironically none of them had anything to say in response to my posts pointing this out. Apparently being proven wrong is not what they wanted to read, as their anti-Sea World agenda is more important to them.

At the end of the day, you can harp on all you like about how evil a park Sea World Gold Coast is, how we should all boycott them because of the horrible things they do to animals etc. but it could not be further from the truth. Blackfish is essentially about the US marine parks, where both their animals and the way they are obtained, housed and sustained is a lot different to the practices of our local park.

Honestly I can't see how they can be compared in any way. Subsequently, I will NOT be boycotting our park because I know better.

Edited October 29, 2015 by OceanGirl

[POP]

So much justification for evil.

[New display name]

 

Remember what happened to Keiko when they attempted to return him to the ocean after so many years in captivity? Here's an article which may jog your memory: Why freeing Willy was the wrong thing to do. So imagine what would happen to an animal which has been born in captivity and NEVER learnt how to survive in the wild?

The problem is Keiko was taken out of the sea and put into captivity. I have seen that argument before but really Keiko should never have been put into captivity in the first place.

 

I think SW do a very good job looking after the animals but I do remember when SW first opened up, SW did take animals from the wild.   They don’t need to do it now because they have enough animals that can reproduce now but at one stage SW did capture animals to make money of them.

[POP]

The problem is Keiko was taken out of the sea and put into captivity. I have seen that argument before but really Keiko should never have been put into captivity in the first place.

 

 

I think SW do a very good job looking after the animals but I do remember when SW first opened up, SW did take animals from the wild.   They don’t need to do it now because they have enough animals that can reproduce now but at one stage SW did capture animals to make money of them.

 

Terrible. Shameful history.

[Slick]

So much justification for evil.

Since you're not open to critical thinking, having your opinion discussed (or using logic or reason for that matter) here's some places you'll be more welcome at.

Church of Scientology
Anti-Vaccine Movement
Westboro Church

[New display name]

Terrible. Shameful history.

Not really.  As all humans should, we learn from our mistakes.  It would be shameful if SW continued the practice this but they don't.  It would be shameful to let the animals go now knowing that they would have a high chance of death.   What are your ideas or what would you do now with the animals currently in captivity if you closed SW down?

[POP]

Not really.  As all humans should, we learn from our mistakes.  It would be shameful if SW continued the practice this but they don't.  It would be shameful to let the animals go now knowing that they would have a high chance of death.   What are your ideas or what would you do now with the animals currently in captivity if you closed SW down?

The animals should be left there and it should be kept as a not for profit organisation like PETA.

[New display name]

The animals should be left there and it should be kept as a not for profit organisation like PETA.

Who's going to pay for their needs if we are all boycotting SW?

[Slick]

The animals should be left there and it should be kept as a not for profit organisation like PETA.

Peta are one of the worst organisations in the world in my opinion. Their "shelters" euthanise an incredibly staggering amount of animals that is disproportionate to any other not for profit shelter in the US, so much so that US states had to redefine the term shelters, and wouldn't you know, Peta lobbied against it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/peta-euthanasia-shelter-animals_55fc17d7e4b00310edf6a608?section=australia&adsSiteOverride=au

Since you're a fan of memes POP, here's one for you to do with anti-vaccers that's fitting for this discussion:

 

[New display name]

Peta are one of the worst organisations in the world in my opinion. Their "shelters" euthanise an incredibly staggering amount of animals that is disproportionate to any other not for profit shelter in the US, so much so that US states had to redefine the term shelters, and wouldn't you know, Peta lobbied against it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/peta-euthanasia-shelter-animals_55fc17d7e4b00310edf6a608?section=australia&adsSiteOverride=au

Since you're a fan of memes POP, here's one for you to do with anti-vaccers that's fitting for this discussion:

 

Is it not common practice to euthanise domestic animals if you can't re-home?  I thought this was common practice in Australia.  I believe the RSPCA do it all the time.  How does the RSPCA feed all the animals that they can’t rehome them?  If the RSPCA where smarter they would sell the cats to the Chinese.  They tell me they love to eat cats and they taste like chicken.

Edited October 29, 2015 by skeetafly

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Many shelters in Australia have a no-euthanasia policy. RSPCA do not.

So I wouldn't say 'common practice' but yes it is common practice with RSPCA. I don't condemn them for it though, as they do great work in education, and trying to PREVENT animals from ending up in shelters in the first place.

[POP]

Who's going to pay for their needs if we are all boycotting SW?

Maybe the selfish people who go support SeaWorld so they can be entertained can donate some money for the animals they claim to care about.

[joz]

OK, you're clearly either trolling, or support PETA.  Either way, there is no sense trying to talk logically with you.   Here's what your argument boils down to:  "I don't like the idea of animals being in captivity because of my own personal bias".

 

If that's you opinion, you're welcome to it.  You can't then scream "It's evil and they torture animals!"  to give your argument more weight.  They aren't evil, and they don't torture animals the same way any responsible pet owner doesn't miss treat their dogs.  Yet you never hear anyone saying "These animals are being deprived of their freedoms".  Oh wait PETA do.  You can't reasonably talk to these people.

 

So like I say, you're either trolling or you just straight out don't care for facts.  That being the case, I don't see any need for this thread to continue.