Blackfish

[lexandme]

I always thought that Sea World makes money to help save other animals. Sales ticket, merchandise etc... but i guess i was wrong?

Here is an article from Cetacean Inspiration defining donations to conservation by Sea World in 2009.
Not good enough in my opinion. Especially when you consider the tax deductions
they will receive for "donations"!

Seaworld and Conservation

POSTED ON NOVEMBER 18, 2011 BY CETACEANINSPIRATION


Myth. Seaworld cares about conservation. If Seaworld is so greedy, why would they spend money on conservation programs?


It cannot be denied that Seaworld does have conservation programs and they do conserve local wildlife. However, the money that Seaworld Corp. itself spends on these conservation and rehabilitation efforts barely registers. Funding for the program largely comes from donation and grants. Let’s break this down:

According to the Seaworld Busch Garden Conservation Fund, the annual cash recieved is about 1 million dollars. So, where exactly does this money come from?

In 2009 24.5% of the million came from charity events, 9.5% from merchandise donations, 11% from Institutional Donations, 5% from other, 17% from park guest donations, 1.5% from Interests, and 9.5% from Internet. 1

22% of that $1 million (or $109,126) came from Seaworld Busch Entertainment Corporation itself. Just judging by those numbers it doesn’t seem like much. But let’s go a bit farther and put that in perspective: Busch Entertainment Corporation Parks (including Seaworld) generated $400 million in the 2009 second quarter.2 (down 4.2% from 2008!)

That means only %0.25 of the 2009 Spring revenue (April-June) was spent on the entire year of conservation. Average it out over the whole year and the percentage gets lower. Most of this money was from goverement grants. Seaworld’s attitude toward financially supporting conservation is essentially, “a penny here, a penny there.”

Seaworld is currently owned and operated by the Blackstone Investment Group based in New York City and is under a subsidiary corporation of 9 parks named Sea World Park & Entertainment. They and their affiliates are a buisness and so need to bring in profit. That isn’t to say that they need to bring in money, but that there needs to be more money coming into their pockets, than money that is going out.

So what about those “big guys up top”? What exactly do they get paid and how are they contributing to education and conservation? Blackstone Entertainment CEO Steven Schwarzman paid $1 million for his 60th birthday party in 2007, and earned $1 million dollars every day in fiscal 2006, ending the year with $398.3 million. His home is a mere 7,000 square feet bigger than the entire Shamu Stadium.3 Is Seaworld Corporation really all about conservation? Do they focus on corporate greed or animal need?

Seaworld’s conservation efforts are admirable, but they are not funded by Seaworld Corporation itself.

Seaworld often advertises that they support other worthy organizations by redirecting your monetary donations – not actually spending their own. Giving a little bit of money to a conservation fund will encourage people to take a more positive view of Seaworld boosting their visitors and thus their profit.

1 http://www.swbg-conservationfund.org/pdf/2009_Annual_Report.pdf

2 http://www.allvoices.com/news/3906047-abinbev-inbev

3 Michael J. de la Merced, “Dealbook — Inside Stephen Schwarzman’s Birthday Bash,” New York Times, Feb. 14, 2007

 

[TheZue]

Here is an article from Cetacean Inspiration defining donations to conservation by Sea World in 2009.
Not good enough in my opinion. Especially when you consider the tax deductions
they will receive for "donations"!

Seaworld and Conservation

POSTED ON NOVEMBER 18, 2011 BY CETACEANINSPIRATION


Myth. Seaworld cares about conservation. If Seaworld is so greedy, why would they spend money on conservation programs?


It cannot be denied that Seaworld does have conservation programs and they do conserve local wildlife. However, the money that Seaworld Corp. itself spends on these conservation and rehabilitation efforts barely registers. Funding for the program largely comes from donation and grants. Let’s break this down:

According to the Seaworld Busch Garden Conservation Fund, the annual cash recieved is about 1 million dollars. So, where exactly does this money come from?

In 2009 24.5% of the million came from charity events, 9.5% from merchandise donations, 11% from Institutional Donations, 5% from other, 17% from park guest donations, 1.5% from Interests, and 9.5% from Internet. 1

22% of that $1 million (or $109,126) came from Seaworld Busch Entertainment Corporation itself. Just judging by those numbers it doesn’t seem like much. But let’s go a bit farther and put that in perspective: Busch Entertainment Corporation Parks (including Seaworld) generated $400 million in the 2009 second quarter.2 (down 4.2% from 2008!)

That means only %0.25 of the 2009 Spring revenue (April-June) was spent on the entire year of conservation. Average it out over the whole year and the percentage gets lower. Most of this money was from goverement grants. Seaworld’s attitude toward financially supporting conservation is essentially, “a penny here, a penny there.”

Seaworld is currently owned and operated by the Blackstone Investment Group based in New York City and is under a subsidiary corporation of 9 parks named Sea World Park & Entertainment. They and their affiliates are a buisness and so need to bring in profit. That isn’t to say that they need to bring in money, but that there needs to be more money coming into their pockets, than money that is going out.

So what about those “big guys up top”? What exactly do they get paid and how are they contributing to education and conservation? Blackstone Entertainment CEO Steven Schwarzman paid $1 million for his 60th birthday party in 2007, and earned $1 million dollars every day in fiscal 2006, ending the year with $398.3 million. His home is a mere 7,000 square feet bigger than the entire Shamu Stadium.3 Is Seaworld Corporation really all about conservation? Do they focus on corporate greed or animal need?
Seaworld’s conservation efforts are admirable, but they are not funded by Seaworld Corporation itself.

Seaworld often advertises that they support other worthy organizations by redirecting your monetary donations – not actually spending their own. Giving a little bit of money to a conservation fund will encourage people to take a more positive view of Seaworld boosting their visitors and thus their profit.

1 http://www.swbg-conservationfund.org/pdf/2009_Annual_Report.pdf

2 http://www.allvoices.com/news/3906047-abinbev-inbev

3 Michael J. de la Merced, “Dealbook — Inside Stephen Schwarzman’s Birthday Bash,” New York Times, Feb. 14, 2007

That is a little nauseating

 

[CPT Tripss]

ITA that we don't have to actually see an animal in order to care about their species survival. Very few people ever saw a humpback whale, yet years ago, people cared and that led to efforts to limit hunting them. Not, the species is recovering.

As far as Orca, they are not endangered. There is no need to capture them in order to keep their wild population up. Well after my first visit to SeaWorld, I had the opportunity to see orca in their natural habitat. Way better than SeaWorld. It was much easier to realize their power and speed in open waters.

As far as SeaWorld research, give me a break. What little they do is only with captives, they do nothing with wild populations. And, despite whatever research they do, in their PR they continue to spread misinformation.

 

[MSLRAC]

I watched Blackfish last night after seeing this thread and while I know that it wasn't exactly objective, I saw enough of the truth to say that we will never go to Sea World. We were at WDW when Tilikum killed Dawn Brancheau back in 2010 and I honestly thought that it was just a freak, one time, accident...boy was I naive.

 

[Albort]

That is a little nauseating

blackstone doesnt just own sea world, it ones a crapload of other properties, so i guess sea world is just a piece of a very large corporation. It doesnt surprise me how less money sea world puts into conservation. its just like a charity group, im sure sea world claims itself as a charity group as well. Ive seem some charity group that puts only 20% of all donations to the actual cause...

 

[pigletgirl]

There is a phenomenal documentary on Netflix about the Orcas. It's truly amazing and it really puts into light what a sham SeaWorld is. These are amazing and powerful animals who do NOT need to be "waving" to a crowd for food.

Poor things.

 

[JakeJenna]

DW and I finally watched Blackfish last night, I was not impressed. My criticism of the movie itself would be that they should have stuck with one topic. I dont know what the main objective of the film was, it seems the main point of the film was the safety of trainers. I do not agree with it being a safety problem. Many professions come with inherent risks, what they showed in the film does not seem like very high risks over a long period of time. One thing I would agree with in the film was how the animals are treated like nothing more than property, taking the baby away from it's mother was heartbreaking. Honestly this film moved me away from shut Seaworld down side which I was very close to. By going after safety of trainers instead of inhumanity to animals it makes me question the case for inhumane treatment.

 

[Holly]

DW and I finally watched Blackfish last night, I was not impressed. My criticism of the movie itself would be that they should have stuck with one topic. I dont know what the main objective of the film was, it seems the main point of the film was the safety of trainers. I do not agree with it being a safety problem. Many professions come with inherent risks, what they showed in the film does not seem like very high risks over a long period of time. One thing I would agree with in the film was how the animals are treated like nothing more than property, taking the baby away from it's mother was heartbreaking. Honestly this film moved me away from shut Seaworld down side which I was very close to. By going after safety of trainers instead of inhumanity to animals it makes me question the case for inhumane treatment.

Why?

The inhumane treatment was blatant and well-documented. The fact that some attention was put on the safety of the trainers doesn't make the appalling treatment of the creatures any less true or horrifying.

 

[Embel]

From months of reviews and reading this thread, I thought this movie was going to be a documentary focusing on why Orcas should not be held in captivity. While I think that point was in there, I think it actually more effectively made the case that Sea World is putting humans at risk by sending trainers into the water with Orcas.

 

[Silock]

From months of reviews and reading this thread, I thought this movie was going to be a documentary focusing on why Orcas should not be held in captivity. While I think that point was in there, I think it actually more effectively made the case that Sea World is putting humans at risk by sending trainers into the water with Orcas.

This is true, but the corollary is that it's dangerous because Orcas should not be confined like that.

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

I thought the show was very poignant. It really seems that there is no way that whale should have ever been allowed to perform or been in contact with trainers. I find myself agreeing with the laws that Oshra or whatever agency it was set by.

My daughter(15) so I really feel it will hit hard with kids that watch it.

 

[lakelandgal70]

There is a phenomenal documentary on Netflix about the Orcas. It's truly amazing and it really puts into light what a sham SeaWorld is. These are amazing and powerful animals who do NOT need to be "waving" to a crowd for food.

Poor things.

Totally agree with you!

 

[micknpluto]

I finally got up enough nerve to watch. I had to be in the right state of mind. It changed my whole view of sea world I don't think I will ever step foot in their park again.
I've only been a few times. I don't usually leave WDW while I'm on vacation. But have often thought about going to sea world. Maybe again on day.
I know this might sound stupid. But. Are the other animals ok ? And for instance. Wdw has manatees in Epcot. I imagine they're taken care of properly. I mean. They're not being forced to entertain an audience. And perform. So. ...

I'm sad now.

Do you think sea world will feel any impact brought on by this documentary ?

 

[fabulousfive]

DW and I finally watched Blackfish last night, I was not impressed. My criticism of the movie itself would be that they should have stuck with one topic. I dont know what the main objective of the film was, it seems the main point of the film was the safety of trainers. I do not agree with it being a safety problem. Many professions come with inherent risks, what they showed in the film does not seem like very high risks over a long period of time. One thing I would agree with in the film was how the animals are treated like nothing more than property, taking the baby away from it's mother was heartbreaking. Honestly this film moved me away from shut Seaworld down side which I was very close to. By going after safety of trainers instead of inhumanity to animals it makes me question the case for inhumane treatment.

The main point of the film is that orcas should not be held captive. It showcases all the terrible consequences of marine parks, specifically Sea World, trying to control these majestic creatures. I have seen the film a few times now both in the theater & at home. I must say I think it's a brilliant film with a clear, strong message. From showing how orcas are captured to how they have been kept in confinement to the abuse to them lashing out at trainers out of frustration. All of these combined make an argument for keeping such marine life (and other animals for that matter) free & in the wild where they belong.

 

[mrsclark]

I finally got up enough nerve to watch. I had to be in the right state of mind. It changed my whole view of sea world I don't think I will ever step foot in their park again.
I've only been a few times. I don't usually leave WDW while I'm on vacation. But have often thought about going to sea world. Maybe again on day.
I know this might sound stupid. But. Are the other animals ok ? And for instance. Wdw has manatees in Epcot. I imagine they're taken care of properly. I mean. They're not being forced to entertain an audience. And perform. So. ...

I'm sad now.

Do you think sea world will feel any impact brought on by this documentary ?

The manatees at Epcot absolutely must be kept in captivity as they are both rescues from boating accidents and are both deformed from those accidents. If they hadn't been rescued from the wild, they would die or have serious health issues. If you go to the viewing areas at The Seas, you can see the scarred places on their bodies.

As for the dolphins kept in captivity at Epcot, opinions on that topic vary - if you go back several pages in this thread there was a lively discussion on that issue.

 

[mrsclark]

The main point of the film is that orcas should not be held captive. It showcases all the terrible consequences of marine parks, specifically Sea World, trying to control these majestic creatures. I have seen the film a few times now both in the theater & at home. I must say I think it's a brilliant film with a clear, strong message. From showing how orcas are captured to how they have been kept in confinement to the abuse to them lashing out at trainers out of frustration. All of these combined make an argument for keeping such marine life (and other animals for that matter) free & in the wild where they belong.

I agree with this summary. I want to add that, to me, the documentary just shows how irresponsible SW is to both the humans and animals at their parks and both issues make me upset/angry/sad. But most importantly, I don't want to support SW by spending money as a tourist with them.

 

[JakeJenna]

From months of reviews and reading this thread, I thought this movie was going to be a documentary focusing on why Orcas should not be held in captivity. While I think that point was in there, I think it actually more effectively made the case that Sea World is putting humans at risk by sending trainers into the water with Orcas.

I worked in steel for eight years, the two places I worked have much worse track records than SW. I was at the first place for four years, in that time one person lost a hand, another lost an arm. The second place I worked had two people killed in seven years, along with one person crushing their foot and being permanently disabled. There were many other smaller injuries, if you got hurt you were nursed back to health then fired. As I said the way I see it many jobs have an inherent risk, SW's record doesn't seem that bad to ME.

The main point of the film is that orcas should not be held captive. It showcases all the terrible consequences of marine parks, specifically Sea World, trying to control these majestic creatures. I have seen the film a few times now both in the theater & at home. I must say I think it's a brilliant film with a clear, strong message. From showing how orcas are captured to how they have been kept in confinement to the abuse to them lashing out at trainers out of frustration. All of these combined make an argument for keeping such marine life (and other animals for that matter) free & in the wild where they belong.

From what I had read here I thought the film was about the mistreatment of animals. The only thing I recall at SW was them taking the baby, and the animals attacking each other. The worst things they showed were not at SW, which tells me again as a skeptic(as one should always be when taking a position) they didn't have the goods on SW mistreating animals. I am still on the fence about the issue, I am honestly more skeptical of the movement after watching this film. That is my opinion, if you disagree that's fine. After all ya know what they say about opinions.

 

[PaulaSB12]

I worked in steel for eight years, the two places I worked have much worse track records than SW. I was at the first place for four years, in that time one person lost a hand, another lost an arm. The second place I worked had two people killed in seven years, along with one person crushing their foot and being permanently disabled. There were many other smaller injuries, if you got hurt you were nursed back to health then fired. As I said the way I see it many jobs have an inherent risk, SW's record doesn't seem that bad to ME.


From what I had read here I thought the film was about the mistreatment of animals. The only thing I recall at SW was them taking the baby, and the animals attacking each other. The worst things they showed were not at SW, which tells me again as a skeptic(as one should always be when taking a position) they didn't have the goods on SW mistreating animals. I am still on the fence about the issue, I am honestly more skeptical of the movement after watching this film. That is my opinion, if you disagree that's fine. After all ya know what they say about opinions.

So the fact that the reason that the animals are attacking and harming themselves is because they are bored and driven mad by the conditions they are kept in is fine? the halved life span is fine its the selfishness of the human species that really irritates me. We do this to animals because people want to see them being abused like that. How about we retire them and don't have the shows anymore. If you want to see Orcas there are plenty of tv shows, youtube have videos and there are companies that take you out to see them how they should be in the wild.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/24/opinion/blackfish-captive-orcas-solutions/
(CNN) -- The film "Blackfish" compellingly describes many of the reasons why keeping orcas in captivity is -- and always has been -- a bad idea.
The main premise of the film is that these large, intelligent, social predators are dangerous to their trainers. But orcas are also directly harmed by being confined in concrete tanks and the science is growing to support this common sense conclusion.
The latest data show that orcas are more than three times as likely to die at any age in captivity as they are in the wild. This translates into a shorter life span and is probably the result of several factors. First, orcas in captivity are out of shape; they are the equivalent of couch potatoes, as the largest orca tank in the world is less than one ten-thousandth of one percent (0.0001%) the size of the smallest home range of wild orcas.
Second, they are in artificial and often incompatible social groups. This contributes to chronic stress, which can depress the immune system and leave captive orcas susceptible to infections they would normally fight off in the wild.
The truth behind orcas in captivity History of killer whale capture SeaWorld trainer on recent controversy
Third, they often break their teeth chewing compulsively on metal gates. These broken teeth, even drilled and cleaned regularly by irrigation, are clear routes for bacteria to enter the bloodstream. These are the obvious factors; there are almost certainly others contributing to the elevated mortality seen in captivity.
These factors boil down simply to this: Captivity kills orcas.
Yes, they may survive for years entertaining audiences, but eventually the stressors of captivity catch up to them. Very few captive orcas make it to midlife (approximately 30 years for males and 45 for females) and not one out of more than 200 held in captivity has ever come close to old age (60 for males, 80 for females). Most captive orcas die while they are still very young by wild orca standards.
There is a win/win solution to both the trainer safety and orca welfare dilemmas facing marine theme parks around the world, including SeaWorld in the United States.
These facilities can work with experts around the world to create sanctuaries where captive orcas can be rehabilitated and retired. These sanctuaries would be sea pens or netted-off bays or coves, in temperate to cold water natural habitat. They would offer the animals respite from performing and the constant exposure to a parade of strangers (an entirely unnatural situation for a species whose social groupings are based on family ties and stability -- "strangers" essentially do not exist in orca society). Incompatible animals would not be forced to cohabit the same enclosures and family groups would be preserved.
Show business trainers would no longer be necessary. Expert caretakers would continue to train retired whales for veterinary procedures, but would not get in the water and would remain at a safe distance (this is known in zoo parlance as "protected contact"). And the degree to which they interact directly with the whales would be each whale's choice.
A fundamental premise of these sanctuaries, however, is that eventually they would empty. Breeding would not be allowed and captive orcas would no longer exist within the next few decades.
Many wildlife sanctuaries, for circus, roadside zoo and backyard refugees, exist around the globe for animals such as big cats, elephants and chimpanzees. The business (usually nonprofit) model for these types of facilities is therefore well-established for terrestrial species and can be adapted for orcas.
Wildlife sanctuaries are sometimes open to the public, although public interaction with the animals is usually minimized. A visitor's center can offer education, real-time remote viewing of the animals, a gift shop, and in the case of whales and dolphins can even be a base for responsible whale watching if the sanctuary is in a suitable location for that activity.
Marine theme parks do not need to lose out financially by phasing out orca shows; this is a transformative proposal, not a punitive one.
Creating a whale or dolphin sanctuary is not entirely theoretical. Merlin Entertainments is pursuing the establishment of the world's first bottlenose dolphin sanctuary with Whale and Dolphin Conservation), a nonprofit environmental group. Whale and Dolphin Conservation put together a team to determine the feasibility of such a concept and the company has now identified potential sites and is studying the infrastructure that will be needed to support a group of retired dolphins.
Before the tragic death of SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau in 2010, the ethical arguments against keeping orcas in captivity came largely from the animal welfare/animal rights community, with the marine theme parks basically ignoring or dismissing their opponents as a vocal and out-of-touch minority.
Now even staunch SeaWorld supporters are wondering if the time has come to think outside the (concrete) box.
Furthermore, the marine mammal science community, which has long maintained a neutral stance on the question of whether orcas are a suitable species for captive display, has finally recognized the need to engage. An informal panel discussion on captive orcas is scheduled at the 20th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals in December, the first time this topic will be openly addressed by the world's largest marine mammal science society.
The first orca was put on public display in 1964. The debate on whether that was a good idea -- for people or the whales -- began the next day but didn't really heat up until the 1970s. It raged mostly on the fringe for the next 25 years. It picked up steam in the mid-1990s, with the release of the film "Free Willy" and the rehabilitation of its orca star Keiko. And now, thanks in part to "Blackfish," it is mainstream and consensus is building that orcas don't belong in captivity.
The marine theme parks can shift with the paradigm or be left behind -- it is up to them.

 

[Embel]

I worked in steel for eight years, the two places I worked have much worse track records than SW. I was at the first place for four years, in that time one person lost a hand, another lost an arm. The second place I worked had two people killed in seven years, along with one person crushing their foot and being permanently disabled. There were many other smaller injuries, if you got hurt you were nursed back to health then fired. As I said the way I see it many jobs have an inherent risk, SW's record doesn't seem that bad to ME.


From what I had read here I thought the film was about the mistreatment of animals. The only thing I recall at SW was them taking the baby, and the animals attacking each other. The worst things they showed were not at SW, which tells me again as a skeptic(as one should always be when taking a position) they didn't have the goods on SW mistreating animals. I am still on the fence about the issue, I am honestly more skeptical of the movement after watching this film. That is my opinion, if you disagree that's fine. After all ya know what they say about opinions.

My wording was poor, so I'll try again, since I agree that there are many jobs with greater risks.


I thought the intent of the documentary would be to convince me that Orcas should not be kept in captivity. After watching it, I now perceive the intent to be to explain why this Orca killed a trainer.

I think the people who made and were interviewed in it believe Orcas should not be kept in captivity, but that convincing me of that was not the driving force of the movie. More like a subtle sub piece.

 

[Embel]

I really did go into the movie predisposed and ready to be outraged about Orcas in captivity. What I found myself often thinking was that what I was seeing was awful, but not unlike other animals in captivity. The way in which animals are rounded up in the wild, particularly back in the 70s, isn't pretty. Animals are often separated from their mothers, families, herds because it suits human purposes. And those animals do exhibit grief. Animals are often housed/caged in habitats that are smaller and not complete matches for their natural environments. Many captive animals display cribbing tendencies (biting things like wood, metal, etc.)

Ultimately I thought SonnyJane and Mrs. Clark did great job in this thread of explaining why we should view Orcas differently than other captive animals. I thought the movie was going to have a similar focus.

I'm not arguing for or against captivity. I even liked the movie. I'm just it was different than I had expected it to be.