No announcement yet.

Bill may ban SeaWorld San Diego from using Orcas

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Bill may ban SeaWorld San Diego from using Orcas

    SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE:SEAS) a leading theme park and entertainment company, on 13 march reported financial results for the fourth quarter and full year of 2013. SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. (NYSE:SEAS) stock opened at $31.10 in last session, and closed at $32.56 by gaining 3.33%. The 52 week range of $27.48 – $39.65. Company’s market capitalization is $2.92 billion.]
    Looks like Wall Street is not worried about the bill passing either.


    • #32
      Re: Bill may ban SeaWorld San Diego from using Orcas

      A politician should lose their job for crippling an important industry in the state. Leisure.
      Be Cool Stay in School!
      Next year I'm trying for a summer internship at Stark Industries.


      • #33
        Re: Bill may ban SeaWorld San Diego from using Orcas

        Not sure you're accurate on this issue....

        "Attendance in 2013 declined by 4.1% from 24.4 million guests in 2012 to 23.4 million guests in 2013. The decline was primarily attributable to the expected result of planned pricing and yield management strategies that increased revenue but reduced low yielding and free attendance. Also contributing to the decline in full year attendance was unexpected adverse weather conditions in the Company's second quarter and July as well as the impact of an early Easter in 2013."

        All facts borne out by the times when the drop in attendance happened specifically
        ...and this is spin, as no other theme park chain reported issues with early Easter or "unexpected weather conditions."

        Circus animal captivity? Absolutely ridiculous. Circuses exploit animals for entertainment purposes. There is no science, there isn't anything being done in the way of making people aware of the animals plight in the wild, nothing along those lines at all. SeaWorld has a product; it is education and awareness of our oceans etc. made fun. Again, I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for people.
        Err...if the animals are to perform circus tricks to a musical soundtrack, or blow a horn like an actual human, ma!...that's the very definition of a circus trick. The Monterey Aquarium this ain't. I respect, especially with regards to the orcas, that the tricks are behaviors that actually stave off boredom and provide stimulation for the whales. Which leads us into a paradox: in order for the orcas to be stimulated and entertained in their environments, they need to learn and perform behaviors, lest the environments that SeaWorld has created for them bore these intelligent creatures...which certainly suggests that at present, humans can't provide a stimulating, enriching environment for orcas that matches their lives at sea.

        I suspect you are correct in saying that Blackfish had little to no impact on attendance and will continue to have little impact on it, at least for the immediate future. Sliding attendance in one year only isn't something to worry about and I believe that SeaWorld framed the slight slip in attendance accurately.
        If the Blackfish supporters were clever marketeers (the jury is still out,) I'd suggest that they attempt to frame SeaWorld and people who go to SeaWorld as backwards, hateful freaks, much like say liberal America has done with Chick-Fil-A with regards to the gays. Don't get me wrong, Chick-Fil-A was and is in no danger of going out of business because of the framing, but it associates the brand with a demography that in the long term is unsustainable. Sure, much like everyone who lined up for a chicken sammy on Chick-Fil-A Day, some will wear their support on their sleeve, and absolutely not care. But...some will. (Lord, the left needs a Karl Rove *******.)


        • #34
          Re: Bill may ban SeaWorld San Diego from using Orcas

          While I may not have quoted any empirical data on the subject, I know from experience that this tends to be true.
          Which, of course, breaks the first rule of any rational debate. We unfortunately live in an era where "truthiness" is more important that empirical data. Your experience is merely one point in a cohort of people in a study providing empirical data with the thesis: does physical proximity to animals provoke behavioral change in large groups of human beings? Since all we have to rely on is your personal experience or anecdotal evidence, that's not debate; that's an exchange of opinion. You're expressing a belief that experience engenders empathy, not demonstrating that via hard data.
          I care about many things I can't see, touch and experience. I ain't never been to the stars and yet I still care about the space program. Plenty of folks care about a higher power that nobody in the history of mankind has been able to see, touch and experience. And in the reverse, there are plenty of people at intersections begging for food and money that we overlook and don't care about, despite being able to see, touch and experience their need and suffering.

          Now you're using less than empirical data, but I understand, it is to make a point. Unfortunately the point falls flat because people begging at intersections for money/food are rarely homeless or suffering. My local news station did a story on this very thing, investigating it pretty thoroughly. Most of the panhandlers have money and/or means; many of them are drug addicts, etc. And they get plenty of cash. They found that the average money made by panhandlers was between $60.00 and $300.00 a day. Also, our local police academy makes their cadets go out for one afternoon and beg at a street corner for experience in how these people operate (they give the money to charity). Their experiences also support this information. So, in fact, you have proved my point inadvertently. People DO care what they can see or touch and experience.
          Actually, that was to make a point ENTIRELY about the inaccuracy of anecdotal evidence. My personal interest in the space program is as invalid as evidence as your belief that direct experiences with animals at SeaWorld engenders behavioral change. Would I be more interested if I could touch the Moon? I don't know. What I do know is that my personal interest or lack thereof is irrelevant as a single point. It's only as a part of a stream of data that one could quantify that.

          And unless your local news station provided data over a period of at least three months for an accurate read regarding panhandling trends, that's not research; that's reporting in the epoch of diminished standards.

          Here's one I know off the top of my head: Roughly 60% of people in the United States believe in God. Nobody has seen, touched or experienced God. Certainly nobody can prove it. And yet...60%.

          I disagree based upon, again, personal experience. All the SeaWorld fans I know fell in love with wildlife, cetaceans, etc. from going to SeaWorld and again and again and again I see it inspire people to take action, to do positive things and make positive change. I've seen it over and over....from experiencing things for themselves at SeaWorld.
          Your personal experience is irrelevant. Get the data, dude.

          I think your view is a bit cynical.
          Oh, no doubt! Massively so. I work in marketing. I know the true empty nature of the human soul. In all seriousness, there are so many things that we actually have data on, actually have hard numbers to work with, and yet we do nothing.

          Yes, we are still exploiting the oceans and the planet, but this won't stop until we reach people. If you have a better way to make people on a massive scale aware of these things, we are all waiting to hear it.
          Oh, I'm certain we're going to kill half the planet before we do anything. But I'm also unsure that SeaWorld is the way to reach that massive scale of awareness. Incidentally, this isn't just SeaWorld: this is a human problem. Here's an example (and something that SeaWorld has helped with, as part of the endangered species program,) the Florida manatee. We all know that these animals are endangered primarily because humans like sport boating. And yet, if its between the survival of a species or the survival of a pastime, the pastime wins. So, I guess I'm saying SeaWorld is something of a cultural manifestation of this refusal to engender actual, genuine, lasting action. (An optimist might say that it's the first step towards it.) "Look, we're saving these animals"

          (SeaWorldMike: that's for engaging with me intelligently.)


          • #35
            Re: Bill may ban SeaWorld San Diego from using Orcas

            Originally posted by SeaWorldMike View Post

            So Orca should be free but not all other animals? I don't get it. Why is that? I'm trying to make sense of your internal logic here. If Orca should be free, shouldn't dolphins? Shouldn't sea Lions, otters, lions and tigers and bears (Oh My!) horses, cows, dogs, cats etc. etc. Where do you draw the line? What constitutes slavery for one animal but isn't slavery for another animal? Please enlighten me.

            Self awareness. Dolphins and Orcas.