+90 90 0
Published 6 years ago by drunkenninja with 16 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
Conversation 11 comments by 6 users
  • staxofmax (edited 6 years ago)

    The reason I will never go to SeaWorld is simple. SeaWorld is owned by SeaWorld Entertainment which is a publicly held corporation, and as such their primary goal is to provide the highest possible return on investment for their shareholders. Education and animal welfare, regardless of their stated positions, is a secondary goal. Their newfound concern for the well being of their animals is only a function of the current political and social climate. If for some reason at a future date if they found that they could quadruple their profits by hosting a bullfight style orca fight and post fight all you can eat orca meat and blubber barbecue with no legal repercussions or public backlash they would certainly do so. In fact, their duties as a publicly held corporation compel them to.

    I have no issues with zoos or aquariums that are run by local governments or non-profit institutions. But a zoo run by a for profit corporation seems to me to be fundamentally wrong.

    • Autumnal

      I hadn't even thought about the difference between public and private animal exhibitions. Thanks for bringing this up.

      • staxofmax

        My thoughts on this are a little more radical than most and extend to basic services as well. For example, I also believe that health insurance and health care have no business being run by for profit corporations because like I said above a shareholder held company's primary motive is providing a return on investment for their shareholders. Providing quality of care and affordable rates to subscribers and patients is secondary. They will by their very duty to their stakeholders charge patients as much as they can and provide as low of a quality of care as they can get away with so long as it doesn't break the letter of the law or compromise their profitability.

        • Gozzin

          My thoughts on this are a little more radical than most and extend to basic services as well.

          I don't see that as radical and am stunned more people don't feel like you. As to Seaworld,never been there,but I'd do a happy dance if they declared bankruptcy and slide back under their putrid corporate rock to die.

          • staxofmax (edited 6 years ago)

            I'm surprised too, but I'm naturally biased in favor of ideas that I like. It's like most people don't understand what for-profit corporations are for, and they're not able to differentiate between their motives and the means to realize those motives. The primary motivation for all for-profit corporations is to make a profit for their shareholders, and that's true for all of them regardless of how beloved or how hated they are. Everything those corporations do, what they make and the quality standard to which they make it, the services they provide and the quality of service they provide, the marketing they perform, everything is done with the motivation of making the highest return on investment possible. For some industries this seems fine; consumer electronics, manufacturing, retail, areas where competition is sufficient or where their market is not related to essential services. But utilities? Health care? Assisted living facilities? Prisons? Pharmaceutical companies? For these it seems that the drive for profit could be in direct opposition to the quality of services they provide. And the services are essential. We all want power and water. We all want to be healthy. And, well, some of us want those incarcerated to have a basic standard of care. Do we really trust an entity to provide those services for us when the primary motivation of those entities is to extract as much money out of us with for as little cost as possible?

        • Autumnal

          Oh, I absolutely agree, which is why I'm shocked I hadn't thought of it. As soon as a company goes public, it's a death knell imo.

        • b1ackbird

          Some might say not radical enough. I say cowabunga. Just kidding, I say you're on to something. Thanks for enlightening my views on public works and services.

        • imokruok

          Not radical at all! Preach it.

    • fred

      I agree. I was debating this earlier. I understand the need for zoo's and aquariums to rehabilitate animals, to provide care for certain animals that otherwise couldnt survive whilist providing education to fellow humans is a good thing.

      Running a breeding program isnt. Holding animals that are intelligent enough to be self aware, and hold conscious, that could otherwise survive outisde of metal pens is immoral. And its not just Sea World doing it.

      • b1ackbird

        Seriously. I was just telling my wife this very thing as I read the article.

        • fred (edited 6 years ago)

          It really is sad to go to those places for me.

          For example where I fish there is a pod of dolphins I regularly see. There are even times they help me fishing, kinda, they will encircle the schools and drive them to the surface or weedlines and ledges I fish, and boom im hooked up and pulling in mackerel, trout, permit left and right and hit my limit in 20 minutes after having been out there for hours.

          Often they will ride the bow of my boat when im running the edge of the flats, and when I see them coming toward me ill pull off plane, and they will often come dart right by the boat and do jumps and crazy shit. It really is a sight to see and my wife and kids will sometimes come fishing (or some out later) just to see the pod being dolphins.

          Even my 5 year old noticed the difference between them and the ones at the Atlanta Aquarium. He said "they look so bored and sad". yeah they do, and that's why we don't go to most aquariums anymore.

  • rosellem

    I suppose this is an example of people voting with their wallets. An 84% drop is huge. I hope this is an example of how public opinion can reach a tipping point on an issue.

    But Seaworld wasn't exactly the most popular park before. I'm not sure this could be replicated with other issues.

    • AdelleChattre (edited 6 years ago)

      It's a drop in profits. It's not like attendance is that much off. Glancing at the report, attendance is down 1.6%, and they only seem to be concerned about their image having been hurt in California, not Florida or Texas. They blame an early Easter and heavy rains for the drops there, respectively. Taken another way, this statistic could be taken to mean that SeaWorld is now spending freely to safeguard their fortress of cruelty.

  • Qukatt

    Yup, i'm one of those people who wasn't keen on visiting these types of attractions to begin with but after watching Blackfish it totally cemented my resolve never to go there.

  • mrmulder

    I guess this can be considered as "Uplifting news", right!?

  • conception

    Huh, I know the one in San Diego is doing some pretty intense promotions to get people to go, and has been for a while. I wonder how long it'll stay open. Still 84% down is still profitable.

Here are some other snaps you may like...