Tanna Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 The people that hold their noses at Seaworld will probably always hold their noses, they get stuck in a mindset like a 15 year old girl that hates the homecoming queen for being homecoming queen. Those people aren't going to stop and re-examine their logic; they are right and cannot be wrong, it would be a loss to their ego. They aren't going to sign up to a rescue blog. When you suggested a sea pen, my assumption (yah, I know, "ass u me") that you meant a controlled environment that was safe for them. Seaworld is going have to care for these animals, and Seaworld without the whales still means that the whales are somewhere, being tended to, without the revenue they bring in. To be honest, the activists are reminding me of hillbilly neighbors, they got mad that I will defend myself against their fighting dogs jumping my fence, but then got mad when I built a regulation pit bull fence to keep the dogs from getting in my yard, because an eight foot fence isn't neighborly. I would like the makers of Blackfish next film to be about, not tearfully emotional activists on an oily boat looking on a whales in the ocean, but about a pack of activists cleaning up a junked up river, or at least going to the beach and picking up the trash. They can at least explore the impact of boaters and kayakers barging up to wild whales and getting their butts handed to them by the Big Blues. Have you seen the youtube videos lately? Boaters literally barging up to whale faces. How is that any better than than Seaworld is doing? They are like the Timothy Treadwells of the water. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTD-120-420 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 CEO: "We should have done more to fight Blackfish" http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/attractions/os-seaworld-ceo-jim-atchison-20140819,0,373725.story?utm_content=bufferc5111&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 And the hole is dug. Deeper and deeper. Does not SeaWorld have any securities lawyers? If it does, why does it not listen to them? If it does, perhaps it should consider engaging competent counsel. My head hurts. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 ^^ That article is buried behind a premium content paywall, so I can't read it. I can, however, read this story about SeaWorld ending its appeals of the OSHA restrictions against trainers' interactions with killer whales. I wonder what message that move sends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTD-120-420 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 How can I read it but you cannot? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I don't know. But it won't show me the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leland Wykoff Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Does not SeaWorld have any securities lawyers? If it does, why does it not listen to them? If it does, perhaps it should consider engaging competent counsel. Something smells fishy. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovinMeSomeBanshee Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Forgive me if this has already been posted, but the Today Show on NBC just reported that PETA is buying up stock in SeaWorld. This feels like a circus. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanna Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Oh. That's a strange turn of events. That might change my plans, somewhat. Can't go see sea mammals if they're dead and and stuffed in a trash bin after their rescue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldiesmann Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I can also read that Orlando Sentinel article. It's possible that they're like the Enquirer and similar papers, where you can view x articles for free each month without paying. If that's the case, clearing any cookies set by that site (or viewing that article from another browser) should allow you to view it just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faeriewench Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 ^^ That article is buried behind a premium content paywall, so I can't read it. I can, however, read this story about SeaWorld ending its appeals of the OSHA restrictions against trainers' interactions with killer whales. I wonder what message that move sends. Just to clarify, this is about the water works in the SHOWS. Waterworks where it concerns for vet care continues which is more important anyway. I kind of side with Terpy...there have been times where I feel like SeaWorld was better off keeping quiet. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 I can also read that Orlando Sentinel article. It's possible that they're like the Enquirer and similar papers, where you can view x articles for free each month without paying. If that's the case, clearing any cookies set by that site (or viewing that article from another browser) should allow you to view it just fine. I cleared all cookies from orlandosentinel.com, and I still couldn't read it. Looking a little closer, it seems that certain stories are designated "premium" content and require a subscription to view (all others are visible to the public). They offer a free subscription that includes up to five premium stories per 30 days, but it requires me to give them my email address, which I won't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 I don't get it. I have no problem reading the linked story, nor did others... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I don't get it either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanna Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I couldn't read it, either. I was just hoping to catch the gist from another source. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstop Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 PETA buying up stock in SeaWorld?....sounds like they are trying to become majority stock holders just to try to shut down the parks. Here is another article. http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/08/20/peta-takes-advantage-of-stock-dip-to-buy-seaworld-shares/#axzz3B552qOlb 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengals fan Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 ^Majority stockholder? I think they need more than 135 shares for that to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstop Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I'm sure it is their long term plan to buy more. They don't want it to be too obvious...so a little at a time, over time until they are majority holders...it's how fascists take over things without anyone noticing or stopping them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterfanatic83 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Or they may just be making a statement with that purchase... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoddaH1994 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Not the best idea with PETA. If they did end up getting anywhere near a controlling interest, they'd probably just vote to create a "poison pill" option like Cedar Fair, LP, did, allegedly in response to Geoffrey Raynor's major interest purchase after the Apollo buyout fell through. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanna Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 PETA buying up stock in SeaWorld?....sounds like they are trying to become majority stock holders just to try to shut down the parks. Here is another article. http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/08/20/peta-takes-advantage-of-stock-dip-to-buy-seaworld-shares/#axzz3B552qOlb I know I'm thinking small, but with no finances coming in, and let's face it, these are big animals we're talking, who is to take care of them?I know the dream of a lot of PETA is to ride the larger mammals smiling into the sunset, to the Land of Shangrila, but that's just not going to happen with positive results. Are there any proposals for sanitary sanctuaries, with quailified caretakers in any of their plans? Does anyone think that they are playing it one step at a time; get control of the park, then worry about the realities of owning these animals when the time comes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstop Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 The ultimate goal of PETA is to Free Willie...they don't realize that lots of the animals in the park were rescue animals and some were born in captivity without ever being in open sea. Most of the animals would die because they wouldn't be handed a meal by a trainer. But I totally believe PETA is inching their way into ownership so they can release the animals and close the parks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanna Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 The Devil now wears a parka, Cher and I agree on something. The worst people for the longterm care of animals, in her opinion, would be PETA. It's funny how people respond to the whole whale issue. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTD-120-420 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Jackass Backs Blackfish. http://gizmodo.com/watch-this-documentary-and-remember-why-seaworld-sucks-1625352499/all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted August 25, 2014 Author Share Posted August 25, 2014 Irony. Sweet irony. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkroz Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Now if only the Westboro "Baptist Church" and George W. Bush would publicly endorse Blackfish we might be able to convince some folks to reconsider the film's merits. Perhaps the reason why PETA didn't plaster its name all over the film despite their involvement. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldiesmann Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Wait... Blackfish is "highly acclaimed"? Highly controversial perhaps, but only "highly acclaimed" by the likes of PETA, which isn't saying much at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahank Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 ^ Blackfish is highly acclaimed by movie critics. The documentary got a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes and has been well received on multiple other sites. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blackfish_2013/ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/movies/blackfish-a-documentary-looks-critically-at-seaworld.html?_r=0 http://www.metacritic.com/movie/blackfish http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865571400/Sundance-review-Blackfish-is-an-alarming-film.html?pg=all 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldiesmann Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 That's pretty sad really. Apparently people just don't do their own research these days. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkroz Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Worse - people count watching a documentary as doing their research! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.