SeaWorld Orlando loses another orca

Posted Tuesday, October 5, 2010 1:13 PM | Contributed by Jeff

SeaWorld officials report that Kalina, a 25-year-old killer whale at the Orlando theme park, died Monday, Oct. 4, after a sudden illness.

Read more from The Orlando Sentinel.

Related parks

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 4:19 PM
rollergator's avatar

ApolloAndy said:
Heisenberg is laughing right now. Or is he? Is it possible to know?

I'm not entirely....certain. ;~P

You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 4:21 PM

Tekwardo said:
That's not a blanket statement, that's an opinion. I don't think it's immoral to keep an animal as a pet as long as it isn't mistreated, much like I don't care if animals are kept in zoos as long as they're not mistreated.

OK, so I guess keeping an animal like, say, a giraffe as a pet in an apartment with 8-foot high ceilings would fall under the "mistreatment" umbrella. So given that, it's not such a blanket statement. My misunderstanding. :)

However, I'm suggesting that keeping certain animals in zoos is mistreatment. That's my point.

Last edited by djDaemon, Wednesday, October 6, 2010 4:23 PM

Brandon | Facebook

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 4:30 PM
ApolloAndy's avatar

Sadly I think we're getting close to merging back into the pot discussion. ;)

Because...Who is to say what is mistreatment and what isn't? The government? The individual patron? The business owner? The concerned citizen? The media? None of these seem like a great answer, but there has to be some answer.

Last edited by ApolloAndy, Wednesday, October 6, 2010 4:31 PM

Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 4:35 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

I mean mistreatment in it's base terms, not causing harm or pain. A giraffe in an 8 foot room would fall under harm and even pain at some point.

That's why I put that whole comment about 'morals' and 'choice' in there, because it does branch off, but I personally feel as long as an animal isn't being physically beaten or kept in a space that isn't adequate enough to keep it from feeling pain or being harmed, then it's fine.

Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 4:40 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

I like how we have people living in 700 square foot apartments, but we're worried that someone's dog might have to as well.

Personal choice, I suppose.

I tend to put self preservation at #1. I'd step on 100 puppies to save one human.

An animal at the zoo is so far down on my list of priorities that it doesn't even really register.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 4:48 PM
Vater's avatar

+1 for stepping on puppies.

(context, folks)

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 4:49 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

I agree there. But a dog living in a 700 foot apt. is different than a giraffe living in an 8 ft tall apt ;). By too small of a space, I meant like a large dog kept constantly in a cage that it can't comfortably stand or sit in.

And yes, self preservation is #1.

Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 5:00 PM

I like dogs but I live in a townhome. I don't think it would be fair to the dog to be cooped up all day and not have a real yard to play with. Of course, I have neighbors with 2, 4, 6 dogs. So, what do I know?

I'm fine with zoos and aquariums. Bring back Jungle Larry.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 5:11 PM

ApolloAndy said:
And you missed my point, which was that learning is much larger than facts and knowledge. Personal experience with the subject matter is a huge part of learning.

The way you talk about personal experiences at zoos one would think folks are getting into pens and running around with the lions and tigers, petting them and feeding them. That just isn't the case. In most cases, folks are viewing the animals at a distance while they are sleeping or just standing there doing nothing. Given the choice between visiting an animal at the zoo and seeing that animal in action doing things animals do on TV, I think you will learn much more watching on TV even without the "personal experience" at the zoo. Doesn't mean you can't learn something from seeing them at the zoo though.

Whether or not it's weak and dumb (I completely disagree that it is but that's about as subjective as something can be),

Opinions are subjective by definition. Not sure how that is relevant though.

it is reality - for me, for you, and for every human being.

I noted as much. But that doesn't mean its a good thing. Or something to be encouraged.

Within that reality, it is beneficial for people to have personal experiences with a variety of animals.

Never said there wasn't benefits in personal experiences. Never said zoos have no value. Just said that is waning.

And I think that the notion that folks need to see bald eagles in person in cages before they care whether they are extinct or endangered (though reality for many) is weak and dumb. Though to be clear, thats my opinion. :)

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 6:00 PM
kpjb's avatar

What kind of crappy zoos do you people go to where the animals do nothing but lay around in cages?*

My 4 year-old has a love and appreciation of animals specifically because we take him to the zoo regularly. He loves elephants. He had seen elephants on TV, but it doesn't compare to seeing a herd of them out in the open. It doesn't compare to seeing their interaction, feeding, smells, actions, and immensity first hand. He also likes it when the rhinocerouses poop, and then kick their poop. He'd watch those rhinos kick poop all day if I'd let him, but I digress.

Back to the coaster analogy: everyone knows that elephants are big, but until you're standing face to face with one you really can't grasp the entire picture. I knew TTD was fast and I'd been on launched coasters before. I watched it shoot off all day, but I was still blown away by the launch the first time I rode it.

*Many animals in fact do lay around a lot, and that's whether or not they're in a zoo. I've been on safari in Africa, and guess what the majority of the lions did there? Yep. Lay around all day. In fact, if you're watching a slickly edited video of lions running around and catching their prey, I'd say the zoo experience of laying there is more accurate than an edited up video only showing the one time a day the thing gets off its fat ass to kill a zebra.


Wednesday, October 6, 2010 6:34 PM

What kind of crappy animal shows are you watching where all they show is lions killing a zebra? Shows I watch also show them sleeping (and you can tell me they sleep for about 20 hours a day and I get that without having to actually watch them sleeping for the entire 20 hours), raising their young, grooming, males fighting for dominance in the pride, etc.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 9:10 PM

Kinda sad to realize that when I was a 5 year old kid in 1985 and my folks took me to Sea World that his was the "Baby Shamu" I saw.

-Brent Kneebush

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 11:09 PM
Jeff's avatar

The discussion went a lot of places, but there was an earlier point made that zoos are less necessary (which implies that they shouldn't exist) because of other learning opportunities. If for a moment you ignored that fact that a majority of people with HDTV's think everything that appears on them is in high def, I would still argue that it just ain't the same.

When SeaWorld still had a Cleveland park, they regularly did outreach programs to schools, and I got to see and touch penguins up close. Those interactions were the genesis for a great deal of reading and understanding about animals, habitats and environment that I might never have endeavored in otherwise. That's important. I want my kids to have those kinds of opportunities.

And even as an adult, as if I weren't enough of a tree hugger, I was incredibly moved to see a gorilla at Animal Kingdom pick up a bucket, put something in it, and carry it. You don't get that kind of appreciation for nature or its inhabitants by watching TV.

Honestly, I don't care if someone profits from this kind of arrangement. It's worth it because there's a tangible enrichment of our culture.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

Wednesday, October 6, 2010 11:27 PM

21st century zoos have become primarily species conservation centers that focus on careful breeding of endangered captive species, with the goal of release and repopulation. For many critically endangered species zoos have become the last bastion of survival. There have been quite a few success stories than in large part can attributed to the hard work done at zoos: bald eagles, California condors, black-footed ferrets, to name a few.

And on the flip side, zoos also exist to make money. Not in the for-profit sense, of course -- though any trip to a modern zoo gift shop will leave your head spinning at the unadulterated capitalism thriving in these places. But the money is necessary to fund these critically important programs.

So is it a Faustian bargain? Well, duh. But it's the best deal many of these species are ever going to receive. Whereas I have a hard time setting foot in a circus, and even many animal shows at amusement parks leave me a bit uneasy, I'll proudly walk into any zoo and point out to my daughter, "Look, chinstrap penguins!"

My author website:


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC