Sea World's Blue World Project May Prove To Be It's Greatest Challenge
I seem to write a lot about Sea World nowadays because it is the center of controversy over whether we are allowed to keep charismatic megafauna (elephants, marine mammals, gorillas, giraffes, etc.) or for that matter, any animal in captivity. Let me be clear on that I am not anti-Sea World. Sea World holds one of the largest zoological collections in the United States and they have done much more help than harm with marine species. However, with that, I do not agree with some of their killer whale practices (the size of their tanks for example). If you want to blast me for supporting watery prisons, go ahead, but do not deny that Sea World has done some good things in the zoological world. I support Sea World, but not for their killer whales, for the good they do rescuing marine animals and supporting conservation and research.
First of all, let's talk about the Blue World Project. It's a humongous renovation of the killer whale habitats in all three Sea World parks which will involve the expansion of the tanks and some new technological advancements that can mimic the wild habitat of killer whales. It includes 1.5 acres of water (double the size), new immersive environments, and even an advanced feature that will allow killer whales to swim up a "current". Let's be frank in that humans will never be successful in recreating the wild. We can barely create suitable habitats for monkeys, let alone marine mammals who swim for miles each day. Does that mean we cannot hold marine mammals on ethical basis? Sea World seems to think so. While the Blue World Project is not a perfect option, wouldn't it be better for the killer whales to have bigger tanks rather than languish in their smaller, concrete "habitats"?
I, for one, would rather see the killer whales in larger habitats and actively swimming rather than their current homes. I first visited Sea World San Diego in 2007 and was disturbed on the swimming pool state of the killer whale homes. However, I don't blame Sea World for their troubles with killer whales. True ethical captivity of animals takes time. Humans have worked with elephants for centuries and we still have major problems of housing them ethically. Sea World pioneered the use of killer whales in captivity and it's surprising that the death count isn't higher considering they ripped them from the ocean at a young age (then again, the zoos of old around the world did the same with pretty much every other animal). How many zoos have let chimpanzees, lions, and hippos die in small, concrete enclosures? Sea World is no different from other zoological facility, but has received the brunt of the criticism due to it's enormous collection of the ocean's top predator.
Sea World's greatest challenge be the Blue World Project. The Blue World Project was meant to reinvent Sea World's image, but the fact that they want major renovations on the killer whale tanks means they admit that the killer whales are not living in an idealistically good habitat. The California Coastal Commission recently told Sea World San Diego that in order to build the Blue World Project, they would be forced to cease killer whale banning. Sea World is currently challenging the ban in court, citing that the Commission has no jurisdiction over captive killer whales. Animal activists and concerned citizens alike have pointed out that even if Sea World builds the Blue World, it will never be enough to house killer whales ethically.
Sea World has faced serious problems over the past two years since the release of Blackfish. Their once strong attendance numbers have declined rapidly. In 2012, Sea World San Diego reported an annual attendance of 4.4 million. Two years later, the numbers barely eclipsed 3.8 million. Orlando has shown similar numbers, while San Antonio's numbers have not been released to the general public. In addition, Sea World's stock have stumped and many of its corporate partners have abandoned the once strong company. Discounts and a large marketing campaign have seemed to not make a dent in the growing number of people disgusted with Sea World. As you can see above, most don't agree that the Blue World Project will have any effect on the killer whales' welfare. I disagree. How can more space be a bad thing? If they HAVE to stay in captivity, more space is good, right? If they're not going anywhere, we only have one option: improve their current lifestyle as best we can.
Sea World must evolve sooner or later. They cannot continue in their current state or be shut down. I can think of two likely scenarios, neither of which involves Sea World building the Blue World and then everyone flocking back to the parks. It just doesn't make sense. "Honey, guess what? Sea World built a bigger tank! Never mind all the nasty comments I posted on Twitter or the fact that I protested outside their theme park for ten hours. Let's take the kids and go!" Scenario #1: Sea World caves in to public pressure and sends its killer whales to open-water sanctuaries. That would take the public pressure off and help rebuild its reputation. Scenario #2: Sea World wins the fight against the California Coastal Commission and builds Blue World, while desperately trying to find another way to rebuild its tarnished reputation. This can also extend a third likely scenario to Sea World losing the fight against the California Coastal Commission and then either caving into public pressure and building the open-water sanctuaries or building the Blue World, effectively ending killer whales. Pretty much any scenario results in the loss of killer whales. The end of an era is nearly upon us. Sea World must realize this or be forever silenced. I understand they are fighting for long term survival. Activists already hate dolphins in captivity. But what about sharks? Sea lions? Otters? Marine animals are considered some of the hardest animals to care for in captivity. Sea World may go extinct if everyone suddenly decides it's not okay to house any marine animal in captivity, even rescued seals and sea lions. But for the short-term survival, giving up the killer whales would take immense public pressure off Sea World and ensure they can fight to live another day.
Author's Note: It has become clear that Sea World must change. Ringling Bros. have retired their circus elephants (technically the company will still retain control over their herd). Sea World has great potential to do good for zoological specimens. They are correct in the power of inspiration. Children who leave Sea World have a greater understanding of the marine world and the dwindling wild. Sea World has rescued thousands of marine animals and their zoo technology is the best in the world. Is anyone still complaining about Lolita who absolutely lives in a bathtub? No. As humans, we find it much easier to see the faults in companies than it is to see the potential. We should not see Sea World as the enemy. Like any other corporation, they want money, but the animal department (veterinarians, trainers, research scientists, educators, etc.) employed only want what's best for the animals. We need all the help we can get to combat the increasingly dwindling, polluted, dangerous wild that used to be the home of millions of creatures. Sea World is ready to help with their enormous resources, but it cannot do much if they're increasingly worried about their own survival. We only have fragments of biodiversity left and we must preserve what's left for the future. Can Sea World hold back the tide? Only time will tell.
