So, there seems to be a lot of anti-captivity and anti-Sea World sentiment going on around this story.
But while I'm not particularly fond of some of the choices Sea World has made in the past decade (most notably, the reduction of educational content to make way for flashier entertainment & commercial opportunities), I think the people who shout about "release all captive animals!" are missing some larger points. Facilities, including Sea World, which keep these animals captive turn around and use the knowledge gained from keeping these animals and put it to use in highly successful rehabilitation programs for wild animals.
For example, Sea World has very efficient rescue/rehab programs for manatees and sea turtles--endangered animals which tend to get caught up in man-made injuries fairly often. How would manatees injured by boat propellers get care if not for marine mammal facilities in Florida?
And release all the animals? As someone pointed out earlier, the failed "Free Willy" venture cost somewhere over $20 million. $20 million to watch
one whale beach itself and die alone. Now think about all the other killer whales, many of which were born and raised in captivity and would never be accepted into wild pods--how is it feasible to release these animals? Now consider how many hundreds of bottlenose dolphins (a very high percentage of which are captive born), belugas, pacific white-sides, pilot whales, false killer whales, commerson's dolphins, etc are also in captivity. Who the heck is going to pay for lengthy (several years at best) release preparation projects? The last successful release program I recall was when they released "Echo" and "Misha" in Tampa Bay in the '90s. But that project was planned from the moment the animals were first captured as a program ending in wild release--which is certainly not the case for the majority of the animals in captivity.
What's the other option? Euthanize? Keep them in captivity, but not performing in shows? Overly commercialized or not, it's the revenue from ticket sales driven by those shows that pays to keep these animals fed and housed. If that comes to an end, who is going to assume that cost? And I fail to see how killing flat out them is kinder than keeping them alive, healthy, and well fed.
Issues of morals aside, it's simply not practical to contemplate releasing these animals--most of which would likely never survive the release process.
Which likely brings Sea World to one heck of a quandary right now. What do they do with Tillikum now? He's got a record of deaths--which even if considered 'accidental' still set a precedent that he should be considered dangerous. But he's not a good candidate for release by any stretch and to euthanize him would bring horrendous bad press down upon them. Plus, he's their primary breeding male--he was actually sent to Sea World on a breeding loan following the incident at SeaLand of the Pacific, as a matter of fact.
My speculation? They're probably going to discontinue ANY performances with him... the splashing at the end of the show, Dine with Shamu presentations, etc. And taking a heck of a lot more safety precautions during interactions between him and his handlers. I can't see them euthanizing him, though.
Honestly, working with animals is dangerous... even for domesticated, non-apex predators. People get killed or injured by horses all the time (I've got plenty of scars and crooked toes from horse-related injuries, that's for sure!), it's just a risk you take when you work with animals.
So.. there's my long-winded ramble. Hope it came out coherently, as I typed it up in between calls at work.
