“But the argument isn’t that SeaWorld doesn’t do anything useful. The argument here is whether the captivity of marine mammals is detrimental to the animals being held captive and if so; do the benefits outweigh the stress that these animals experience? So far I haven’t seen a compelling argument from SeaWorld to prove that they are in fact serving the sole purpose of benefiting the captive animals.
Their response–in a nutshell– has been that they throw millions of dollars into research, as well as training and maintaining their animals while they are “lodging” at their facilities. But that’s almost the equivalent of a child molester saying “yea, I molested a few children, but I donate money to children’s charities every year. So leave me alone.” Also, the argument that SeaWorld no longer captures wild whales seems faulty. At one point, a lot of these whales were wild. The fact that their offspring were born in captivity doesn’t quite sit right to justify captivity. Imagine if the slave trade “industry” was still around in the US (I know it’s still around in some parts of the world). Would the defense that they no longer remove people from their indigenous land and that they all breed in slavery hold any sway? Not in my view. Again, an independent assessment of conditions in the marine parks is crucial to determining whether or not using these animals for shows is something that needs to be banned, changed or allowed to continue as it is.”
I found this and just wanted to quote it here.