Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Nov 5, 2009
When I was at SWO last Saturday I kindly asked for a straw at lunch. I was met with the reply that there are no straws at the park for "animal safety". Unfortunately, this meant that I had to consume my slushy like a barbarian. Oddly enough on Sunday, I grabbed some pizza from a place in Orlando called "Blaze Pizza". The straw that I found for my drink had a brown paper wrapper on it stating that it was made from plants and biodegradable. Shame Sea-World didn't do that instead. Perhaps the Straw budget got too HUUUGE.
RE: Sea World Bans Sucking

That's the last straw!

Really though, that sucks.

*dodges flying tomatoes*
  • Like
Reactions: Username
RE: Sea World Bans Sucking

Seaworld does not allow plastic straws inside the park because of a previous incident. The only place the park has straws is Sharks Underwater Grill, and you'll notice that they are paper, not plastic. Just out of curiosity, while eating at Sharks, I asked my waitor, why paper straws? He replied that a while ago an incident occurred where a plastic straw fell into the Dolphin Nursery Pool, where one of the Dolphins inevitably ingested it. The park had to perform emergency surgery and the dolphin barely survived. Which brings me to the paper straws, of which the park did extensive research to find that they dissolve as soon as they hit the pool water because all pools at SWO have a specific PH that allows it to do so.

It was quite an inspiring story, and something many people don't account for when they instantly assume the ban on plastic straws is ludicrous, and it is definitely not because of money.
RE: Sea World Bans Sucking

Yes, the park only uses paper straws. Although they used to have the same paper straws in places with frozen beverages. Do you know exactly where you bought your drink?
RE: SeaWorld Uses Paper Straws to Protect Animals

Neither Voyagers nor Antarctica had any straws upon request. If it weren't about money, they would have safe straws available imo. I'd say the issues is probably a mix of the two.

PS: I don't appreciate the title censor. It puts an unnecessary tilt on the topic and I don't see any reason why it needed to be changed.
Fur Dozy said:
PS: I don't appreciate the title censor. It puts an unnecessary tilt on the topic and I don't see any reason why it needed to be changed.

"to Protect Animals" is being removed to nullify the slant you perceive.

That said, there was no censorship taking place. We regularly change thread titles so that they better reflect the topic of the thread at hand (and in order to fix spelling and stylization issues). This is done for a few purposes—namely consistency of the user experience, preventing click-bait-y threads aimed at drawing attention to a topic via some means other than actually providing interesting and useful information, and lastly, for search engine optimization purposes.

I appreciate a punny title just as much as the next guy, but it should never take precedence over actually informing a user browsing a list of threads as to what is being discussed there.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad