California Chrome

Tessablue
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am
Location: Boston

Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:47 pm

BaroqueAgain1 wrote:I differentiate between 'aquariums' (like Monterey Bay's) and Sea World.
I believe the abuses by Sea World have been well-documented, and not merely by PETA.
The world has changed, and we no longer think it's OK to put lions and tigers in little steel cages, restrain calves in 'veal' crates, put laying hens in cages so small they can't turn around, or condone puppy mills with neglected dogs crammed into tiny wire cages.
Cetaceans are intelligent, social animals for whom the whole OCEAN is their natural habitat. Putting them in glorified concrete swimming pools is kind of like putting us in an 8X12 cell with no windows.
And then there's the drugging; the forced AI pregnancies, sometimes of females that are too young; the repeated pregnancies spaced too close for health; the forced separation of calves from their mothers, much earlier than they would have in the wild; and the entertainment-motivated tricks taught to make money for the parks.
The American Sea Worlds are supposed to stop the breeding and also stop having the orcas perform tricks but, everywhere else in the world, life for captured cetaceans is pretty awful. And even if Sea World stops perpetrating the breeding and circus shows, that still doesn't solve the issue of large, far-ranging, social animals locked into concrete pools far too small for them.
:evil:
This is kind of case in point... but in any event, many people make no distinction between Sea World and other aquaria.
BaroqueAgain1
Posts: 10417
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:16 pm

Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:04 pm

To be fair, Sea World does have regular aquarium exhibits, and their work to rescue and rehabilitate sea turtles and pinnipeds is admirable...and with the number of local seal and sea lion pups starving due to fish stock declines, that work has become increasingly necessary. :(
So, good and bad exist side-by-side at Sea World.
It's kind of a conundrum; if I want to see animals treated better, do I boycott the Sea Worlds of the world because they do bad things? Or do I give them my business because I want them to be able to continue doing the good things.
I've never been one to want Sea World to go out of business; I just wanted them to do better by their cetaceans.
Tessablue
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am
Location: Boston

Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:14 pm

BaroqueAgain1 wrote:To be fair, Sea World does have regular aquarium exhibits, and their work to rescue and rehabilitate sea turtles and pinnipeds is admirable...and with the number of local seal and sea lion pups starving due to fish stock declines, that work has become increasingly necessary. :(
So, good and bad exist side-by-side at Sea World.
It's kind of a conundrum; if I want to see animals treated better, do I boycott the Sea Worlds of the world because they do bad things? Or do I give them my business because I want them to be able to continue doing the good things.
I've never been one to want Sea World to go out of business; I just wanted them to do better by their cetaceans.
That's fair, and I'm glad you know about the good work they do with animal rehabilitation. Sea World- and killer whale captivity as a whole- does remain controversial within the world of aquaria, but supporting accountability is better than supporting total shutdown, which is the emotional response a lot of people have towards the institution. I fear that horse racing is one high-profile documentary away from suffering a similar fate.

As far as your conundrum, I won't tell you what to do but I will say that there are a number of fantastic aquariums across the country that work in collaboration with Sea World to rescue and rehabilitate animals without sharing some of those demons. Georgia, Mystic, and the Shedd are three cornerstones of marine conservation and research, and all three are very worthy of support. And given the unfortunate fact that they often get caught up in the Sea World backlash, they really could use all the support they can get!
mbondar
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:02 pm

Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:04 pm

Good camera for photographing races?

I know this might be off-topic, but I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a good camera for photographing races? I've used my iPhone for simple snapshots, but I'd really like to have the capability of getting higher quality photos. From what I gather, one of the most important features to look for is the continuous shooting speed, with the higher the speed the better. Does that sound accurate?

Regarding good cameras, I have set a budget of no more than $1,000. I know that's not exactly a ton of money when it comes to cameras but I really don't want to spend a huge mountain of money. I read about the Canon 80D (https://www.photographytalk.com/canon-eos-80d-review) and it seems like a viable option with a decent continuous shooting speed. It's priced well and has other features I like such as the flip-out screen on the back. I'm open to other ideas though, so if anyone has any, let me know!
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4519
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:11 pm

mbondar wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:04 pm
Good camera for photographing races?

I know this might be off-topic, but I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a good camera for photographing races? I've used my iPhone for simple snapshots, but I'd really like to have the capability of getting higher quality photos. From what I gather, one of the most important features to look for is the continuous shooting speed, with the higher the speed the better. Does that sound accurate?

Regarding good cameras, I have set a budget of no more than $1,000. I know that's not exactly a ton of money when it comes to cameras but I really don't want to spend a huge mountain of money. I read about the Canon 80D (https://www.photographytalk.com/canon-eos-80d-review) and it seems like a viable option with a decent continuous shooting speed. It's priced well and has other features I like such as the flip-out screen on the back. I'm open to other ideas though, so if anyone has any, let me know!
Main gripe with Canon is that they put their stablisers in the lens rather than the body so you can pretty much only use Canons. If you can live with that, then yes Canons are good starter cameras. I would advise looking at a Nikon or Sony option as well. Unsure why this was in the Cal Chrome thread.
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
User avatar
Curtis
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 am
Location: Monroe, WA
Contact:

Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:57 pm

Treve wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:11 pm
mbondar wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:04 pm
Good camera for photographing races?

I know this might be off-topic, but I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a good camera for photographing races? I've used my iPhone for simple snapshots, but I'd really like to have the capability of getting higher quality photos. From what I gather, one of the most important features to look for is the continuous shooting speed, with the higher the speed the better. Does that sound accurate?

Regarding good cameras, I have set a budget of no more than $1,000. I know that's not exactly a ton of money when it comes to cameras but I really don't want to spend a huge mountain of money. I read about the Canon 80D (https://www.photographytalk.com/canon-eos-80d-review) and it seems like a viable option with a decent continuous shooting speed. It's priced well and has other features I like such as the flip-out screen on the back. I'm open to other ideas though, so if anyone has any, let me know!
Main gripe with Canon is that they put their stablisers in the lens rather than the body so you can pretty much only use Canons. If you can live with that, then yes Canons are good starter cameras. I would advise looking at a Nikon or Sony option as well. Unsure why this was in the Cal Chrome thread.
Quite a few Chromies were known to snap photos.
Post Reply