Why SeaWorld's Stock Could Stop Sinking

If the tide doesn’t turn, there’s always real estate.

Earlier this year, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment took the bold step of blowing up its business model. It announced on March 17 that it would soon end its iconic Shamu shows and the breeding of killer whales altogether. At the time, investors and the general public cheered the move; the stock  SEAS 0.00%  shot up 9.5% that day in mid-March.

SeaWorld management was heartened by the reaction. It appeared they had at last removed what CEO Joel Manby called their “blocking” issue: A virulent controversy over their treatment of orcas that had generated plenty of negative publicity and weighed on the company’s performance in recent years. (For the full story of SeaWorld’s battle to recover from the controversy, read Fortune’s feature, “The Love-Peddling Showman Saving SeaWorld From Itself.”)Finally, the path seemed clear for the turnaround strategy Manby had publicly mapped out at the company’s Investor Day in November 2015. His plan is to infuse the company’s parks with mom- and millennial-pleasing “purpose”; to make them more about animal conservation than animal entertainment; and to make them more educational (with more naturalistic animal displays and lessons about creatures in the wild), but also more fun (with more rides). Manby also has a broader vision for the company, which includes launching international locations, resorts, and a global animal rescue organization.

Manby has said it will take time to get the beleaguered theme park company back on track, but it’s unlikely he realized how briefly the post-announcement bump would last. The news since SeaWorld’s splashy March rebranding has been surprisingly bad. The stock has plunged 30%, and attendance numbers and revenues for the first half of the year were down from already-disappointing 2015 levels, largely due to weak attendance at its Orlando park. Given the revenue decline, analysts have flagged the risk of the company tripping its debt covenant, which would require SeaWorld to borrow more money in order to afford its fat dividend.

Many investors think Manby’s strategy is solid and see promise in an environmentally oriented theme park—one investor even speculated to me that such destinations will be more appealing to Millennial parents than princess-themed amusement parks in the not too distant future. However, there’s a real question whether he can work quickly enough to turn things around and compete in an industry that adds wildly popular attractions like Universal Orlando’s Harry Potter attraction or Disney World’s’s recently opened Frozen Ever After ride each year.

Ben Chaiken, a Credit Suisse analyst who has been bearish on SeaWorld’s prospects, argues the company will likely have to cut its dividend to keep up. In an August research note, he suggested the $1.4 billion company’s annual payout to investors would be better spent on new attractions; that sum, approximately $80 million, could fund two or three new roller coasters.

But, even if Manby struggles with his turnaround plan, analysts and investors point out there’s lots of value there. The company owns 11 parks, only three of which are branded SeaWorld (they account for roughly 60% of attendance, says FBR Capital analyst Barton Crockett). The others include Busch Gardens, Sesame Place, and an assortment of water parks. Those brands remain attractive, as does all the prime real estate that SeaWorld’s parks are situated on. Crockett, who is bullish on SeaWorld, notes that even if things get much worse, the company has a portfolio of properties that, in its IPO filings, was valued at $5 billion; that’s more than two times the current value of its market cap and debt.

Photographer Hopes to Save Animals by Taking Pictures of Them

American photographer Joel Sartore is taking pictures of animals in his effort to save them. He calls the effort, “Photo Ark.”

The National Geographic Society is providing financing for the project.

The term ark comes from the large boat in which Noah, his family and many creatures were saved from a great flood in ancient times. The flood is described in the writings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Joel Sartore hopes to photograph about 12,000 animals. They all are in danger of disappearing forever because of hunting, loss of habitat and climate change.

Sartore launched the project in 1995. He has taken pictures of about half the animals.

He told VOA by email that he began thinking about endangered creatures when he was a teenager. He remembered reading a book about the North American wild pigeon. The bird is extinct now because it was hunted and its habitat was destroyed. He said the story had a strong effect on him.

The last passenger pigeon died “in her cage at the Cincinnati Zoo in Ohio,” he said. “She died in 1914, and the species went from billions to none. I couldn’t get over that -- still can’t.”

As Sartore grew up, he often thought of that last passenger pigeon. He noted, “I never dreamed I’d be meeting face to face with other species like frogs, birds and even rhinos that are down to the last of their kind. But that’s exactly what’s happening now, and I feel like I’ve got to do something to turn things around, while there’s still time to save species.”

Some animal species he will never see again. One example is the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit, which he photographed just before she died. It was the last of its kind.

Sartore said that when he takes pictures, “I hope the animal glances back at me and makes eye contact. It doesn’t always happen, but when it does, that’s exactly the connection I’m hoping to make.”

The Photo Ark project began at a small zoo in Lincoln, Nebraska, Sartore’s home. He has now traveled to more than 40 countries for the photography project.

He said the animals most at risk are in Asia and Africa because of what he describes as “human overpopulation.” He recently visited the West African nations of Gabon and Cameroon. He said he saw major problems “with habitat destruction from logging, farming and poaching due to overpopulation.”

In Cameroon, he searched for the Cross River gorilla and the goliath frog. He said he never saw the frog. “They had all been caught and eaten by local people -- and we saw just one of the gorillas, in a rehab center,” he noted.

He said people are often so hungry that they eat animals they normally would not. Even small birds are killed for food. People are even eating bats, he noted.

Sartore hopes his photos will persuade people to take steps to save the animals. He told VOA half of them could become extinct by the year 2100.

“I hope the public will finally stop and pay attention to the fact that we’re all in this together,” he said. “There’s still time to save the majority of species on the planet, but we must care, and act now. As other species go extinct, so could we.”

Sartore is 54 years old. He hopes he will be able to finish the project. But he has a plan if he cannot. His oldest son is 22 years old and helps him from time to time. The young man has promised to continue the project if his father cannot.

Why Dogs Are Better Than Cats

The dogs vs. cats debate has raged on for all time and for all time the dog side has won! Dogs are man's best friend and cats don't even like us! So why should we like them?

Unlike cats, dogs are very faithful and give you unconditional love forever. Cats barely seem to know you are around most of the time. If there is any problem a dog will serve and even protect you really well, but what would a cat do? Nothing!

The dogs are very obedient creatures and will sit or lie down or heel on command unlike the cats who will just smirk and walk away. Cats cannot be trained as easily as dogs. In fact it can seem impossible to train a cat.

Whenever the owner talks, a dog will tilt their heads and listen but cats don't really seem to have much interest in human speech. Dogs will come upon hearing their name called while cats either don't recognize their name being called or don't care that it's been called! A dog's obedience makes him even more lovable and that is the biggest reason many people prefer dogs over cats.

Dogs also serve as very good companions and will play Frisbee or other games with you in the afternoon while cats, being selfish and self-centered, would prefer to take their afternoon nap quite lazily. Dogs are not at all mischievous by nature and will bring you your slippers or your evening newspaper unlike cats who might bring you a dead mouse.

Dogs also serve as very good watch dogs. There's a reason they call it a watch dog and not a watch cat! They will bark to wake you up if the house is on fire or if he finds anything suspicious going on like thieves or somebody else breaking in while cats will just quietly sneak out the back door.

Dogs are so obedient that they will let you give them a bath quite easily, while a cat will struggle the entire time.

Dogs also look much better at the end of a leash. A dog can be a great partner on daily walk or your daily run. You can't take a cat with you on a run!

Another great advantage that dogs have over cats is that they are easier to co mingle with each other. Dogs tend to get along with other dogs much easier than cats tend to get along with other cats.

Possibly the best reason that dogs are better than cats? Dogs don't use the bathroom inside of your house! They go outside! No matter how much the litter is supposed to keep the smell under control, it still stinks!

Dogs seem to understand your emotions and will try to comfort you whenever you are sad while the cats don't really seem to notice this sort of thing. A cat is far more interested in his own life.

I'm sure there are many more reasons why dogs are better than cats but these are the ones I've thought of today. Dogs are the best friend a man (or woman) can have. Cats? Not so much.

Living with a dog cuts child's risk of asthma by 15%, study shows

Having a dog in the family reduces a child’s risk of asthma by 15% and contact with farm animals can halve it, a comprehensive study has shown.

The findings lend strong support to the “hygiene hypothesis” that suggests living in too-clean conditions early in life can increase susceptibility to allergy conditions such as asthma.

Scientists analysed data on more than 1 million children born in Sweden between 2001 and 2010, where dog and farm animal ownership has to be registered by law.

Dog exposure during the first year of life was associated with a 15% lower likelihood of childhood asthma, while living close to farm animals cut the risk by 52%.

Lead scientist Dr Tove Fall, from Uppsala University in Sweden, said: “Earlier studies have shown that growing up on a farm reduces a child’s risk of asthma to about half.

“We wanted to see if this relationship was true also for children growing up with dogs in their homes. Our results confirmed the farming effect and we also saw that children who grew up with dogs had about 15% less asthma than children without dogs.

“Because we had access to such a large and detailed data set, we could account for confounding factors such as asthma in parents, area of residence and socio-economic status.”

The research, published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, was possible because of Sweden’s organised system of national databases accessible to scientists. Every visit to a specialist physician and every prescription is recorded.

Co-author Prof Catarina Almqvist Malmros, from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, said: “These kind of epidemiological studies look for associations in large populations but do not provide answers on whether and how animals could protect children from developing asthma.

“We know that children with established allergy to cats or dogs should avoid them, but our results also indicate that children who grow up with dogs have reduced risks of asthma later in life.

“Thanks to the population-based design, our results are generalisable to the Swedish population and probably also to other European populations with similar culture regarding pet ownership and farming.”

According to the hygiene hypothesis, lack of early exposure to microbes and parasites may prevent the immune system developing properly. As a result, natural checks on unwanted immune responses that can lead to allergy are lacking.

Erika Kennington, head of research at Asthma UK, said: “Asthma is a complex condition with many different types and causes. While this study identifies a link to living with a dog or regular exposure to farm animals in the first year of a child’s life, and their chance of developing asthma by the age of six, more research is needed. This will help us better understand the effects so that it can be turned into practical advice for parents of young children.”

Pet Sounds: the animal noises sampled in song

Breaking news: Lil Bub, one of the best loved internet cats, will release her debut album Science & Magic on 4 December. According to Andrew WK, who helped create the record with Bub, not only is she the softest creature he has ever encountered, but “also the most musically and compassionately gifted. The songs on this album are her vision. They are by her, about her, and are her.”

Whether you consider it a callous effort to capitalise on one mutant cat’s craze for, or a pioneering step into the outer limits of musical experimentation, the cat album is currently having its moment: take rap duo Run the Jewels, who have released Meow the Jewels, a cat-sound remix of their last album. Or … actually that’s it. Just two albums. But two albums sampling cats in one week is two more than the previous 2015 years have offered up, so worth marking none the less (for the purpose of journalistic integrity, let’s include Mr Mitch and his meow-based track Catford. Which came out in 2013. Three’s a trend).

While the Lil Bub album smacks slightly of a traffic chasing marketing campaign, and Meow the Jewels is a gesture of goodwill (donations to its Kickstarter go to victims of police brutality and neglected animals), previously samples of animals in song have been used for their atmospheric, musical value. The sound of an animal can be symbolic, more evocative or expressive than that of a human’s voice. Take the distant murmurs on Kate Bush’s Moving – 15 seconds of whale song sampled from Songs of the Humpback Whale. In an interview with Sounds, Bush said: “Whales say everything about ‘moving’. It’s huge and beautiful, intelligent, soft inside a tough body.”

It can also be a handy scene-setting device: the nostalgic sound of seagulls squarking through Gruff Rhy’s Shark Ridden Waters, Minnie Riperton’s Lovin’ You – its tweeting birds replicating a bucolic idyll and the first flutters of fancy, or the clip clop and whinny of reindeer on Sleigh Ride by the Ronnettes. No mention of animal sampling symbolism would be complete without the salacious honk of an elephant on Missy Elliott’s Work It.

It’s not always used as a pleasant reminder of mother nature’s creations. Matthew Herbert’s One Pig – an album that documents a pig’s 20-week life, from birth to brutal slaughter – used the samples for a stark look at the meat industry. It’s a terrifying tool for music’s more malevolent, too – the sound of a predator snarling at the start and end of Butthole Surfers’ Mark Says Alright or HateBeak’s Feral Parrot. The world of EDM offers some savage sampling, too – such as Deadmau5’s use of rattlesnakes, or Raff Riley borrowing the sounds of febrile barking dogs.

The sampling of animals can even have its textural qualities, adding layers that an instrument may not – the cooing pigeons on Panda Bear’s Bro’s, or the quiet chatter of birds flitting throughout Radiohead’s The King of Limbs – during the introduction to Give Up the Ghost, the fade out of Codex, and layered under the flugelhorn (yes, flugelhorn) on Bloom.