I really would had understood if they didn't put the trainers back in the water. Although I know it would probably been a lesser show. I just think Seaworld needs to be hoping in the that in the future this move won't come back to literally bite them in the...!
I'm not sure that I agree with the argument against increased charges to meet improvements . The alternative view might be that they have always overcharged in order to build a "war chest" for improvements. I prefer to think ( and I might well be wrong ) that they have charged sensibly and then increased prices to meet extra investment costs. Either way we, ultimately, have to pay for whatever entertainment is provided. Nothing comes for free and if the extra prices mean we get an improved Seaworld then I'm in favour of that.
After a longer-than-normal wait, I finally received some information on the original incident I had asked OSHA for under FOIA. I've not yet had a chance to go through it in detail (there's quite a bit, and quite a few intriguing redactions), but one thing I did learn is the investigation is not yet considered closed. This is the exact wording in the response letter I received.
"...The inspection is not yet a closed case file and therefore additional documents may be added to the case file before it's closed."
Over a year since the incident, and the case file remains open? Seems a little long, even for a government agency. Makes me wonder what, exactly, they're still trying to determine, and why.