Andrew Fenton outlines the moral and authorized causes in opposition to sending Marineland’s captive beluga whales to services in different nations.
__________________________________________
Marineland, the now defunct aquarium and “enjoyable park” positioned in Niagara Falls Ontario, has been in the information once more. On October 1st, 2025, Fisheries Minister Joanne Thompson denied them permission to export their remaining 30 belugas to China’s Chimelong Ocean Kingdom. In her assertion, Minister Thompson maintains that persevering with the belugas’ lives in captivity and as a supply of leisure is objectionable and she or he notes the destructive well being impacts of confinement in synthetic environments. Most significantly, as Fisheries Minister, Minister Thompson highlights that denying Marineland the appropriate to export these belugas aligns with the legally required consideration of “one of the best pursuits of the cetacean’s welfare” (Prison Code 445.2 (3)I; Fisheries Act 23.2 (2)(b)).
Canada’s authorized stance on cetacean captivity basically modified in 2019 when the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act acquired royal assent. That Act displays a recognition that retaining cetaceans in captivity in synthetic environments is morally unacceptable. When endorsing the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act to the Canadian Senate, Senators Wilfred Moore and Murray Sinclair (the primary and second sponsors of then Invoice S-203) spoke of the “inherent cruelty” of such captivity. MP Elizabeth Could, the invoice’s sponsor within the Home of Commons, stated a lot the identical.
Picture Credit score: Jenny Spadafora/flickr. Picture Description: A photograph of a beluga whale.
In any case, these tanks present neither the house nor the stimulation typical of the ocean habitats of free-living belugas. What’s extra, these whales can not reside on their very own phrases, socializing with (or avoiding) completely different members of their very own species as they select, constructing household models, exploring their pure ocean setting, and predating. On the face of it, to deliberately deny these animals a richer life, nearer to one thing typical for his or her species, is immoral. To do it for both leisure (or scientific) causes, fails to supply a profit that clearly outweighs the prices to the captive belugas. To decide on to maintain these whales in captivity regardless of understanding these penalties, but in addition understanding such captivity to be related to clear destructive behavioral and well being impacts on the whales, will get us comfortably into the neighborhood of cruelty (or deliberately/willfully inflicting pointless struggling).
As reported within the media, Marineland has had issues correctly caring for its captive animals. Examples embody bear enclosure issues, water high quality points of their cetacean tanks, and the untimely deaths of belugas of their possession or when bought and shipped to Mystic Aquarium within the US. However it has additionally financially benefitted from proudly owning and displaying these animals, as produce other Ontario companies related to tourism within the area. These advantages incur a debt that’s owed to the captive animals. It’s unfair to those animals to hold their future on the great will of sanctuary donors, or, as some are suggesting, the continued patronage of non-Canadian aquariums (which couldn’t function as they at the moment do, have been they to attempt to “arrange store” in Canada).
There was chatter about sending the belugas to accredited aquariums, even within the US. However this calls for that we think about why we’d danger their lives or well being sending them overseas if aquariums could be inbuilt Canada which might be ethically and legally unobjectionable? If these worldwide aquariums stay ethically objectionable, how can it’s ethically acceptable to export the belugas to their services? We can not export-away our acknowledged moral duties to those whales. However the accrediting company additionally issues. The US AZA (Affiliation of Zoos and Aquariums) brazenly opposes authorities bans on captive breeding of cetaceans. No matter they imply by “good animal welfare” or life for captive cetaceans in synthetic environments, it runs counter to the issues that underpin Canadian regulation on the matter. In different phrases, the AZA is just not a dependable companion on the subject of seeing the “inherent cruelty” of cetacean captivity in synthetic environments. As captive belugas are property below most world legal guidelines (I solely hesitate to say “all” as a result of I don’t know of anybody who’s carried out an exhaustive search), there’s nothing stopping the subsequent aquarium (be they accredited or not) breeding these whales to enlarge their “assortment” or financially enrich their group except it’s unlawful to take action of their nation. Minimally, this must be one of many standards for approving their relocation—it should be unlawful to breed captive cetaceans within the receiving nation.
Modifications in Canadian regulation introduced us to this second. Sound moral selections, based mostly on recognizable and defensible rules, should pave the best way ahead for these belugas.
For one more ethically-informed perspective, see Maneesha Deckha’s weblog at The Dialog.
__________________________________________
Andrew Fenton is a Professor of Philosophy at Dalhousie College
