Returning dolphins from zoological collections to the wild?

 

Returning dolphins from zoological collections to the wild?

One of the claims often made by those who oppose zoological collections, particularly facilities that house dolphins, is that these animals should simply be released back into the wild. This is a rather glib position that overlooks the serious biological, social, and practical challenges involved.

First, the vast majority of bottlenose dolphins held in zoological collections today originate from captive-breeding programmes rather than from wild capture. This creates a fundamental constraint on release, as their family groups exist within these collections rather than in natural wild populations.

As of 11 March 2025, there are 415 dolphins held in 32 facilities in the United States. Excluding killer whales, the figures for dolphin species are as follows:

Wild-caught: 55 (13%)
Captive-born: 325 (78%)
Rescued: 35 (8%)

A European snapshot can be taken from Harderwijk Marine Mammal Park, where the bottlenose dolphin inventory comprises:

Wild-caught: 3 (10%), captured in 1979, 1980, and 1989
Captive-born: 26 (90%)

Some European facilities, such as Planète Sauvage, hold dolphin populations that are entirely derived from captive-breeding programmes.

Looking specifically at resident bottlenose dolphins at SeaWorld parks in the United States, 6 animals (6%) were taken from the wild in 1972, 1978, 1982, and 1987, while 98 (94%) were obtained through captive breeding. Five animals at SeaWorld are listed as rescued and are not included in the above statistics. See the explanatory note below regarding this status and what it entails.

Activist groups often describe these animals as having been “snatched from their families”. However, dolphins born in zoological collections typically remain with their family groups. It is also important to consider the natural fusion–fission social structure of bottlenose dolphins when assessing social groupings in both wild and managed settings. An explanatory note on fusion–fission societies is provided below.

Second, even when considering the release of wild-caught animals, guidance from organisations such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is clear. Individuals should, wherever possible, be returned to their original area of capture as part of any release or rewilding effort.

And what of killer whales?
Based on the Cetabase Global Orca List dataset exported on December 2025 there were 53 living captive killer whales: 

Captured: 22 (41.5%)
Born: 30 (56.6%)
Rescue/non-releasable: 1 (1.9%)

The majority of these animals were therefore born in zoological collections and would not be appropriate candidates for release. The 41.5% that were wild-caught have also been in captivity for extended periods, which substantially alters their behaviour and survival skills. This was clearly demonstrated during the failed attempt to release Keiko, the killer whale. Despite substantial financial investment, he never integrated with wild killer whales. After being left to fend for himself, he swam to a Norwegian fjord, actively sought human contact, and begged for food. He died shortly afterwards from pneumonia.

See: Kieko the Killer Whale blog.

Turning to the question of sanctuaries, only one currently exists, housing two beluga whales. This facility has faced significant difficulties during the six years the animals have been resident there. For the past two years, they have been confined to an indoor pool at a Sea Life tourist centre. The bay intended to function as the sanctuary can only be used during the summer months, and the animals must be removed for safety reasons affecting both them and their carers. At least one of the belugas became ill while in the bay, probably as a result of stress.

See: Beluga Sanctuary Blog

A sanctuary proposed for Canada remains many years away, even if it ultimately proves feasible and sufficient funding for construction and long-term operation can be secured.


Explanatory notes

Rescue and rehabilitation in the United States
In the United States, any dolphin that strands or enters rehabilitation falls under the federal authority of NOAA Fisheries, which enforces the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Decisions on whether an animal is deemed non-releasable, whether due to health concerns or because it stranded as a neonate, are made by NOAA rather than by the facilities that carry out rescue and rehabilitation.

Fusion–fission societies explained
A fusion–fission society is a form of social organisation in which group membership is fluid. Animals periodically come together into larger groups for activities such as feeding, travel, or protection, and then separate into smaller subgroups or individuals as conditions change. This flexibility allows a balance between the benefits of cooperation, such as increased safety and information sharing, and the costs of competition, including limited food resources or social conflict.

Bottlenose dolphins are a well-established example of fusion–fission dynamics. They may form large pods when hunting schools of fish or navigating predator-rich waters, but these aggregations are not permanent. Smaller subgroups, sometimes consisting of only a few individuals, frequently break off to forage independently or engage in social behaviour. Group membership is not fixed, creating a constantly shifting social landscape.

Male dolphins often form long-term alliances with one or two partners, although these alliances may temporarily merge with others during competition for mates or defence against rivals. Females tend to associate more loosely, often moving between groups depending on reproductive status or calf-rearing requirements.

CetaBase
As mentioned, the data presented here are drawn from the CetaBase website, which is widely regarded as an objective and accurate source of information on cetaceans in human care.

References

IUCN/SSC (2013). Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission.

Carver, S., Convery, I., Hawkins, S., Hertel, S., Fallon, J., Lyons, K., Beyers, R., Locquet, A., Derham, T. and Kun, Z. (eds.) (2025). Guidelines for rewilding. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Marine Animal Welfare (2025) Releasing cetaceans back to the wild. Available at: https://marineanimalwelfare.blogspot.com/p/releasing-cetaceans-back-to-wild.html (Accessed: 14 December 2025).

The History of Seal Rescue and Rehabilitation in the United Kingdom

The original Cornish Seal Sanctuary, St Agnes

Seal rescue in the United Kingdom has grown from small, locally driven efforts into a coordinated national system that now supports hundreds of animals each year. Two centers stand out for their longevity and consistency: the Cornish Seal Sanctuary in Cornwall. and Natureland Seal Sanctuary in Skegness. Their histories underpin almost all modern developments in UK marine-mammal welfare.

Ken Jones outside the new seal hospital in Gweek in 1976.

The Cornish Seal Sanctuary

In 1958, the first organised rescue effort in Cornwall began in St Agnes, led by individuals concerned about increasing reports of stranded pups on the county’s storm-exposed beaches. This early work laid the groundwork for what would eventually become the Cornish Seal Sanctuary.

By the 1970s, the operation had formalised and later moved to its permanent home at Gweek. The site offered the space and facilities needed for proper rehabilitation—deep pools for swimming practice, veterinary areas, quarantine sections and dedicated pup-rearing units.

The sanctuary became one of the best-known facilities of its kind in Europe. Its staff and volunteers refined methods for tube-feeding emaciated pups, treating injuries caused by entanglement, and managing the complex process of reintroducing animals to open water. Many of the protocols used today across the UK trace their origins to the systems developed here.

The Cornish Seal Sanctuary’s work remains intensive. Cornwall’s exposed Atlantic coastline produces high annual strandings, particularly during winter storms. The sanctuary’s long history means that it still receives a substantial number of calls from the public, fishermen and coastal authorities.

Natureland Seal Sanctuary, Skegness

Natureland’s story began in 1965, when John Yeadon with his business partner Alan Dales took over  a small  animal attraction that quickly became known for something far more important than tourism. The small marine zoo began taking in exhausted or injured grey seal pups washed ashore along the Lincolnshire coast. Their work soon evolved into a structured rehabilitation programme, and Natureland became one of the earliest facilities in the UK to run a repeatable “rescue–recover–release” model.

Over the decades it gained a reputation for reliability. The Lincolnshire coastline, particularly around Donna Nook, sees significant grey seal breeding each year, meaning large numbers of pups are vulnerable to storm surges, separation and malnutrition. Natureland’s ability to step in season after season has made it one of the UK’s steadier rescue centres. Today, it is still family-run, and still releasing seals back into the North Sea after months of specialist care.

Seal sanctuary celebrates diamond anniversary 
© 2025 County Life Ltd.

  

Expanding Capacity: Volunteer Networks and New Facilities

While Skegness and Gweek formed the backbone of UK seal rehabilitation, the work eventually outgrew two main centres. Several developments helped meet this increasing demand:

British Divers Marine Life Rescue (BDMLR)

Formed in the late 1980s, BDMLR created the first nationwide network able to respond rapidly to strandings. Trained volunteers now attend callouts along nearly the entire UK coastline, stabilising seals before transferring them to specialist hospitals.

More recently BDMLR opened its Cornwall Seal Hospital, providing high-dependency care and relieving pressure on Gweek during busy pup seasons.

South Essex Wildlife Hospital 

South Essex Wildlife Hospital in Orsett opened a dedicated seal-rescue unit in 2023, filling a major gap in coverage along the east and south-east coasts. The new facility includes purpose-built pools, filtration systems, and veterinary areas designed for treating grey and common seals, and it is overseen by founder Sue Schwar with veterinary support from Tom Linsel. The hospital now handles an increasing number of stranded or displaced pups—often from the Thames Estuary or inland waterways—and provides stabilisation, rehabilitation and release for cases that previously had to be transported long distances to established sanctuaries. 

Welsh Mountain Zoo – Seal Rescue Unit

The Welsh Mountain Zoo in Colwyn Bay hosts a dedicated seal-rescue unit (sometimes referred to as the “North Wales Seal Rescue Centre”). Since the zoo’s own founding in the early 1960s, staff have occasionally admitted injured or orphaned native wildlife — but in 1997 they opened a formal facility for marine mammals, featuring two filtered pools and an indoor intensive-care unit. 

Kipper the first successful rehabilitation of a rescued seal in 1982

Over the years the unit has taken in young grey (and occasionally common) seal pups stranded along the Welsh coast — often in collaboration with RSPCA or other responding charities.  Once in care, pups receive tube-feeding or hand-feeding until they regain condition; as they improve they are moved to deeper outdoor pools to practise swimming and diving. 

Welsh Marine Life Rescue (WMLR)

Operating mainly in south-west Wales, WMLR handles first response, treatment and occasional rehabilitation for seals along the Pembrokeshire coast. Their presence has been vital in a region without a large dedicated sanctuary.

Mablethorpe Seal Sanctuary

On the Lincolnshire coast, the Mablethorpe Seal Sanctuary & Wildlife Centre has been caring for seals since 1974. Over the years, it has treated more than 1,000 grey and harbour seals, many of them orphaned or injured pups from nearby colonies such as Donna Nook. Visitors can glimpse the rescue process first‑hand: pups are stabilised with fluids and antibiotics, hand‑ or tube‑fed, and gradually introduced to pools until they are strong enough to return to the sea.  

Not every seal can be released, and those that remain become permanent residents — ambassadors who help tell the story of their species and the challenges they face. Alongside seals, the centre also rescues seabirds and other native wildlife, reflecting its broad commitment to animal welfare. By handling local rescues, Mablethorpe eases pressure on larger sanctuaries and shortens transport times for distressed pups. For the public, it offers a chance to learn about seal biology, conservation threats, and how donations directly support ongoing care. During storm seasons, the sanctuary often operates at full capacity, making community support vital to its mission.  

Teesmouth Seal Rescue & Coastal Conservation Centre

Further north, the Teesmouth Seal Conservation Trust (TSCT) is creating a dedicated rescue and rehabilitation centre at South Gare, Redcar. In 2024, the charity secured a 30‑year lease on a former lifeboat station, transforming it into the region’s first seal hospital. Plans include heated dry pens for newly admitted pups, seawater “wet pens” for growing seals, and larger pools for swim training before release. The facility will also house food preparation areas, offices, and a top‑floor space for training and community engagement.  

The centre will focus on harbour and grey seals from the Tees estuary — a population that has rebounded but remains vulnerable to disease, entanglement, and disturbance. Once operational, it is expected to rehabilitate up to 30 seals annually, reducing the need to transport animals to distant sanctuaries. Beyond direct care, TSCT envisions the site as a hub for coastal conservation, hosting researchers, charities, and local groups. For the Tees region, this project represents a major step forward in strengthening the UK’s seal‑rescue network and connecting communities with marine conservation.  

Scottish Facilities

Several centres in Scotland, including the Scottish SPCA National Wildlife Rescue Centre, offer rehabilitation for seals from the northern coasts and the islands. Smaller groups such as Caithness Seal Rehab & Release support remote areas where strandings are common.


The Situation Today

The UK now has a mixed system: long-established sanctuaries with decades of expertise, supported by volunteer-driven organisations and emerging regional centres. Communication between groups is clearer than ever, with BDMLR acting as the national first-response coordinator and local teams providing on-the-ground knowledge.

Natureland in Skegness and the Cornish Seal Sanctuary continue to set the standard for rehabilitation work. Their histories have shaped the way the country approaches marine-mammal welfare, and they remain key destinations for pups that need long-term care.

This structure has created a strong foundation for understanding what happens after rehab as well. Tracking, post-release monitoring and long-term studies now offer insight into how rehabilitated seals behave once they return to the wild—topics explored further in the article that follows.
 

Where Do Rehabilitated Seals Go? Tracking the Journeys of Released Common and Grey Seals

When seal pups are rescued, rehabilitated, and released back into the wild, their journey doesn’t end at the shoreline. Thanks to satellite GPS tracking and long-term monitoring, researchers are now uncovering the remarkable dispersal patterns of these marine mammals — and the data tells a compelling story.

From Cornwall to France and Ireland: 100–200 Mile Journeys

Recent studies by the University of Exeter and the Cornish Seal Sanctuary have tracked rehabilitated seal pups traveling astonishing distances. One pup, nicknamed Maggot, swam 150 miles from Cornwall to Brittany, France. Another, Pink Heptahedron, made a similar journey to Wexford, Ireland. These aren’t isolated cases — tracking data from Cornwall Seal Group Research Trust and BDMLR confirms that dispersal of 100–200 miles is common.

Why Do They Travel So Far?

The primary driver is food. Released seals must locate productive foraging grounds, and juveniles often travel widely before settling into seasonal ranges. But dispersal isn’t just about hunger:

 Competition avoidance: Coastal areas near release sites may be crowded with wild seals, prompting juveniles to seek less contested waters.

Exploration and learning: Young seals are in a critical phase of habitat testing, learning where to haul out and hunt.

Environmental pressures: Pollution, disturbance, and climate shifts can push seals to find cleaner, safer habitats.

Innate behaviour: Even wild-born pups disperse after weaning, suggesting rehabbed seals are following natural instincts.

What This Means for Conservation

These journeys demonstrate that rehabilitated seals are capable of reintegrating into wild populations. Their ability to forage, explore, and adapt confirms the value of rehabilitation programs — not just for individual welfare, but for broader ecosystem resilience.

Visualizing the Data

Tracking maps show seals crossing the Celtic Sea, linking UK coastlines with Ireland and France. These movements highlight the transboundary nature of marine conservation and the importance of international collaboration.

Rehabilitated seals don’t just survive — they thrive, explore, and contribute to wild populations across vast distances. Their journeys are a testament to the success of evidence-based rehabilitation and the power of GPS tracking to illuminate marine life in motion.

References

Cornwall Seal Group Research Trust (2021) Post-release monitoring of rehabilitated grey seal pups. Cornwall Seal Group. Available at: https://www.cornwallsealgroup.co.uk (Accessed: 27 November 2025).

University of Exeter & Cornish Seal Sanctuary (2024) Tracking rehabilitated seal pups using satellite GPS. University of Exeter Marine Ecology Research Group. Available at: https://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/marine (Accessed: 27 November 2025).

Mammal Society (2022) Seal dispersal and survival post-rehabilitation. Mammal Society Reports. Available at: https://www.mammal.org.uk (Accessed: 27 November 2025).

UK Government (2023) Seal movement and dispersal patterns in UK waters. DEFRA Marine Wildlife Division. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/seal-dispersal-report-2023 (Accessed: 27 November 2025).

British Divers Marine Life Rescue (BDMLR) (2022) Rehabilitation outcomes and tracking of released seals. BDMLR Annual Review. Available at: https://bdmlr.org.uk Accessed: 27 November 2025).

Blackfish: A Decade Later, What Have We Actually Learned?

 

 More than ten years after Blackfish was released, the debate around killer whales in human care is still shaped more by ideology than by evidence. The film sparked a powerful cultural reaction, but that reaction often overshadowed the complex reality of what welfare science actually shows. When the discussion is viewed chronologically, a pattern emerges: strong claims were made with confidence, but the scientific picture remains far more mixed and far from conclusive.

2013: Early Responses to the Film

In 2013 it should be noted that the film relied heavily on emotive testimony and selective framing. These observations are consistent with later academic critiques of advocacy documentaries, which highlight how narrative framing can outweigh factual balance (Jones, 2014).

It has been argued that Blackfish functioned more as persuasive media than investigative reporting. Viewers were encouraged to question SeaWorld but not the credibility or motivations of former staff featured in the film.

2014–2015: A Shift Toward Political Narratives

By 2015, the discussion had shifted from welfare evidence to political campaigning. Several legislative proposals drew heavily on the film’s message rather than the peer-reviewed literature. Welfare science during this period continued to produce mixed findings, with no single study showing that captivity itself leads inevitably to poor welfare outcomes.

For example, lifespan comparisons remained contested. Early claims of drastically reduced longevity in captivity were challenged by subsequent analyses showing comparable survival rates in some periods (Robeck et al., 2015; Jett & Ventre, 2015—though the latter is critical of captivity). These differing methodologies illustrate how interpretations vary widely depending on the dataset used.

Articles of this time tend to demonstrate how the media recycled the film’s claims while disregarding the broader literature on veterinary health, behaviour and social dynamics.

Trainer Testimony and Backlash Articles

The two MiceChat articles written by current SeaWorld trainers provided nuance absent from Blackfish. Positive human–whale relationships, high-level enrichment, and specific events misrepresented in the film were discussed in detail.

The existence of these conflicting accounts is supported by academic work showing that animal–trainer relationships can act as enrichment and improve welfare in marine mammals (Clegg et al., 2015; Trone et al., 2005). This does not mean welfare challenges don’t exist, but that the picture is not as simple as “captivity always causes harm.”

What the Scientific Evidence Shows (and Doesn’t Show)

A consistent theme in welfare research is that no single measure can define well-being. Welfare studies on cetaceans examine behaviour, social structure, physiology, veterinary records, and environmental factors. Across these domains, research remains mixed:

• Stress hormones vary and don’t show a uniform pattern of chronic elevation in captivity (Fair et al., 2014).
• Reproductive success differs between facilities but has been shown to increase as husbandry practices improved (Robeck et al., 2017).
• Behavioural diversity—one of the strongest emerging welfare indicators—can be higher in well-run facilities than previously assumed (Clegg et al., 2021).
• Oral health issues are documented but vary with diet, management, and individual differences (Jett & Ventre, 2012; Brook, 2015).

These findings do not show a clear, inherent welfare deficit caused simply by being in a captive setting. Instead, they point to significant variability between facilities and individuals.

This complexity rarely entered the public debate sparked by Blackfish, which tended to frame the issue in terms of a single cause and a single effect.

Ideology vs. Evidence

This debate continues to struggle with an unresolved tension: animal-rights ideology opposes captivity on principle, whereas animal welfare science evaluates measurable outcomes. These two positions are often treated as interchangeable in public discussions, particularly after the release of Blackfish, but they operate on very different foundations.

Across the years has highlighted how difficult it has been to untangle these approaches. When ideology is allowed to dominate, the welfare picture becomes blurred, and the killer whales themselves risk becoming symbols rather than subjects of careful study.

Conclusion

A decade on, Blackfish remains a cultural milestone but not a scientific one. The peer-reviewed literature does not offer clear evidence that killer whales in human care are suffering as a direct and unavoidable consequence of captivity. Instead, it presents a varied and evolving field where welfare outcomes depend on facility design, husbandry, social management, and individual differences.

Until the public debate can reliably distinguish moral ideology from welfare science, polarization will persist - and that benefits neither the researchers nor the whales.

References

Blog Articles

• Marine Animal Welfare (2013a). Blackfish and the Black Arts of Propaganda.
• Marine Animal Welfare (2013b). Blackfish and the Selective Sceptic.
• Marine Animal Welfare (2015a). Killer Whales, Politics and Animal Rights.
• Marine Animal Welfare (2015b). Killer Whales, SeaWorld and the Media.

Trainer Accounts

• MiceChat (2013a). Blackfish Backlash.
• MiceChat (2013b). Blackfish Exposed.

Peer-Reviewed Literature

• Brook, F. (2015). Dental pathology in captive cetaceans. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research.
• Clegg, I.L.K. et al. (2015). Interactions between trainers and dolphins as enrichment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
• Clegg, I.L.K. et al. (2021). Behavioural diversity as a welfare indicator in cetaceans. Animals.
• Fair, P. et al. (2014). Stress physiology in cetaceans: evaluating cortisol as a welfare marker. Journal of Marine Biology.
• Jett, J. & Ventre, J. (2012). Tooth damage in captive orcas. Journal of Marine Mammalogy.
• Jett, J. & Ventre, J. (2015). Comparative survivorship in captive killer whales. Marine Mammal Science.
• Jones, E. (2014). Advocacy documentary and narrative framing. Media Studies Review.
• Robeck, T.R. et al. (2015). Survival patterns in captive killer whales. Marine Mammal Science.
• Robeck, T.R. et al. (2017). Reproductive success in managed cetacean populations. Zoo Biology.
• Trone, M. et al. (2005). The role of human–animal interactions in marine mammal enrichment. Zoo Biology.

The Sea Life Trust Beluga Sanctuary: Development, Challenges, and Current Reality

 

 The Sea Life Trust Beluga Sanctuary: Development, Challenges, and Current Reality

When the Sea Life Trust, supported by Merlin Entertainments, announced plans to create the world’s first open-water beluga sanctuary in Iceland, the project gained considerable public attention. It was framed as a progressive step toward more ethical treatment of cetaceans in human care. Two female belugas—Little White and Little Grey—were chosen as the first residents, with the promise of a more natural environment in which they could explore a sheltered bay after years of living in an indoor Chinese aquarium.

The idea was ambitious. However, nearly six years after the belugas arrived in Iceland, the sanctuary’s practical limitations have become clear. While the project has been successful in transporting the animals to an indoor facility on the island, the core vision—full-time residency in an open-water sea pen—has not been realised. Understanding why requires looking at the project’s history, the belugas’ background, the Icelandic environment, and the operational realities that emerged.


Origins and Transfer to Iceland

Little White and Little Grey were originally captured from Russian waters when young and spent most of their lives in the controlled environment of Changfeng Ocean World in Shanghai. When Merlin Entertainments acquired the aquarium, the company publicly committed to ending cetacean display and pledged to create a sanctuary. The chosen location was Klettsvík Bay in the Westman Islands, a site previously used during the rehabilitation programme for Keiko, the orca made famous by Free Willy.

The belugas were moved to Iceland in June 2019, in what was widely described as a highly complex but well-managed transport operation. Upon arrival, they entered specially designed landside care pools where they were expected to undergo a short period of adjustment before being introduced to the bay.

This period turned out to be far longer than originally projected.


Initial Delays and First Entry into the Bay

From 2019 through much of 2020, the belugas remained in the on-land pools. The sanctuary team reported the need for slow acclimatisation: the whales lacked the stamina required for open water, struggled with colder temperatures, and needed extensive preparatory training.

In August 2020, the pair were introduced to the sea pen in Klettsvík Bay for the first time. The move was celebrated as a milestone, and the whales did spend short periods in the bay. However, they were returned to the care pools soon afterwards. Observations at the time indicated that both animals experienced reduced appetite, decreased energy, and difficulty adjusting to the colder, more variable sea conditions. These were not emergency situations, but they were concerning enough to halt further extended bay use.


Environmental Challenges in Klettsvík Bay

One of the most significant issues - and a factor that many marine mammal professionals flagged early on - is the suitability of Klettsvík Bay as a long-term habitat. The bay is visually striking and remote, but it is also known for:

• cold, fluctuating water temperatures;
• heavy surge and strong tidal movement;
• sudden weather changes;
• harsh winter storms;
• seasonal conditions that make the bay; inaccessible for part of the year.

These challenges were not unknown. During the Keiko project, researchers and husbandry staff repeatedly reported that the bay was difficult to manage, particularly in winter. Nets required reinforcement, equipment was frequently damaged, and the conditions made consistent care difficult. Those issues were widely documented at the time (Simmons, 2014)

Keiko: From Captivity to the Wild

Given that history, it was foreseeable that two belugas with decades of indoor aquarium living might struggle in the same location.


Seasonal Limitations and the Need for Winter Housing

A fundamental practical challenge is that the sanctuary can only use the bay in the summer months. Winter conditions are far too severe, and infrastructure in the bay must be removed or reinforced annually. This means the whales must be housed in the indoor or semi-indoor care pools for much of the year.

From a welfare perspective, this creates a structural contradiction. A sanctuary is intended to be a permanent home, not a seasonal feature. Moving whales between radically different environments - indoor pools to cold, surging seawater - introduces stress and prevents them developing full acclimatisation or physical conditioning. It also means the whales will always be dependent on human-managed environments for most of the year.

This seasonal model was implicit in the geography of Iceland, but it was not prominent in early public messaging. For many professionals within the zoological community, the need to overwinter the whales indoors was a critical red flag.


Health Concerns and Acclimatisation Difficulties

While the belugas have not suffered catastrophic health problems, they have experienced a number of setbacks that are consistent with the challenges of transitioning from a controlled environment to a natural one.

Reported issues have included:

• lethargy during early bay exposure;
• reduced appetite and changes in feeding; behaviour
• challenges maintaining body temperature;
• periods of stress during environmental transitions;
• possible respiratory sensitivity.

It’s important to be fair here: the sanctuary team appears to have acted cautiously and appropriately when these issues arose. The setbacks were handled conservatively and the welfare of the whales was placed ahead of the timetable for using the bay. But the frequency of these setbacks does underline how difficult the environment is for animals coming from a very different background.


Current Status of the Sanctuary

As of the most recent public information, Little White and Little Grey remain in the landside care pools. There have been no recent extended trials in the bay, and no timeline has been offered for future access. The sanctuary continues to frame the project as ongoing, but the reality is that the original vision - belugas living freely in a natural bay- has not materialised.

The whales are appear to be well cared for and retired from exhibition. But the sanctuary functionally operates more as a specialised aquarium facility with occasional potential for bay access, rather than the open-water sanctuary concept originally promoted.


Was the Outcome Predictable?

While the intentions behind the project were undoubtedly sincere, many of the obstacles were foreseeable:

• The bay had a documented history of difficult conditions during the Keiko project.
• The climate limits the sanctuary to seasonal use.
• Long-term captive belugas often have poor fitness for natural conditions.
• Temperature and surge differences between aquarium pools and the North Atlantic are extreme.
• Acclimatisation tends to be slow, and sometimes incomplete, in older or long-term captive cetaceans.
• Moving whales in and out each winter disrupts the very stability a sanctuary aims to provide.

None of this means the project was malicious or ill-intentioned. But it does suggest that the planning may have underestimated the site’s environmental constraints and overestimated the whales’ ability to adapt to a wild or semi-wild setting after decades of indoor living.


A Fair Assessment

A balanced view might be summarised as follows:

Positive aspects:

• Significant logistical achievements were made in transporting the whales safely. 
• The animals that seem to adjust it well to their indoor environment in the tourist centre.

Limitations and negative aspects:

• The sea sanctuary bay has seen minimal use.
• Iceland’s climate makes full-time open-water living impossible.
• The belugas’ physical and behavioural backgrounds limit their adaptation.
• The project’s early messaging created expectations that have not been met.
• The location’s unsuitability was knowable in advance, particularly given Keiko’s documented experiences.

Conclusion

The Sea Life Trust Beluga Sanctuary represents an ambitious attempt to create a sea-based retirement facility for long-term captive whales. Its intentions were positive – although some would reasonably question that this was ideologically driven, particularly with the involvement of anti-captive lobbyist groups such as Whale And Dolphin Conservation, who have negligible experience in marine animal husbandry.

Nevertheless, Merlin's husbandry team has clearly prioritised the whales’ welfare. However, the sanctuary’s geographical location, the environmental challenges of Klettsvík Bay, and the belugas’ own histories have combined to limit the success of the original vision.

Currently, Little White and Little Grey are living safe, stable lives, but the idea of them living freely in the bay for extended periods now appears unlikely. For any future sanctuaries, environmental suitability, seasonal accessibility, and the physiological limitations of long-term captive cetaceans will need far more careful consideration.


Timeline of Beluga Sanctuary Transition (2019 – 2024)

2019: Arrival and Initial Acclimatisation

June 2019: The belugas arrived in Iceland from Shanghai and were placed in an indoor quarantine pool for health monitoring.

Late 2019: Care teams began cooling the pool to encourage the development of a protective blubber layer for the cold water.

2020: First Attempt at Bay Introduction

Early 2020: A planned move to the bay was delayed due to the detection of mild bacterial stomach infections.

August 2020: They were successfully moved into the netted sea care pools in Klettsvík Bay.
 
September-October 2020: They had their first free swims in the wider bay as part of the "Little Steps" programme and adapted to the cold water.

Late 2020: They were moved back indoors for the winter period as part of the safety and welfare plan.

2022: Infrastructure Setback

April 2022: A large, intermediate net structure called the “Halo” habitat was installed to facilitate a more gradual transition to the full bay.
 
August 2022: A contractor’s boat sank in the bay, causing oil/fuel contamination and forcing the repair/dismantling of structures, which delayed their return to the bay.

2023: Health Issues and Reversal
 
April 2023: The belugas returned to the sea care pools for the next phase of transition.
 
June 2023: Little Grey developed stomach ulcers, leading to both whales being transferred back to the indoor pool for intensive veterinary care.
 
Late 2023: Little Grey's ulcers were reported to be fully healed.

2024: Ongoing Delays
 
Mid-2024: The sanctuary announced further structural work was needed on the bay infrastructure (for veterinary access and weather resilience), postponing the expected seasonal return until at least 2026.


References

Almunia, J. & Canchal, M., 2025. Cetacean Sanctuaries: Do They Guarantee Better Welfare? Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens, 6(1), p.4. DOI: 10.3390/jzbg6010004. 

SEA LIFE Trust, 2025. An update on Little White and Little Grey. [online] Beluga Sanctuary. Available at: https://belugasanctuary.sealifetrust.org/en/about-us/news/an-update-on-little-white-and-little-grey/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

SEA LIFE Trust, 2024. Little Grey and Little White Update. [online] Beluga Sanctuary. Available at: https://belugasanctuary.sealifetrust.org/en/about-us/news/beluga-whale-sanctuary-update/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), 2025. A sanctuary for captive beluga whales – A suitable alternative to boost health and welfare? [PDF] Case Study. Available at: https://uk.whales.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2025/07/beluga-report-rev2025-FINAL.pdf [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), 2022. Giant new ‘halo’ habitat structure reaches beluga sanctuary after 16 hour sea journey. [online] WDC News. Available at: https://uk.whales.org/2022/04/21/giant-new-halo-habitat-structure-reaches-beluga-sanctuary-after-16-hour-sea-journey/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

SEA LIFE Trust, 2019. SEA LIFE TRUST Beluga Whale Sanctuary update. [online] Beluga Sanctuary. 16 April 2019. Available at: https://belugasanctuary.sealifetrust.org/en/about-us/news/sea-life-trust-beluga-whale-sanctuary-update/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

SEA LIFE Trust, 2019. SEA LIFE TRUST Beluga Whale Sanctuary update. [online] Beluga Sanctuary. 17 May 2019. Available at: https://belugasanctuary.sealifetrust.org/en/about-us/news/sea-life-trust-beluga-whale-sanctuary-update-1/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

Simmons, M.A., 2014. Killing Keiko: The True Story of Free Willy’s Return to the Wild. Callinectes Press. 

The Guardian, 2019. Two whales flown from Shanghai aquarium to sanctuary in Iceland. The Guardian, 20 June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/20/two-whales-flown-from-shanghai-aquarium-to-sanctuary-in-iceland [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

Blooloop, 2020. SEA LIFE Trust beluga whales first swim in new sanctuary home. [online] Blooloop. 5 January. Available at: https://blooloop.com/animals/news/beluga-whales-first-swim-sea-life-trust-sanctuary/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

WDC, 2022. Beluga move plans postponed after service boat sinks. [online] Whale & Dolphin Conservation. 24 August. Available at: https://uk.whales.org/2022/08/24/beluga-move-plans-postponed-after-service-boat-sinks/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

SEA LIFE Trust, n.d. About Us. [online] SEA LIFE Trust. Available at: https://sealifetrust.org/en/about-us/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

WDC, n.d. Creating sanctuaries for whales and dolphins. [online] Whale & Dolphin Conservation. Available at: https://uk.whales.org/end-captivity/creating-sanctuaries-for-whales-and-dolphins/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2025]. 

When Good Intentions Backfire: The Animal Welfare Bottleneck

 

When Good Intentions Backfire: The Animal Welfare Bottleneck

Legislation driven by animal rights activism often carries an aura of moral progress. However, as recent bans on animals in entertainment in Mexico, France, and Canada show, well-intentioned policies can create significant welfare problems when they lack rigorous, long-term logistical planning. The result is often a welfare bottleneck, where animals, particularly long-lived species such as dolphins, are left in legislative limbo with no humane path forward.

Picking on Penguins

 

Picking on Penguins: When Animal Rights Meets Animal Welfare 

Introduction

In May 2011, Sea Life London Aquarium unveiled something entirely new for the capital: penguins. Ten Gentoo Penguins (Pygoscelis papua), transferred from Edinburgh Zoo, became the founding residents of a purpose-built enclosure known as Penguin Point. For the first time, visitors to London could watch these Antarctic birds dive, swim, and shuffle across an icy landscape recreated in the heart of the city.

More than fourteen years have passed since that opening, and the colony has grown and changed over time. Today, reports suggest that around fifteen Gentoo Penguins call the exhibit home, though the number has fluctuated as chicks have hatched and some birds have been relocated to other aquariums abroad. In 2021, the London site celebrated its first confirmed breeding success, with two chicks emerging from carefully managed nests - a milestone for the programme.

The enclosure itself is designed to mimic the penguins’ natural environment, with chilled air, cold water, and seasonal light cycles intended to encourage nesting and breeding. Sea Life presents the colony as part of its wider conservation and education efforts, highlighting the species’ adaptability and the challenges they face in the wild.

This long-running exhibit has become a fixture of the aquarium’s identity, offering Londoners a glimpse of Antarctic life without leaving the city. Yet, as with many captive animal displays, it has also attracted scrutiny and debate over welfare, environment, and ethics - issues that continue to shape how the penguins are perceived.

Morgan the Killer Whale: A Case Study in Rescue, Rehabilitation, and Captive Welfare

 

Morgan at Loro Parque in Tenerife.
Photo copyright  Loro Parque

 

Introduction

In June 2010, a young female killer whale was spotted alone and emaciated in the Dutch Wadden Sea - a rare sighting, given that the last orca stranding in Dutch waters occurred in 1963. This animal, later named Morgan, would become the center of one of the most complex and contested marine mammal welfare cases in recent history. Her story spans urgent rescue, contested rehabilitation outcomes, legal challenges, behavioral scrutiny, and eventual integration into a captive social group at Loro Parque in Tenerife.

The Phenomenon of Sex Change in Animals

The Phenomenon of Sex Change in Animals: What It Is - and What It Isn’t

Sex change in animals is one of nature’s most fascinating adaptations - but it’s also one of the most misunderstood. While some species, especially fish, exhibit remarkable flexibility in their reproductive roles, this phenomenon is far from universal. Birds and mammals, for instance, do not change sex naturally. Understanding where and why sex change occurs helps clarify what it really means and what it doesn’t.

 

Clownfish: A One-Way Ladder of Succession

Clownfish are perhaps the most famous example of sex change in the animal kingdom. All clownfish are born male. Within a sea anemone, they form a strict social hierarchy:
 

• The largest fish becomes the dominant female.  
• The second-largest becomes the dominant male.  
• The rest remain subordinate males, suppressed reproductively.

 

If the dominant female dies, the dominant male changes sex and becomes female. The next largest subordinate male then steps up as the new dominant male. This process is called protandry - a one-way transformation from male to female.

Importantly, once a clownfish becomes female, it cannot revert. The sex change is permanent and triggered by social necessity, not internal desire or random mutation. It’s a built-in succession mechanism that ensures the group always has a breeding pair.
 

Other Fish: Different Directions, Same Logic

Clownfish aren’t alone. Many fish species change sex, but the direction and trigger vary:

In wrasses and parrotfish, the dominant female becomes male if the group lacks one — the reverse of clownfish. Gobies are even more flexible, with some species switching back and forth depending on social dynamics.

Reptiles: Temperature Sets the Sex

Reptiles don’t change sex in adulthood, but many exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD) during embryonic development. In species like turtles and crocodiles: 

• Warmer incubation temperatures often produce females.  
• Cooler temperatures produce males.

Once hatched, the sex is fixed. There’s no post-birth transformation.

Birds and Mammals: Genetically Locked

Birds and mammals have genetic sex determination. Although sex determination works differently in mammals and birds because each group uses a different chromosome system. In mammals, males are XY and females are XX. Only males produce sperm carrying either an X or a Y chromosome, so the male determines the sex of the offspring. Birds use a ZW system instead. Females are ZW, and males are ZZ, which means the female determines whether the chick will be male or female.

Nevertheless, in these groups, sex is set at conception and remains unchanged. While rare intersex conditions exist, they are not adaptive or functional sex changes. There’s no natural mechanism for a bird or mammal to switch sex in response to social or environmental cues.

What Sex Change Really Means

Sex change in animals is not a biological free-for-all. It’s a strategic, adaptive response seen in specific species—mostly fish and some invertebrates. It’s triggered by environmental or social conditions and follows clear biological rules.

Fish: Yes — adaptive, functional sex change.  

Reptiles: No sex change, but sex determined by temperature before birth.  

Birds & Mammals: No natural sex change; sex is genetically fixed.

Final Thought

Sex change in animals is rare, strategic, and biologically fascinating  - but it’s not universal. Understanding where it happens and why helps us appreciate the diversity of life without distorting the science. In most vertebrates, sex is set in stone. In others, it’s a ladder - climbed only when the environment demands it.

Getting the Hump: Camels in Human Care Are Domesticated

Picture courtesy: http://www.peppermintnarwhal.com/

Getting the Hump: Camels in Human Care Are Domesticated

Despite the fact that it is not supported by bona fide empirical scientific research, the British government passed a law banning wild animals in circuses, effective from 20 January 2020. The law does not cover domestic animals, but what is intriguing is how the British government defines “domesticated.”

The Cove: Understanding Japan’s Dolphin Drive Fishery and the Myths Surrounding It

Photograph of mother and baby dolphin courtesy of Dolphin Quest

The Cove: Understanding Japan’s Dolphin Drive Fishery and the Myths Surrounding It

The Cove is a 2009 award-winning documentary that exposes the annual drive fishery hunt of dolphins and whales in the whaling village of Taiji, Wakayama, Japan.

Drive fisheries are not historically new. Several countries aside from Japan have used, or still use, this method to hunt animals, including the Solomon Islands, the Faroe Islands and Peru. The drive fishery at Taiji is believed to have existed for more than 350 years. However, The Cove was not the first to document this controversial hunt—publications such as National Geographic and television series by the late Jacques-Yves Cousteau in the mid-1970s also highlighted it. Many people have rightly raised concerns about these hunting methods, questioning them on moral, ethical and animal-welfare grounds.

Do Dolphins Commit Suicide? Examining the Myth and the Science Behind the Claim

Dr John Lilly, a neurologist who worked with dolphins between 1955 and 1968

 

Do Dolphins Commit Suicide?

Over the years, the idea that dolphins can consciously take their own lives has appeared in books, documentaries, and online discussions. It’s a claim that continues to provoke strong emotional responses and is often used to criticise dolphin care in captivity. But what does the scientific and historical evidence actually show? A closer look at the people and events behind this belief reveals a more complex — and much less dramatic — reality.

The Consequences of France’s Cetacean Ban and the Marineland Closure

 

The Consequences of France’s Cetacean Ban and the Marineland Closure

Introduction 
The closure of Marineland Antibes, following France’s legislative ban on the keeping and breeding of cetaceans, has left dolphins and killer whales in limbo, with their future unresolved. This commentary examines the origins of the ban, the welfare and management implications, and the broader challenges faced by European zoos in navigating policy shaped more by activism than animal welfare science. The case also highlights the limitations of so‑called “sanctuaries” and the complex regulatory environment surrounding cetacean management within the European Union.

The recent closure of Marineland in France illustrates a growing problem in the management of captive cetaceans across Europe. This situation stems from the French government’s activist‑driven decision to prohibit cetacean keeping and breeding, alongside a ban on public training displays, which rendered Marineland financially unviable.

Following the closure, French authorities blocked several attempts by the owners to relocate the animals abroad, most recently to facilities in Spain. The result has been a group of dolphins and whales left in limbo, unable to be transferred or displayed, with no long‑term welfare plan.

The Beauval Proposal
ZooParc de Beauval subsequently proposed creating a new facility to house these displaced animals. The zoo had previously considered keeping dolphins but withdrew plans due to activist pressure and uncertainty over cetacean husbandry in France. The new project, framed as a “dolphin sanctuary,” now provides an opportunity to reintroduce cetaceans under a more politically acceptable label.

The Killer Whale Dilemma
For Marineland’s two killer whales—a mother and her son, both born in captivity—the outlook is particularly bleak. The French government repeatedly blocked their transfer to Loro Parque in the Canary Islands, the only European facility capable of accommodating them, and rejected a proposal for relocation to Japan.

In January 2025, the Ministry of Ecological Diversity formally denied the Whale Sanctuary Project’s plan to move Wikie and Keijo to Nova Scotia. Yet by December, the Ministry of Ecological Transition reversed course, announcing collaboration with the project to explore relocation once the sanctuary is built. This abrupt shift underscores the government’s ideological stance, dismissing viable alternatives while embracing a sanctuary that does not yet exist.

Suggestions that the Nova Scotia site could be ready by 2026 appear highly optimistic. Although construction clearance has been granted, no building work has begun. During a webinar in October, the Whale Sanctuary Project suggested the site might eventually house ten beluga whales from the closed Marineland facility in Niagara Falls, but it remains unclear how this plan aligns with the proposed relocation of Wikie and Keijo.

Lessons from the “Sanctuary” Model
Globally, there are no truly operational cetacean sanctuaries. The only high‑profile attempt, established by Merlin Entertainments in Iceland, has been plagued by logistical and welfare challenges. Two beluga whales transferred from a Chinese aquarium remain in an indoor pool at the visitor centre, as the adjacent bay intended for the sanctuary is still under renovation. Limited seasonal releases into the bay have led to health complications, including stomach ulcers, possibly linked to stress. Winter storms make the bay hazardous for both animals and staff.

This location was previously used for Keiko, the killer whale made famous by Free Willy. As documented by Mark Simmons in The Death of Keiko, the site proved unsuitable for long‑term management. Keiko ultimately died of pneumonia in a Norwegian fjord after seeking human contact following release. The project’s failure demonstrates why re‑release of long‑term captive cetaceans is not a viable or humane option.

Regulatory Complications within the EU
The European Union’s classification of all cetaceans as CITES Appendix I species has added further complexity. In most regions, bottlenose dolphins and killer whales are listed under Appendix II. The EU decision, motivated primarily by efforts to control trade in whale meat, has imposed bureaucratic barriers to legitimate transfers, further restricting Marineland’s options.

Captive Successes and Ethical Realities
It is important to acknowledge that bottlenose dolphins maintained under appropriate conditions have thrived. Many individuals now represent several captive‑born generations removed from wild‑caught founders. Earlier claims that dolphins could not thrive in human care have been disproven by sustainable populations in accredited zoos.

Of all the cetaceans involved in this case, only two bottlenose dolphins were wild‑caught, in 1983 and 1985. The remainder were born and raised entirely in captivity.

The stark reality is that if relocation fails, euthanasia may become the only humane option. This outcome would represent a tragic and avoidable consequence of policy driven more by ideology than by pragmatic animal welfare considerations.

References

Klinowska, M. (1991). Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales of the World: The IUCN Red Data Book. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.  

Simmons, M. (2019). The Death of Keiko. Washington: One Voice Press.  

CetaBase (2024). Marineland Antibes Cetacean Inventory. Available at: https://www.cetabase.org/phinventory/marineland-antibes  

CetaBase (2024). Marineland France Orca Census. Available at: https://www.cetabase.org/orcensus/marineland-france/  

Marine Animal Welfare Blog (2024). “Keiko and the Icelandic Bay.” Available at: https://marineanimalwelfare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_32.html?m=1