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

 

Abstract

The closure of Marineland Antibes, following France’s legislative ban on the keeping and breeding of cetaceans, has left a number of dolphins and killer whales in an uncertain situation. This commentary examines the origins of the ban, the subsequent welfare and management implications, and the broader challenges faced by European zoos in navigating policy driven by activism rather 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.