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