Progress, not prohibition: ensuring dolphin welfare, science and conservation in modern institutions

President
Sep 28
3 min read

The European Association for Aquatic Mammals (EAAM) wishes to raise awareness about the risks created by the current public debate around cetaceans in modern institutions.While the emotional tone of this debate often captures media attention, it sometimes leads to political decisions that endanger the very animals they claim to protect and compromise essential work in research, conservation, and education.

Scientific evidence on welfare

Data on the demography and behaviour of cetaceans, both in the wild and under expert care, demonstrate that dolphins and other species can live long, healthy lives in modern institutions. Accredited modern facilities are continuously improving, ensuring a level of welfare that equals or surpasses international standards. These improvements include larger, more complex environments, greater opportunities for choice and stimulation, and advanced veterinary and behavioural care.A central element of welfare is the ability of animals to express natural behaviours. Preventing dolphins from reproducing—through political bans or activist pressure—represents a direct restriction of such behaviours and therefore a violation of animal welfare principles.

Essential role of zoological institutions

Accredited facilities have become irreplaceable platforms for understanding cetaceans and for protecting wild populations. Groundbreaking studies on dolphin cognition, communication, and physiology have been possible thanks to dolphins under expert care. This knowledge directly informs conservation actions, such as mitigating the effects of noise pollution, reducing accidental bycatch, and addressing chemical pollution and overfishing. Institutions are also increasing their field involvement, funding and conducting conservation programs that directly benefit wild cetaceans.

The challenge of misinformation and political opportunism

Despite these advances, radical anti-zoo movements oppose the very presence of dolphins outside their natural environment. Their arguments—often based on false claims about life expectancy, use of sonar, or alleged drug use—spread widely on social media, where emotional appeals overshadow facts and scientific complexity.These groups generally lack any real scientific or veterinary expertise in cetacean care. Their campaigns rely on ideology and imagery rather than evidence, which further distorts public understanding.

One important fact often overlooked is that accredited institutions manage their cetacean populations transparently and responsibly: animals are not traded, they have no commercial value, and their social dynamics are respected. This ethical population management demonstrates that dolphins can thrive under expert care without being commodified. It also provides a powerful model to promote the end of captures and commercial trade in parts of the world where such practices still exist.

This narrative, however, has led to a form of legal harassment, amplifying media attention and putting pressure on policymakers. Some politicians, seeing an opportunity to present “quick wins” on animal welfare, have aligned with these positions, without addressing the real and urgent threats facing cetaceans in the oceans.

Harmful consequences of abolitionist policies

The push to abolish dolphin care in zoos is often accompanied by promises of so-called “sanctuaries” or marine enclosures. These projects are frequently presented as if they were almost ready to welcome animals, yet in reality they have very rarely materialized. In the very few cases where they have been implemented, outcomes for the animals have been deeply negative. The beluga transfer to Iceland under the Sea Life Trust project is a striking example: despite considerable publicity, the initiative resulted in severe welfare problems for the animals, demonstrating that such facilities are poorly adapted, experimental, and far from offering a sustainable alternative.

Where abolitionist regulations have been promoted such as in France or enacted as in Mexico, the absence of viable alternatives—combined with relentless activist pressure—may leave dolphins in precarious situations, as it is now the case in Marineland Antibes, directly compromising their welfare.Bans on reproduction, in particular, create long-term welfare concerns: they disrupt natural social structures, prevent animals from expressing essential behaviours, and ultimately condemn populations to demographic decline. Such measures harm the very animals they are supposed to protect.

The path forward: continuous progress, not prohibition

Rather than endangering animals and dismantling centres of expertise, the way forward lies in:

Continuously improving living conditions in modern institutions by expanding and complexifying habitats and offering greater choice and stimulation.
Expanding research efforts, using knowledge gained under expert care to address pressing threats in the wild.
Strengthening conservation programs that directly support wild cetaceans and their ecosystems.
Educating and connecting the public, bridging the growing gap between society and the realities of wildlife survival.

Conclusion

The EAAM calls on decision-makers to resist emotionally driven, short-term policies that jeopardize both animals and science.Instead, we urge continued investment in modern facilities, where cetaceans not only live under expert care with high welfare standards, but also serve as ambassadors and research partners in the fight to protect their wild counterparts.