this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
110 points (99.1% liked)

Canada

11021 readers
721 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 48 points 3 months ago (1 children)

fuck off, if you open a zoo or marine park knowing you can't afford it, you deserve to be euthanized instead.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 33 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

You missed the point: this was a transfer of live animals as part of an orderly shutdown of a decades-old park that was wildly successful in its time. Without the rmtransfer the animals will either starve or be euthanized.

These animals cannot be released or they'll be dead in no time.

The official blocking the removal of the animals to a new habitat simply doesn't understand that there is no life for these animals outside a proper enclosure.

Marineland became dicks. But this is them being least-bad. Let them shut down as best as possible, or it's Whale Stew for weeks.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It could be argued that finding a new home for them is worse in the long run as it has more potential to prolong abuse and captivity of whales. If the new home loosens their standards and started abusing the whales, new whales could be brought in and abused as the older ones pass away. Euthanasing could bring an end to that cycle, although none of options here are particularly good.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

Or these get euthanized and new ones are caught where they where going to do. Is the most likely outcome.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What would take longer to kill them, starving or the allegedly guaranteed death from releasing them?

Seems to me that they'd stand a better chance in the wild compared to being left in a tank to starve.

[–] npcknapsack@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

I think this is the argument people give for abandoning their pet dogs in the countryside. We all know the dogs never stand a better chance. I doubt the whales would either.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

Just euthanize them it is much more humane. Or you think releasing them and having them starve is humane?

[–] GrindingGears@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

Everyone is screaming about the treatment (and I mean justifiable), but no one is willing to offer an actual solution. I ain't an expert on the topic of Beluga whales, but I mean if a wild release was possible and the best solution, why aren't these people getting involved then? Likely because it's maybe not the best solution.

So that leaves the government of Ontario to step in, and OK, but problem remains the same. All these supposed sanctuaries that people want them to live in, again, where are they and why aren't they stepping in? Because such a thing might not exist.

Would love to be totally wrong here, but this has the makings of a boondoggle.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

Someonen else linked a link where they can be rehabited, probably too much cost for the shitty park