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

Canada

10788 readers
508 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

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


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ 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
all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 48 points 2 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 2 months ago* (last edited 2 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 2 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 2 months ago

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

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

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

[–] GrindingGears@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 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.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 1 points 2 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 2 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 2 months ago

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

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 39 points 2 months ago

🎢 Everyone haaaaaaaates Marineland 🎢

[–] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Fuck them.

Seize marineland and all their assets. Use the funds to transport them back to the wild. If not enough $ then run a fund to help and govt cover whatever is needed to finish the job.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They can never be released in the wild.

[–] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe a ocean area blocked off and they get retrained and released.

Edit seems they can

https://savedolphins.eii.org/campaigns/fow

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiko_(orca)

They tried this with the whale from Free Willy, and the whale failed to adapt to the wild before dying.

[–] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

They tried, in real life, with the animal that was cast as the character in the movie.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Love how your source doesn't actually say the orca released only lived a little while before dying

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3700297

[–] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It shows hope for the future. It would be bleaker if we did not keep trying. The alternative is life in a cement jail.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Does it?

It shows dying early deaths. Is that better than a life in a (better) captive place?

[–] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Definitely, trial and error for a solution is better than giving up. The long term as a solution would provide forever after that point.

Some deaths would provide for no deaths in the future.

Just my plebe thoughts is all.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And as fair as that view is, I wouldn't do "trial and error involving the likelihood of death" on humans, or for me, most (if not all) living creatures.

So that's gonna be a controversial sell, and using "save the dolphins" that leave out crucial info isnt going to be it..

[–] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I agree it’s untenable.

There would be many peops that agree to take that risk on.

Even though, it would be a no go right from the start due to funding and as you mentioned harm to others.

The thought I had is far beyond my pay grade so to speak but would not a few deaths on either side be worth it to save many many more in the future?

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

No, it's not ethical.

It's unacceptable to do that to humans in a 'modern Western's' clinical ethics setting.

I agrue it's still unethical to do to animals..

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

This is the strangest hostage movie ever

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Whale what's the porpoise of euthanizing them when they can just release them into the Niagara river near the park and let the falls do the work?

[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Shit, you have something there bud.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I do seriously wonder when marine mammals will end up the Great Lakes. Like a seal population in the 1000 islands might be a thing our lifetime given climate change

[–] bradv@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Climate change is going to make the Great Lakes saltwater?

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

There are freshwater subspecies of harbour seals

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

Euthanize the owners.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Sucks but it’s way better than forcing them to live in Marineland