Niagara Falls, Thursday, 2 October 2025.
On Wednesday Canada’s federal fisheries minister denied Marineland’s application to export its 30 remaining beluga whales to China’s Chimelong Ocean Kingdom, citing risks of exploitation and welfare concerns. The decision blocks the last captive whales in Canada from overseas transfer and signals stricter scrutiny of live-animal movements for entertainment. For retail and attractions executives this has immediate implications: Marineland faces operational, legal and financial fallout, potential bankruptcy and reports it may euthanize the animals; buyers and partners confront reputational risk; and proposed seaside sanctuaries remain stalled. The ruling rests on 2019 legal reforms ending cetacean captivity for entertainment and establishes a precedent likely to affect licensing, cross-border deals, and contingency planning for facilities that rely on live cetaceans. Expect heightened regulatory review, increased activist and public pressure, and an urgent need for alternative welfare-focused solutions and concrete, fundable transition options for operators.
Federal denial halts high‑profile international transfer
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans refused Marineland’s permit request to export 30 beluga whales to Chimelong Ocean Kingdom in China, with Fisheries Minister Joanne Thompson saying she could not “in good conscience” approve an export that would perpetuate the whales’ use for entertainment and risk their exploitation [1][2]. Thompson invoked authority tied to legal reforms aimed at protecting marine mammals and restricting cetacean captivity for entertainment, and characterized the export as inconsistent with those protections [1][2].
Regulatory context: the 2019 legal shift that matters to parks
Canada’s Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act (2019) tightened the rules on keeping, breeding, and exporting cetaceans for entertainment, and export still requires a special federal permit — the framework that underpins the denial in this case [1][2][3]. Minister Thompson affirmed that her decision was aligned with the Fisheries Act provisions and the intent of the 2019 reforms to prevent continued public entertainment use of cetaceans [1][2].
Operational reality at Marineland: closure, mortality and mounting costs
Marineland has been closed to the public since late summer 2024 and has been reported as trying to sell assets while keeping animals in place; the park’s management has previously said humane relocation to an accredited facility abroad was the only viable option to preserve the animals’ lives [2][4]. Internal records and reporting indicate 20 whale deaths at Marineland — one orca and 19 belugas — since 2019, a statistic referenced in national reporting on the park’s history and condition [3][4][2]. Marineland has warned that keeping the whales without approval to export could force it toward bankruptcy and has reportedly suggested euthanasia as a possible outcome if no relocation options are approved [2][4][5][alert! ‘Marineland’s public statements describe euthanasia as a possibility and some news reports cite a source claiming Marineland will hand over whales for euthanasia; the final legal custodial steps remain subject to governmental and court processes and thus are uncertain’].
Stakeholder responses and reputational stakes
Animal-advocacy groups hailed the denial as a victory and urged accelerated sanctuary planning, while Chimelong and other potential foreign buyers became focal points of criticism because overseas parks may continue breeding and performance practices banned in Canada [5][2]. Ontario Premier Doug Ford publicly expressed disappointment and urged federal reconsideration or provincial solutions to find a new home for the whales, signalling a political rift between provincial and federal priorities for the animals and the park’s future [2][4].
Sanctuary plans, capacity gaps and stalled alternatives
Proposed seaside sanctuaries, including a project in Nova Scotia backed by some NGOs, have been discussed as alternatives but remain delayed and under-resourced; federal and non‑profit sources have said the sanctuary option has not moved to an operational stage that could immediately accept dozens of belugas [2][5][alert! ‘Public reporting indicates infrastructure and permitting for seaside sanctuaries are incomplete and timelines unclear’].
Industry implications for attractions, licensing and cross‑border deals
For retail and attractions operators and executives, the denial signals strengthened regulatory scrutiny of international live‑animal transfers and sets a practical precedent that could change how licensing, contingency planning and due diligence are handled for exhibits that rely on live cetaceans [1][2][3]. Parks that previously relied on cross‑border acquisitions or transfers will likely face higher compliance burdens, longer permit timelines and amplified reputational risk if prospective partners have histories of breeding or public performance practices that conflict with importing jurisdictions’ welfare laws [1][2][5].
Marineland’s management has argued that the denial accelerates imminent financial distress, citing the ongoing costs of caring for large marine mammals and limited domestic placement options [2][4]. The minister’s statement and attendant media coverage have prompted calls for veterinary assessments and for government-led contingency planning; animal‑welfare groups are urging expedited funding and technical planning to move any transfer to a sanctuary model rather than international sale or euthanasia [5][2].
Public reactions and social media posts amplified the story ahead of and after the ministerial decision, with activists and influencers urging permanent retirement of the animals to seaside sanctuaries and using the denial as a campaigning milestone; advocacy outlets framed the decision as a regulatory victory and renewed calls for concrete, funded sanctuary capacity [7][5].
What operators and investors should watch next
Industry professionals should monitor federal permit guidance and any subsequent DFO communications on review criteria for future export or transfer applications, provincial inspection and enforcement activity at Marineland, and developments around sanctuary funding or new accredited transfer facilities — each could reshape legal and financial risk models for parks that keep large marine mammals [1][2][6].
Bronnen