This ban is likely not enforcable, and likely easy to overturn as contradicting animal protection laws. European law takes a centre view of welfare of individual animals. Dolphins and killer whales live in mixed-sex groups of relatives and with very period of maternal care. Depriving them of possibility to raise and care for their young is cruelty. From the ground of maximum animal welfare, cetaceans should be allowed to breed, unless there is clear medical counter-indication for a particular animal. European law does not know the concept of letting the species die out with dignity or anything similar. Besides, animal rights activists force animals to their will. Humans may choose to life childless, but dolphins and killer whales did not agree to it.
Not to play devil's advocate, but isn't this true of their captivity as well? Their entire existence and way of life was something they did not agree to. I respectfully disagree with this for a number of reasons. For one, I don't think that not raising and caring for offspring has any more of a negative impact on their welfare than it does for people who don't have children. If childless adults can have healthy and fulfilling lives without reproducing, so can dolphins. Also, most animals in the wild are deprived the possibility of reproducing, either because they die before reaching maturity or they fail to attract a mate. Finally, allowing all captive animals to reproduce as much as they want does not necessarily result in greater overall welfare. It will result in overcrowding, which will stress the animals out and thus negatively impact their welfare. The overcrowding would then have to be resolved, which could involve sending animals off to substandard zoos (which results in decreased welfare) or culling (which results in the animals being dead, which definitely results in decreased welfare). To me, it seems like contraception or sex separation is better for their welfare than the outcomes of letting all of them reproduce freely. All of this being said, I do share your overall negative opinion of the ban, as I have my own reasons for disagreeing with it.
@Coelacanth18 I don't have time to write a proper rebuttal, but one point: there's a general consensus that death per se is not a welfare issue.
Interestingly, this is something like the fourth or fifth time you have made the claim that Musk Ox cannot be kept successfully in captivity - but you have yet to actually demonstrate the evidence or basis for these claims which was requested of you the last few times though at least this time you haven't used European Moose (currently held and breeding in over 100 collections) as your other example!
I apprehend that you just have to "believe" him (as he often wrote in other posts).... The same with river dolphins by the way, which numbers in captivity (including capture for that purpose - we want be fair) he alleged could be measured with those of bottlenosed dolphins. (According to the figures from the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the United States alone, over 2,300 bottlenose dolphins were captured for display purposes between 1972 and 1994 in the USA, found here: http://www.wdcs.org/submissions_bin/bottlenosedolphinsincaptivity.pdf). Numbers of river dolphins in that period?????...
between 1956 and 2006, 147 Amazon river dolphins were captured in total: http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2013/19/n019p223.pdf
Most people agree it is OK to keep cetaceans in marine parks, if they are well cared for. However, people who object to keeping cetaceans completely on grounds of their 'rights' should be consistent and not to enforce it by depriving them of other 'rights'. By example, most people find it ethical to eat meat, but somebody who campaigns that pigs should not be killed for food and does it eating a hamburger not believable. It is very unethical to force people not to have children, like in historic times, some groups of people were forcibly sterilized. Your argument is generally false because it applies human welfare to other species, which have different requirements of welfare. Humans may be OK being childless, compensating it by reading, sports and other activities, never eating fish, or bathing in freshwater rather than salt water. But this does not apply to dolphins. French population of killer whales and dolphins does not breed excessively. Your argument may be valid to other animals, but not in this case. Just in case - I am putting here arguments as they would be phrased in current European law. I personally support keeping cetaceans because of different reasons - mostly that they very effectively raise public interest in animals.
The ban in breeding killer whales and dolphins has been reversed by the French courts after ruling there had been irregularities in the decree putting the legislation into place. More in the link below: Top French court reverses ban on breeding whales, dolphins
Great News!!! Fortunately there are still judges using their sense/mind and do not say "yes and amen" to all that nonsense animal right activists call for.
Good news! Somebody realized that France lacks prisons for dolphins which broke the law and bred together.
Court overturns dolphin and whale breeding ban More information here. The legal court in France rejected the breeding ban because former enviroment minister Sególene Royale made last minute changes to include dolphins in the ban, without consulting anyone but the animal rigts groups. She did not consider any scientific information given by the marine parks. This court ruling is very significant on an international level, in Mexico a political party tried to implement the french model in this country but the measure was rejected by the mexican senate.
