>This ban will result in many of those animals being left to die instead

I think that is hyperbole. They are only banning the whales, not all the other animals that are helped by the aquarium. I was at the aquarium this last summer. There's much more to it than the beluga whales. Sure some people will choose not to go once the whales are gone, but there's still tons of other things to see.

It elides the argument, but it's not hyperbole. Agitating groups like peta want to end animal captivity, completely. They believe humane captivity is a moral contradiction, extending to domestic cats and dogs.

That's the part I find really interesting - the tradeoff between that work and the negative aspects of keeping the animals in captivity. Some would argue that even if a whale won't survive in the wild, that's better than a long life in an aquarium. I'm honestly not sure where I stand at the moment.

Aren't most of these large marine animals in captivity rescues? Like you said, isn't it better than leaving them in the wild to die? Why not make the law so they can only have them for rehabilitation purposes and then release them (if possible) when well? Don't marine biologist learn a great deal being in close contact with these animals that can benefit the animals in the wild?

The belugas were Canadian or Russian caught. The dolphins have tended to be "Japanese Injuries." To the best of my knowledge, only the false killer whale is a local rescue.

http://www.vancouveraquariumuncovered.com/

Typical Vancouver richeousness unfortunately.