I agree that the 'feel good' politics get in the way of sound decisions by professionals who really do have the best interest of the animals at heart. I really dislike when bystanders reading the daily headlines question the motivations of people who have dedicated their whole lives to understanding and improving the lives of the animals in their care.
That's not to say that how things are done should never change and we should never question the professionals or those in authority. But decisions like this really seem like they do more harm than good. Politics and science don't mix well but I guess we don't get much of one without the other, as that's how the bulk of science funding is done...
This is exactly how the Monterey bay aquarium works, fwiw.
And this is PETA's intention, they'd rather see an animal euthanized than be in captivity.
I also wonder if they can shift away from the 'orphanage' model to a more 'foster' model by bringing in sick animals, nursing them to health, then releasing them shortly after. Not sure if this is in the cards politically, but it would be a middle ground between traditional aquariums and a total ban. Its important to note many of these animals get to aquariums because they've been injured by humans. We should feel a responsibility to help them if we are the ones hurting them. Washing our hands of this responsibility seems irresponsible to me and justifying it with feel good politics seems highly questionable.