Should euthanasia of healthy zoo animals be discussed in terms of welfare? Reflections from the Marineland case

The recent situation at Marineland in Ontario, Canada, has raised a sensitive and important question: should the euthanasia of healthy animals be part of welfare discussions? The park has stated that up to 30 beluga whales may be euthanised if alternative funding or transfers cannot be secured. This case forces us to examine a difficult issue in animal welfare science and ethics.

Understanding welfare at the point of death

Animal welfare science has traditionally focused on the absence of suffering and, increasingly, the presence of positive states. If euthanasia is carried out humanely and without distress, according to current definitions, it would not reduce an animal’s welfare. Unlike humans, animals are not thought to have a concept of their own mortality or of “missing out” on future life. From this perspective, a painless death is “welfare-neutral."

In the zoo world, euthanising healthy animals is sometimes called management euthanasia. It is used in some regions much more than others, and for some species more than others. For example, in Scandinavian countries, it is used as a population management tool where the argument is that it allows more breeding and diversity of ages in groups of animals. In facilities where management euthanasia is not used, breeding of animals must be restricted to a few individuals.

Impact of euthanasia on social group members

While euthanising an animal humanely might not harm its welfare, it may lead to negative welfare in other members of the group, in the short and possibly long-term, and especially for highly social species. We don’t know exactly how animals understand that conspecifics have died or process grief, but there is enough evidence to suggest in many zoo species it can have a negative impact if the animals shared positive social bonds. In species that live in tight social hierarchies, euthanasia of certain animals can certainly have unintended negative (or arguable, positive) effects on the social group, both of which are often difficult to predict. 

For example, small carnivore species such as wolves and wild dogs present difficult cases for population management in zoos as family-based cooperative breeders, where one dominant pair breeds and the rest of the pack helps to rear young. In order to grow the population and maintain genetic diversity, there are often surplus animals, and while euthanising subordinate animals seems like it would not impact group welfare and cohesiveness, it certainly can do as there are complex social bonds that help the dominant pair breed successfully. 

The argument about lost future welfare

Not everyone agrees that euthanasia of a healthy animal is welfare-neutral. Some animal ethicists argue that depriving an animal of future positive experiences i.e. future years of good quality life is a welfare cost in itself. Heather Browning, for example, has argued that welfare assessments should include opportunities for positive experiences over time.

Applying this to Marineland

The Marineland case brings these two perspectives into sharp relief. On the one hand, euthanasia could, in theory, be carried out without immediate suffering. On the other, the whales could have experienced many more years of social interaction, enrichment, and potentially improved welfare in a different setting. The decision appears to be driven largely by financial and logistical constraints, raising difficult ethical questions about where responsibility lies.

Would a welfare assessment involve euthanasia considerations?

At Animal Welfare Expertise, we carry out welfare assessments and make recommendations for improvements based on the results. In very rare cases, if we see that welfare is consistently poor, and does not improve despite targeted changes, euthanasia may be discussed as part of a responsible, structured framework. We would deem it highly irresponsible to decide to euthanise animals before making reasonable efforts to improve welfare, either in situ or by moving them to another facility. 

Moving the debate forward

This is not an easy conversation, but is one we need to have with honesty and clarity. We believe euthanasia more broadly is a topic that should be discussed more openly by those working with and responsible for animals. A veterinarian once shared a thought with AWE's Isabella: "unless they pass away unexpectedly and instantaneously, all captive animals should be euthanised at some point, it's just a question of when". As in humans, disease and old age in animals can be debilitating, painful and conducive to poor welfare, and in these cases, humane euthanasia is in the animal's best interests.

Euthanasia of healthy animals is clearly more difficult to debate, but avoiding it doesn’t make the ethical questions disappear. If we are to make responsible, transparent decisions, we need to be clear about what we mean by “welfare”, how future welfare is valued, and where institutional responsibilities lie.