South Coast Fjord Sanctuary (near Burgeo, NL)
Broughton Archipelago B.C. (Thompson/Bond Sound, BC))
Mingan Archipelago, Québec (Gulf of St. Lawrence)
Mingan Archipelago, Québec (Gulf of St. Lawrence)
Broughton Archipelago B.C. (Thompson/Bond Sound, BC))
Mingan Archipelago, Québec (Gulf of St. Lawrence)
Broughton Archipelago B.C. (Thompson/Bond Sound, BC))
Broughton Archipelago B.C. (Thompson/Bond Sound, BC))
Broughton Archipelago B.C. (Thompson/Bond Sound, BC))
Please Donate Now
All donors and patrons are automatically entered into our monthly draw for a chance to spend a week at sea as part of our crew.
An Unfortunate Reality
Our Position on the Proposed Nova Scotia Sanctuary Site
At the Expedition Audacity Research Foundation, we have always supported the creation of ethical, science-based sanctuaries for belugas and other cetaceans who cannot be returned to the wild. Sanctuary is essential — but sanctuary must be done right.
Over the past week, we engaged directly with representatives of the Whale Sanctuary Project (WSP), including leadership and marine mammal experts, seeking clarity on several key welfare concerns related to the proposed Port Hilford sanctuary site in Nova Scotia.
Despite multiple conversations and repeated attempts to obtain answers, we encountered no transparency, no clarity, and continual referrals from one person to another without resolution.
Given the significance of these issues, this lack of engagement is deeply concerning.
We would have preferred to share a positive update about the WSP proposal. Instead, the absence of clear, science-based answers leaves us with no choice but to conclude that our concerns are justified.
This update outlines the questions we asked, the information provided (or not provided), and the reasons we cannot support the current proposal.
Our Concerns With the Nova Scotia Sanctuary Site
We respect the intentions of those working on the WSP effort; their commitment to improving the lives of captive whales is sincere. However, intention alone is not enough when the safety, health, and long-term welfare of belugas are at stake.
After reviewing the environmental and marine mammal data, we identified four critical issues that must be addressed before any beluga is placed in Port Hilford Bay.
1. Heavy Metal Contamination in the Seabed
Port Hilford lies within the historic Wine Harbour gold-mining district. Environmental assessments confirm:
- The seabed contains arsenic, mercury, and other mining tailings
- These contaminants remain stable only if left undisturbed
- Belugas are natural benthic foragers who routinely dig and disturb sediment
Therefore:
Placing belugas in this site risks exposing them to contaminants through their normal foraging behaviour.
This is not speculative.
It is established marine ecology and animal-welfare science.
To date, WSP has provided no explanation of how this risk will be mitigated.
2. Lack of a Transitional Care Lagoon
Modern sanctuary standards — and real-world lessons from the Iceland Sea Life Trust Beluga Sanctuary — show that:
- Some whales transition well to open-water sea pens
- Others do not
- Many require a protected lagoon or pool-style habitat for rest, illness, social stress, or sensory overload
The Port Hilford design includes no such facility.
There is no fallback habitat, no quiet refuge, no controlled-water transition space.
Without this, the sanctuary risks replicating captivity’s psychological stress, simply in a larger body of water.
3. Acoustic Environment and Sound Pressure Hazards
Shallow, reflective inlets can create harmful acoustic conditions.
Belugas rely on sound for:
- Navigation
- Feeding
- Social communication
- Stress regulation
Scientific literature shows that unsuitable acoustic environments can cause:
- Communication interference
- Heightened stress responses
- Cavitation-related bone and joint lesions
- Long-term sensory impairment
WSP has provided no acoustic modelling, no mitigation plan, and no transparency on sound-pressure data.
4. Lack of Fiscal Transparency
Industry professionals — along with several of our donors — have raised concerns about:
- WSP’s administrative costs
- Construction estimates that appear 30–50% higher than comparable sanctuary projects
- The lack of detailed financial documentation to justify these expenses
With public funding now being requested, transparency is not optional.
Our Position
We cannot support the proposed Nova Scotia sanctuary site because:
- The seabed contains documented contamination that belugas could disturb
- The design includes no protected transitional care lagoon
- The acoustic properties pose physiological and psychological risks
- WSP leadership has shown no transparency and no willingness to address these concerns
- Public funds should not be allocated to a site that cannot guarantee whale welfare
- Withholding information prevents meaningful scientific evaluation
This is not ideological.
It is biological, ethical, and evidence-based.
We Support Sanctuary — But Sanctuary Must Put Whales First
An ethical sanctuary must:
- Prioritise whale welfare over optics
- Be Indigenous-led from governance to daily operations
- Ensure clean, safe, and acoustically appropriate marine environments
- Offer choice-based habitats, not forced exposure
- Provide lifelong care, not symbolic relocation
- Operate with full public transparency and scientific accountability
If we move belugas out of tanks, we must not move them into risk.
Our Commitment: A National Sanctuary Network Built for Safety and Choice
We are advancing three sanctuary locations across Canada that meet the environmental, cultural, psychological, and ecological criteria for genuine sanctuary.
All three include:
- Protected holding lagoons
- Optional sea-pen access
- Veterinary monitoring facilities
- Indigenous governance models
- Safe acoustic environments
- Clean, non-contaminated seabeds
Together, these sites will form a coordinated national sanctuary network with the capacity to safely house all remaining captive belugas in Canada.
The Principle Is Simple
If sanctuary means safety,
safety cannot be compromised.
Not for sentiment.
Not for urgency.
Not for optics.
Not for hope.
Sanctuary must honour the whales first.
And it's not only us...
Transparency Matters. Science Matters. The Whales Matter.
Kristy and Jason's experience this week — echoed by other scientists and stakeholders who attempted to participate — reflects the same pattern we encountered in our own discussions with the Whale Sanctuary Project. When respected marine-mammal experts are removed from webinars, ignored, or redirected in circles rather than engaged transparently, it raises serious questions about WSP’s commitment to open dialogue and scientific scrutiny.
Sanctuary work demands collaboration, accountability, and a willingness to answer difficult questions. Instead, what we and others have witnessed is a tightly controlled narrative, a reluctance to address legitimate welfare concerns, and an instinct to shut out anyone who does not immediately agree with their position.
We didn’t arrive at our concerns lightly. We approached WSP in good faith, hoping they would become one of the options in our national sanctuary network. What we encountered was the same roadblock others now report: no transparency, no answers, and an unwillingness to engage with experts who raise reasonable questions.
Real unity requires honesty.
Real sanctuary requires scrutiny.
And the whales deserve both.
How We Got Here:
A Brief History of Marineland and Its Belugas
Marineland opened in 1961 in Niagara Falls, Ontario — not as a theme park, but as a small roadside attraction called Marine Wonderland and Animal Farm, founded by John Holer, a Slovenian immigrant and entrepreneur. Holer envisioned it as a place where families could get close to animals they would never otherwise encounter.
Through the 1970s and 1980s, Marineland grew rapidly. The whale stadium was built. The park’s signature song “Everyone Loves Marineland” played across Ontario radio.
For many children — myself included — Marineland was the first time we looked into the eye of a whale and felt the world change a little.
But behind the nostalgia, the world was shifting.
The Age of Captivity
When Marineland expanded, captivity was still seen as education. It was believed whales could inspire public love for oceans. And for a time, that was true.
But we learned.
The science evolved.
Public ethics evolved.
Understanding deepened.
By the 1990s and 2000s, global research began to show that cetaceans — whales, dolphins, belugas — are not simply animals, but highly social, culturally transmitted, emotionally intelligent beings. They form lifelong bonds, dialects, memory maps, grief practices, even humour.
The tanks stayed the same size.
The science did not.
The Turning Point
Reports of animal welfare concerns accumulated over time — from former trainers, veterinarians, government inspectors, and journalists.
Public trust began to fracture.
Canada’s conscience shifted.
In 2019, after years of pressure from scientists, Indigenous leaders, former trainers, NGOs, and the public, the federal government passed Bill S-203, effectively banning the breeding and display of cetaceans in captivity.
Suddenly, Marineland was no longer a park.
It became a holding place for animals who could not legally leave, and could not be released.
No one wrote a plan for what comes next.
And so the whales — especially the belugas, most of whom were born at Marineland — have existed in a kind of legal and moral limbo.
The Current Crisis
Today, Marineland houses:
- ~30 beluga whales
- 4 bottlenose dolphins
These animals cannot survive in the wild.
Their immune systems, social learning patterns, and foraging instincts were shaped in tanks, not seas.
Exportation was recently blocked by the federal government — closing the door to foreign transfer.
The park has signaled financial instability.
Concerns about veterinary care have resurfaced repeatedly.
The result is a historic moral responsibility:
We cannot leave the whales where they are.
We cannot release them into the wild.
And one sanctuary — even when completed — only has space for a fraction of them.
Which is how we got here.
To this moment.
To this chance.
The Opportunity in Front of Us
We now stand at a crossroads Canada has never faced before:
Do we let these whales fade quietly into the past?
Or do we build a future that honours what they are — and what they have meant to us?
This is where the three-sanctuary solution comes in.
Not as protest.
Not as punishment.
But as responsibility.
Because if Marineland was the story of how we loved the ocean without knowing how,
then the sanctuaries are the story of how we love the ocean differently now.
The Past Is Written.
The Future Is Not.
And we have one last chance to write it well.
