Captive Dolphins in Malta: No Science, No Ethics

In September 2025, Mediterraneo Marine Park in Malta underwent an official inspection. Months later, members of the Waves Not Walls campaign received the executive summary of that inspection, which presents itself as a scientific assessment of welfare conditions and largely praises the dolphin and sea lion exhibits for meeting established European industry standards. But surviving legal compliance is not the same as thriving. For these intelligent, socially complex ocean-roaming mammals, “good welfare” defined by industry rules amounts to a severely restricted existence repackaged as sufficient care.

The report ignores a fundamental reality: dolphins evolved to travel vast distances, hunt cooperatively, and echolocate through three-dimensional underwater environments.
Concrete tanks cannot meet these biological and behavioral requirements.

The assessment focuses primarily on operational procedures, prioritizing technical management over the animals’ real needs.

The report claims in its “Overall Welfare Conclusion” that “living spaces provide sufficient volume, depth, and functional complexity, including opportunities for avoidance, retreat, and social choice.” This collapses under scrutiny. Concrete walls are not complex environments. Gates and partitions do not offer meaningful choice. Swimming repetitive laps or avoiding another captive animal by entering another adjoining section of the same enclosure bears no resemblance to navigating open water shaped by currents, prey, acoustics, and social bonds formed by choice.

According to a so-called “science-based” assessment, this concrete enclosure meets current welfare standards. In nature, dolphins can swim vast distances, hunt cooperatively, and shape their own social lives — freedoms a small, barren space like this can never provide. Legal compliance cannot replace true and meaningful welfare. Credit: Waves Not Walls

Calling a concrete stadium “functionally complex” is not science – it is language used to normalize confinement in a completely barren and lifeless enclosure.

The report concludes that the dolphins’ living conditions meet current industry standards. On paper, that may sound reassuring to some people. In reality, these standards are designed by
the captive marine mammal industry to ensure manageability, not to meet dolphins’ biological, cognitive, and ecological needs. That emphasis serves a practical purpose: the dolphins are trained for shows and close-up tourist encounter programs where reliable performance is essential. Meeting industry standards does not equate to living well by a dolphin’s measure. Scientific understanding of a species cannot be reduced to whether minimum rules are followed.

The report also praises what it calls an “exceptionally high quality of trainer-animal relationships.” It asserts that the dolphins demonstrate “high motivation and willingness during training sessions” and “voluntary participation in medical and husbandry procedures.” It also notes that the animals benefit from “skilled, motivated, and emotionally invested staff” and “positive human interactions.”

But in a world of concrete tanks, where food, stimulation, and activities exist only within tightly controlled conditions, this willingness cannot be considered genuine choice. These behaviors are coping strategies within a closed system that offers no freedom or meaningful alternatives. Praising this once again sidesteps what science tells us dolphins require to thrive.

Staff attention and the dolphins’ apparent cooperation are highlighted, but the report ignores the fundamental power imbalance. The relationship between captive dolphins and their trainers is not based on partnership or friendship. It is based on control. What appears as cooperation is the only viable response in a world the animals cannot escape.

The summary report does not mention the deaths of three female dolphins that occurred between August and September 2021. (It is unclear whether these deaths are mentioned in the full version of the report.) A subsequent investigation into the deaths concluded that “the most likely cause of death was lead poisoning.”

What the report does reveal is that the lead poisoning continues to have an effect on surviving animals: “Despite a lead intoxication incident in 2021, which has resulted in chronic health consequences — particularly suspected renal impacts — the dolphins currently present well clinically. Their appearance, behavior, and activity levels indicate effective ongoing management.” The report further states: “The quality of care provided to chronic patients, notably dolphin Rohan-Ulisse (chronic ophthalmic disease) and Junior the sea lion, is exemplary.”

The summary report contains no discussion of the circumstances that allowed the lead exposure to occur in the first place.

During a Zoom call, the person who carried out the investigation said it is based purely on science. I find this claim completely paradoxical. Everything science has taught us about dolphins – their physiology, cognition, sensory abilities, and social organization – contradicts the notion that a concrete tank can meet their needs. These are established facts in marine science. Ignoring them does not make a system scientific.

At Mediterraneo Marine Park, dolphins are displayed for visitors and trained to perform on cue. Their days revolve around human entertainment rather than their natural behaviors, turning these intelligent beings into tourist attractions. Credit: Waves Not Walls

The report does note some areas for improvement: deteriorating concrete, minor conflicts among adult males, lack of shade, along with risks to water quality stability due to infrastructure degradation. Yet even the lack of shade – something Waves Not Walls campaigners warned against for months, without action from the facility – is not treated as a severe welfare failure for animals unable to escape the sun on their own.

The report demonstrates a familiar strategy within the captive dolphin industry: reframing lifelong confinement in a barren enclosure as care, compliance as choice, and training sessions as partnership. A concrete tank does not become an appropriate habitat because it meets legal minimums. Dolphins do not become willing participants because they perform on cue. And a welfare assessment cannot be considered truly valid if it avoids the hardest question: Does current legislation respect the biology and intelligence of dolphins, and does it acknowledge their complex social and cognitive needs?

This is not about repairing concrete or refining training protocols. It is about whether we continue to accept a system that confines intelligent and complex marine mammals to barren enclosures, trains them for human entertainment, and then congratulates itself for providing “good welfare.”

No welfare report can make that ethical — or even remotely science-based.

Featured image: Beached on the concrete floor of the show stadium, this dolphin is forced into an environment completely unnatural for his abilities and behaviors. Lifelong confinement reduces these ocean-roaming predators to mere props for human entertainment. With everything science tells us about dolphins’ astounding intelligence, highly evolved communication skills, and complex foraging techniques, it is preposterous that it is still legal to confine them under such outdated and poor conditions. Credit: Waves Not Walls