https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Aquarium#Animals_at_...
Breeding is a natural instinct and one of the few normal (and fulfilling) activities captive mammals can still participate in.
It may not be noble to force them to breed, sure. But is it a noble to deny them the right to breed if they are naturally inclined?
To be clear, I don't pretend to know the answer, I'm just pointing out that it's a much more complicated moral issue than you are letting on.
Taking children from abusive parents, and giving them to foster parents, is rescuing those children.
Taking pets from abusive owners, and giving them to the ASPCA, is rescuing those pets.
So taking now-unable-to-survive-in-the-wild wildlife from abusive caretakers or breeders, and giving them to wildlife preservation organizations, is...?
(Note that I don't believe in paying the breeders for their whales; that just incentivizes making more captive whales. They should be confiscated by law-enforcement, and then law-enforcement should place them with a rescue organization they have a partnership with.)
Really. This is the definition of rescuing them.
Some whales have very low populations. There could be less than 30 estimated vaquitas alive in reproductive age and is an species exclusive to USA and Mejico that only has one single baby each two years. Is imperative starting breeding it on captivity as soon as possible.
You can release the grandsons of a captive animal, but not a single specimen of a wild and free extinct species. When is gone is gone and there is not more baijis to be released. Too little, too late.