Aquarium’s beluga hunt

Moderated by Tom Sabulis

Ideally, wildlife conservation laws are crafted to benefit the country, the planet and various endangered inhabitants. But the Georgia Aquarium’s plan to acquire beluga whales from a Russian supplier, writes one scientist, endangers the whales and tarnishes our environmental reputation by opening the door to trading in protected wildlife. However, an aquarium official guarantees their safe transportation and says the facility’s research will help save the species.

Commenting is open following Naomi A. Rose’s column.

By William C. Hurley

In seven short years, Georgia Aquarium has become a global advocate for animals, and Atlantans are justifiably proud. A key aspect of Georgia Aquarium’s mission is to welcome the public to learn about animals they would never otherwise see, like beluga whales. An independent 2011 Harris interactive poll revealed that more than 90 percent of Americans support the work done by zoos and aquariums, particularly with regard to education and learning. Our commitment goes further: To ensure a future for belugas through conservation and research.

Beluga whales face climate change and other potentially devastating environmental issues. At Georgia Aquarium, we know it is vitally important that we act now on their behalf. To counteract these forces, our scientific knowledge of them must increase. Much of the research we need to do cannot be conducted in the wild.

We’re working to ensure a sustainable population of belugas in accredited North American facilities. Our success is measurable; of the current population, more than half were born in our care. However, our community now lacks the genetic diversity and age and sex distribution needed to sustain this population. If it is extinguished, we lose all opportunity to continue to care and learn about these incredible, graceful animals.

To overcome this dire situation, as part of the federal process mandated by Congress under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Georgia Aquarium submitted an application to bring to the U.S. 18 beluga whales, which originate from Russia’s Sea of Okhotsk. Seeking assurance that acquiring these already collected animals would do no harm to the non-endangered wild population, we supported an independent five-year population study in that region. The study found this initiative would have no detrimental impact on this beluga population.

To ensure the welfare of the animals, our experts have created a transportation plan that includes personal attention to each animal. The process is proven, safe and humane.

Instead of offering realistic solutions to help us conserve beluga whales, a tiny minority of critics are arguing against this permit with unsupported data with little relationship to the truth. Astoundingly, they claim aquariums offer no educational value. They assert there is nothing more we can learn from observing belugas in our care. They cite non-existent policies and wrongly claim animals die during transports. They conjure statistics about supposed lack of breeding success. They even suggest that we instead “rescue” belugas from another aquarium, refusing to acknowledge that these animals are not designated for rescue by any appropriate authority .

These 18 belugas will help ensure a sustainable population and will enable us to conduct further research, which will enhance conservation of the species. They will allow us to continue our important educational programs for more than 100,000 students who visit us annually.

We remain committed to this groundbreaking initiative and will continue to do all we can for the animal world.

William C. Hurley is senior vice-president and chief zoological officer at the Georgia Aquarium.

A mockery of environmental laws

By Naomi A. Rose

It has been 20 years since a U.S. zoo or aquarium has taken whales or dolphins directly from the wild for display. Now, the Georgia Aquarium has submitted a permit application to the federal government to import 18 wild-caught beluga whales from Russia.

The aquarium has cast this proposal as a conservation initiative, which is a disservice to the public. It is a move that would take the United States off the moral high ground when it comes to the protection of whales, dolphins and porpoises. If approved, the request will make our nation a party to an inhumane and unsustainable trade in live belugas. Worse, after a 20-year hiatus, the aquarium’s plan will place the United States alongside those few countries whose captive facilities undermine legitimate conservation while professing to support it.

The public is firmly opposed to this proposal, as attested by the nearly 9,000 comments to the federal government, more than 69,000 signatures on a petition sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States, and the 45 non-governmental organizations, representing tens of millions of supporters, that have signed a statement opposing the import.

Leading scientists and animal welfare groups, including The HSUS and its global arm Humane Society International, agree that the journey will subject the animals to an unprecedented degree of stress — sending the 18 belugas on a 6,000-mile trek from the Russian coast of the Black Sea, where the animals are currently being housed. The dangers would be compounded by multiple transfers between trucks, containers and planes.

Much closer to home, there are 41 already-captive belugas being held at Marineland in Ontario, Canada, a facility under investigation by authorities for animal cruelty. The Georgia Aquarium and its partners — the three SeaWorld parks in Florida, Texas and California; the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, and the Mystic Aquarium in Connecticut — could meet their breeding needs by working with authorities in Ontario to rescue these whales. Instead, the Georgia Aquarium is proposing to make our nation one more client of a Russian supplier that sends belugas, at a rate of 21 a year on average, to markets in China, Egypt, Turkey and other countries with little to no expertise in maintaining this Arctic species.

Russia is now the sole supplier of belugas to international markets. The 18 belugas were originally taken from the Okhotsk Sea, where belugas suffered intensive hunting until the early 1960s. The population is still recovering. It is unknown how many belugas the Russian supplier kills or injures during captures each year. For the United States to participate in this almost certainly unsustainable trade would make a mockery of the precautionary basis of our environmental laws.

The Georgia Aquarium and its partners are not just reversing a 20-year commitment to forgo wild capture, but opening the door wide to an inhumane and unsustainable trade in wildlife. It is a step in the wrong direction for the wrong reasons, and the federal government needs to stop it from happening.

Naomi A. Rose is marine mammal scientist for The Humane Society of the United States and senior scientist for Humane Society International.

23 comments Add your comment

Beverley Bailey

November 21st, 2012
6:12 am

So Billy Hurley tells us that an ‘independent’ 2011 Harris interactive poll revealed that more than 90 percent of Americans support the work done by zoos and aquariums’, and that the GA “supported an independent five-year population study in [the Sea of Okhosk] region. The study found this initiative would have no detrimental impact on this beluga population.”

Well surprise, surprise. Surveys always say what the paymasters want them to say – he who pays the piper and all that. Hurley admits that the GA paid for the latter survey, but not that it was the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums that paid for the former ‘independent’ survey undertaken by Harris. The GA, along with the other destinations for the 18 belugas, are all members of AMMPA.

According to AMMPA, 45 million people visit their members’ marine parks and aquariums every year. The ‘independent’ results were based on two surveys – one taken in 2004 and one in 2011, using responses from a total of 2,113 adults. My calculator can’t even begin to work out what miniscule percentage of visitors the survey results are based on. ’90% of Americans…’? Just about sums up the credibility of Mr Hurley doesn’t it?

Carmen

November 21st, 2012
2:01 am

Whats deplorable to me is the fact that these belugas have already been slated to go to various Sea World facilities in the USA on ‘loan’. This negotiated arrangement between them and the GA has transpired secretively for a while now. so this shows the ‘behind the scenes’ manipulation that has transpired. There is no true education in these initiatives. It’s all for the luv of the almighty dollar. Just ask a child what they learned while visiting an abusement park and they will tell you about dolphins jumping through hoops, killer whales are huge, black and white who spray them and you can kiss a beluga. The biggest thing they learn is that captivity is an accepted thing and okay with the world. Well it’s NOT OKAY!

Martha Brock

November 20th, 2012
11:32 pm

The Georgia Aquarium clings to an outdated paradigm that justifies the taking of living beings from their lives in the wild, from their families, and from their social structures, which are often more stable than our own. They justify this “taking” because, as they have stated, they need these beluga whales to develop a sustainable captive population.

That statement alone reveals the Georgia Aquarium’s educational mission: to teach that captivity is acceptable.

The use of the word “sustainable” will not confuse or distract the public once they recognize that they have been played by artful and market-motivated and market theory-informed aquarium speak.

Jackie Curtis

November 20th, 2012
10:44 pm

It seems to be that the population of Belugas they are trying to save is the captive population after years of their breeding programs failing, they plan to increase their genetic stock. I also don’t understand how the researching them in captivity is going to deal with all the problems they may/will face in the wild as they can never duplicate the conditions of the ocean in captivity. Protection of wild populations and habitat is what is needed. The only thing we have learned from decades of captive marine mammals is that they don’t do well in captivity, so why aren’t facilities that hold captive marine mammals seeing the education that is right in front of them, could it be that it is lost in loud music, circus tricks and admission prices.

Vivienne Crawford

November 20th, 2012
9:59 pm

What educational value is there in seeing marine life out of their natural environment? They want to sustain their captive Beluga population while depleting the Beluga population in their natural habitat. And yes Micheal said it the best: zoos and aquariums teach what many other institutions do in our society: that it’s okay to kill, imprison, manipulate, and use other animals for our own ends simply because they are not human.

Eileen Crossman

November 20th, 2012
9:46 pm

There is no justification for the capture and imprisonment of these wild sentient beings. Aquariums want them to draw audiences in order to increase their revenues. That’s it, plain and simple. Leave the whales in the ocean where they belong. Protect them in their habitat. Protect the habitat. Let’s omit the bogus science from the argument.

leah

November 20th, 2012
7:38 pm

Aquariums do not translate into useful public action or awareness. Its just sight-seeing. Proof–Japan is a tiny country with over 50 aquariums, yet they kill up to 20,000 dolphins and whales every year–and most citizens there don’t know or care. We can support beluga conservation by leaving them to live freely in their NATURAL habitat!

Alan Howard

November 20th, 2012
5:58 pm

The “tiny minority of critics” that William Hurley refers to is actually quite a lot bigger than he thinks. We are many, and we are not going away until the permit to import the 18 Belugas is denied.
The only beneficiary of this proposed import is the Georgia Aquarium and its stakeholders. Not the people who pay to go there in a misguided attempt at education, when they learn more by surfing the net or seeing these animals in their natural habitat.
This proposed import is not about education or conservation. It is about money.

Nancy Y

November 20th, 2012
5:01 pm

If the GA Aquarium continues to pursue this acquisition of belugas, I will not spend any more money with them — my family is firmly committed to conservation of wild animals, and this application shows a blatant disregard for wild belugas. This facility should do what it can to rescue the belugas in Canada, helping those whales and the wild populations. DO THE RIGHT THING, GEORGIA AQUARIUM!

Kathie Jenni

November 20th, 2012
3:59 pm

Even if the public were firmly in favor of capturing wild belugas to put into captivity, I would find it wrong. It violates the most basic rights to liberty, a natural life with other conspecifics, and (since captive animals die early) life itself. For that reason, moreover, even if it did serve the interests of conservation (which I do not believe), and even if it did teach people something substantial (which no evidence supports), it would still be wrong, because a violation of individuals’ basic rights. And I have to echo Michael’s point above: zoos and aquariums teach what many other institutions do in our society: that it’s okay to kill, imprison, manipulate, and use other animals for our own ends simply because they are not human.