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.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
23 comments Add your comment
SAWB
November 19th, 2012
4:28 pm
I believe there are approximately 300 million people in the USA, so not sure 69,000 signatures proves that the “public is firmly opposed” to this idea. It is this kind of exaggeration that has long been used by some environmentalist to make their case, but now more and more is threatening their credibility. The idea of capturing wild animals to house in captivity does concern me, but I suspect this is one case where the benefit to the species actually outweighs the potential negative impact.
For the animals, for your children
November 19th, 2012
4:54 pm
All the aquarium knows how to do is kill beluga whales. Please, boybott the aquarium. These animals deserve far better (like to be free). Animals were not put on this planet for our entertainment or for the profit of these animal killers. Show your children that you actually care about animals and buy them DVD’s of these wonderful creatures filmed in their natural habitat.
AnimuX
November 19th, 2012
6:24 pm
Unfortunately, aquariums continue to pretend that they provide some sort of educational or conservation-linked benefit to the public. They do not.
Aquariums display animals like belugas for exactly one purpose — profit from circus-like performances.
Over the years, the marine entertainment park industry has conveniently failed to remind the public of just how many orcas, dolphins, belugas, and other marine mammals have died in captivity or as a result of the trade of these live animals.
Why don’t they remind the public that orcas and dolphins died during the live captures performed before the MMPA prohibited them in the USA? Or that many have died in captivity as well at a far younger age than their species in natural habitats? Or that the animals suffer from a stressful environment of living in a comparable bathtub to the normal range of open ocean that spanned hundreds of miles? Or even that orcas’ teeth are often purposely drilled out?
Why don’t the aquariums mention the fact that many of these wet circuses around the world buy their dolphins from the same people who slaughter dolphins by the thousands in Japan?
Performing stupid pet tricks to the sound of pop music is not education. People who care for the well being of these animals should boycott abusement parks like the Georgia Aquarium, Sea World, and others. The US government should not undermine the spirit and intent of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Any permit to import these animals for ‘display’ should be denied.
Wolflee
November 19th, 2012
7:00 pm
SAWB, I think you misread the numbers. Read again:
“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.
Wolflee
November 19th, 2012
7:05 pm
SAWB, I think you misread the numbers quoted. Read again:
“… 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… “
SAWB
November 19th, 2012
7:47 pm
Wolflee said, “SAWB, I think you misread the numbers quoted. Read again:”
Well, respectfully I’m not sure I understand what you think I misread. Could you clarify?
9000 Comments
69,000 signatures
Either one is only a very small portion of 300 million, so not sure how either constitutes a majority.
As for the 45 NGOs that represent millions of members it says the “organization” signed not each member. Just because the leadership of an organization opposes something does not necessarily mean that all the membership does. Either way I still doubt they prove that “The public is firmly opposed”. Since the Georgia Aquarium has attracted over 11 million visitors the case could be made that a large percentage of the public support their efforts.
Lori Marino
November 20th, 2012
11:26 am
I am a neuroscientist and educator with over twenty years of research experience with marine mammals. Lets look at the reality behind Hurley’s comments. Let’s look at the hard data. First, just because a Harris poll shows that some people agree with the notion that aquaria can be educational does not make it educational. I’ve reviewed the so-called evidence for educational benefits from visiting marine mammal displays and published my conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal. There is no scientific basis for Hurley’s claim that these displays are educational. Second, the Georgia Aquarium and other facilities have had belugas in captivity for years. Where are all the peer-reviewed scientific studies that are touted by Hurley and others to justify captivity? I’ve done a review of the literature and that doesn’t exist either. There is little if any evidence that beluga captivity has any benefits whatsoever for beluga conservation in the wild. And third, the scientific evidence is perfectly clear. Belugas do not thrive in captivity. They lead shorter and more stressful lives. This is why the Georgia Aquarium is behind capturing these 18 belugas. They are replenishing their captive population before it dies off. I hope the public takes these actual facts into account when reading Hurley’s comments. Thank you.
Michael Mountain
November 20th, 2012
1:54 pm
I’ve never been to any of these marine zoos and circuses, and nothing could persuade me to patronize a business that makes money by holding wildlife captive. The only thing that this can ever achieve in terms of “education” is to teach impressionable children that it’s OK to kidnap intelligent, sensitive beings from their families, and put them in a barren tank on the other side of the world. That’s quite a a lesson in conservation!
Steve Mussman
November 20th, 2012
3:30 pm
The Georgia Aquarium has the potential to become a beacon of hope for marine species everywhere, but efforts to educate and promote conservation must become more pronounced and genuine if a prominent role among the world’s leading advocates for marine animals is ever to be realized. It may be true that the vast majority of visitors are impressed by what they see, but our society is all too often captivated by acts that amuse at the expense of more authentic educational opportunities. If true conservation and research is to be realized it must be carried out using methods that are consistent with it’s fundamental goals.
The aquarium offers unique opportunities for public exposure to issues of growing concern, but these are downplayed perhaps unintentionally and seem to be overbalanced by efforts to promote entertainment that drives ticket sales more than awareness. Mr. Hurley’s reference to the fact that “Beluga whales face climate change and other potentially devastating environmental issues” is encouraging, but there is no evidence to suggest that visitors to the aquarium (or it’s website) gain any significant insight into the impacts of this important issue on marine ecosystems around the world.
There are a number of aquariums that do more to enlighten than entertain and they are universally characterized by responsible limits relating to the species they choose to exhibit. You won’t find performing dolphins or the world’s largest fish confined to a ten meter pool, but you will be masterfully exposed to the threats of climate change, ocean acidification and rising sea levels. Perhaps not as alluring as dancing cetaceans, but truer to the actual goals of advancing research and conservation of the world’s oceans. I believe what critics are asking for is evidence that the Georgia Aquarium is prepared to do more to live up to the image of what a modern, world-class aquarium should be. Jean-Michel Cousteau recently put it best when he said “We need to look at ourselves and decide the time has come to view captivity of whales and dolphins as a part of our history, not a tragic part of our future”.
Don Elroy
November 20th, 2012
3:47 pm
No data exists that supports an educational value attached to zoos or aquariums in this country except exit polls and surveys done by the AZA itself. That places the assumptions and conclusion drawn in the realm of ‘highly suspect’. I have read the material myself and find it self appeasing and with little use on the subject.
Mr. Hurley, wants the public to assume some value attached to keeping animals in captivity in general through this attempt and then through some assumed benefit to the wild beluga population that of course has no proof attached either.
Touting a seven year record of something at the Georgia Aquarium, he argues that gives them some right to bypass scrutiny and draw conclusions that they know what is best for a species that they have not provided care for in captivity before. Belugas do not adapt well to captivity and any intelligent marine mammal needs much more space than can be provided at aquariums throughout the world.
Try to imagine the world through their eyes and you might understand being ripped away from your friends and family, placed in a space the size of a bedroom with some other species staring at you during all of your waking hours.
It changes the perspective of ‘educational’ depending upon whose eyes you are viewing through.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
For the animals, for your children
November 21st, 2012
9:00 am
Nice to see that people are becoming more enlightened about animal capitivity for profit and speaking out.
Erin Mooney
November 21st, 2012
4:05 pm
Just because we are powerful and CAN do something — like hold wild animals in captivity — does NOT mean we should. But when has that ever stopped humans? If there is money to be made, you can guarantee we will continue to justify a lot of horrid abuse of other species. Thank you to those who are actively opposing these acts.
Grey Stafford
November 21st, 2012
6:29 pm
Having been fortunate to work with animals from a training, research and animal management perspective for almost a quarter century, yes, by all means, “let’s look at the hard data.” Don’t take my word or any researcher’s word for it. Read the peer reviewed record for yourselves. For example…
Cetacean biology, behavior and medicine:
Nearly 60 years of published discoveries in marine mammal biology, behavior and pathogenesis, plus advancements in veterinary medicine, thanks largely to public display facilities.
S.H. Ridgway: History of Veterinary Medicine and Marine Mammals: A Personal Perspective. Aquatic Mammals, Volume 34, Number 4, 2008. pp 473-513 [approx 11 pages of citations].
(Dr. Ridgway has helped guide the science of marine mammal medicine since its infancy more than 50 years ago. His list of publications, discoveries and awards by academic, professional and governmental organizations is too lengthy to list here.)
Conservation, education and research:
To reduce the number of dolphins killed in fisherman’s tuna nets, early research into the development of escape gates and herding procedures included work with trained public display animals (e.g., spinner dolphins) to understand how animals react to various designs and best practices.
W.F. Perrin: Early Days of the Tuna/Dolphin Problem. Aquatic Mammals, Volume 35, Number 2, 2009. pp 292-305.
Beluga specific research:
A longitudinal study of the development of vocal communication in a beluga calf made possible because of a public display facility.
V. Vergara & L. G. Barrett-Lennard: Vocal Development in a Beluga Calf (Delphinapterus leucas) Aquatic Mammals, Volume 34, Number 1, 2008. pp 123-143.
If you don’t like these few published examples and their respective citations, there’s always the CRC Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine by L. Dierauff. Available on Amazon. It has hundreds of citations across nearly 4 dozen chapters on marine mammal health, husbandry and more.
Of course, there’s plenty of scientific work yet to do in order to unlock the mysteries of all marine mammals, especially a polar and largely inaccessible species like belugas. But as the decades of knowledge reflected in just the few citations listed above indicate, public display facilities play an important and well-documented role in conducting beneficial science for the preservation of species in human care and in the wild.