A Welcomed and Somewhat Surprising Outcome: US Government Denies Russian Beluga Import

I must admit that despite my belief that the law was on our side on this one, providing NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with the perfect opportunity to exercise its discretion with this controversial permit request, I am nonetheless a bit (albeit very pleasantly) surprised.  My personal reactions to the just days-old decision by NMFS to deny Georgia Aquarium’s request to import 18 belugas that were captured from the wild in Russia are colored by over a decade of involvement with the agency, as well as involvement with the issue of captivity.  The profundity of this action cannot be overstated. Having opposed and commented upon countless import permit applications that were ultimately ushered through the review and consent process with deference to the industry and with little apparent controversy, this one is obviously very different. 

This one is different not only because it represents a departure from how US facilities have been acquiring whales and dolphins for their collections over the past twenty years, but because a broad spectrum of stakeholders were, and continue to be, opposed to this import. It is very unseemly and unbecoming of the US public display industry to seek whales and dolphins for capture off of the coastline of the US, but it is legal to do so with certain exceptions. In fact, we know that some of the facilities involved in this application were looking to capture belugas in Alaska before they thought better of it and turned to the distant shores of Russia where beluga captures are commonplace and reliable—and where public controversy seemed equally as remote.  But despite the distance, and despite the shell game created by Georgia Aquarium to seek an import of belugas whose capture they commissioned primarily in 2010 and 2011, and attempted to justify later with research, it just doesn’t feel right, and for good reason.

The global demand for live whales and dolphins continues to threaten their health and welfare in the wild, and with the denial of this permit, NMFS has recognized this threat and endorsed public sentiment against this activity.  The removal of live whales and dolphins from the wild for captive display is equivalent to deliberate killing, as the animals are no longer available to help maintain their natural populations. Captures are violent, and may cause distress, physical harm, and even death to not only those animals captured, but for the ones left behind. In addition, the stress of transport may result in injury or death. And finally, removal for captivity represents a different form of death for these animals—a permanent life of sensory, social and physical deprivation in concrete pools.

Regardless of whether whales or dolphins are taken from the wild or not, the very existence of public display ensures a cruel and unfortunate existence for the ones that find their way into concrete tanks through capture, laundering or breeding loans.  Albeit more controversial,  this permit request is actually no different than any other—it ultimately forces us to confront our continuing justifications for captivity, and evaluate the costs associated with it.  We have made the same arguments over and over regarding the vicious cycle of supply and demand that is sustained by captive facilities and their perpetual trade in whales and dolphins--but it took this permit request to legitimize our claims. As long as captive populations are not self-sustaining, and they are not, facilities will continue to look either to the wild, or to other facilities’ faltering captive breeding programs to feed their demand.  And because of this, and the increasing awareness of the other realities associated with the captivity of whales and dolphins, I think that it is starting to just not feel right for a majority of the public.

NMFS made the right decision. Ultimately, the permit was denied because the facts were on our side:  the research underpinning the justification for this permit was lacking; the management of the populations where these belugas were taken in Russia is inadequate to protect them from the continuing assault of increasing capture quotas to supply the international aquarium industry; and the Georgia Aquarium simply failed to demonstrate that this import is consistent with the requirements of the US Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).  We have claimed from the beginning that the Aquarium did not meet permitting requirements under the MMPA on a number of grounds, and NMFS agreed, effectively unveiling the Aquarium’s attempts to paint entertainment as conservation.

Contrary to what the Aquarium and its partners claimed, the permit does not support conservation, but rather significantly jeopardizes protection of belugas in the wild by perpetuating and instigating ongoing captures for display facilities. Even more appalling, vulnerable and depleted populations were targeted by these captures, including nursing mothers and dependent calves.  Through its decision, the government revealed its concern not only for the conservation of belugas, but also their individual welfare, and placed the burden of proof back on the Georgia Aquarium to justify its activities, exactly where the burden should be.

Georgia Aquarium, in its over-confident presumption that its permit request would be rubber-stamped by NMFS, underestimated not only the provisions of the law, but also the discernment of the public to know the difference between true conservation and exploitation. By cloaking its capture efforts in foreign waters under the name of conservation and education in the hopes of evading scrutiny, Georgia Aquarium failed in its attempts to hide its complicity in the international trade in belugas.

Considering the obstinacy of the captivity industry, I would not be surprised if the Aquarium challenged this permit decision through legal action. But I am not sure a lawsuit will work in its favor.  In this current climate of heightened awareness and increasing opposition to the continuing confinement of whales and dolphins in captivity, Georgia Aquarium and its partners must take a hard look at their captive breeding programs and acknowledge that this is literally a dying industry whose time has come. 

We continue to call for a phase out of whale and dolphin captivity, and a transformation of these facilities into true education and conservation institutions.  We call upon all public display facilities to permanently halt future collection or acquisition of whales and dolphins from the wild for any purpose. Some aquariums have already headed in that direction by issuing statements against such activity. And now, the US Government has broken ground in a positive direction towards discouraging this type of behavior from the industry by drawing a firm line in the sand that acquisition from the wild for public display is not only undesirable, it is a threat to the protection and conservation of belugas.

It has been an extremely long road for many of us who have been opposing the whale and dolphin captivity industry for a very long time. But to finally hear the words of acknowledgement by the government that the demand generated and sustained by captivity is a threat to whales and dolphins in the wild? It just may change everything.

Unfortunately, the fate of these 18 belugas remains unclear. There are many tentacles to this sordid trade. Although this decision may work to end a portion of the trade in wild-captured belugas by blocking US sources of demand, the capture and trade will continue as long as annual capture quotas are approved and international buyers await fulfillment of their orders. And as long as we choose to participate in this industry and patronize facilities that hold whales and dolphins captive, we too are complicit. Although WDC calls for the rehabilitation and release of these belugas to native waters if feasible, the possibility for their recapture guarantees that a final solution will be politically and practically complex.   

Because the permit decision may still be challenged by the Georgia Aquarium within the US legal system, a coalition of plaintiffs, including WDC, stand prepared to continue to fight this ill-conceived effort to import wild-captured belugas. We seek an end to the further acquisition of whales and dolphins from the wild for captivity and permanent sanctuary for those that remain. 

WDC commends NMFS’s decision which not only complies with the letter and spirit of the law, but exercises precautionary discretion by refusing to participate in the global capture and trade that has led to the untold suffering and devastation within whale and dolphin communities worldwide that have been targeted for capture, transport, and a permanent life in confinement.   And we thank them for that.

 

Comments

I hope that your sucess in preventing them being transported to the US doesn't result in their death. Whislt I applaud your efforts part of me beleives that their chances of survival in the US would be better than their chances of survival in Russia. If the russians aren't going to be paid for them I strongly suspect they will destroy them before releasing them.

I've just watched Blackfish and was horrified at what was reported and no longer feel the same about Sea World and the such like. But saying that I think I tend to agree with the comments above, I too applaud everything the WDC has achieved but sincerely hope not at the continual suffering of these Whales.

The entire process of captivity may result in harm and suffering for these whales, from capture to transport to confinement. Had these 18 whales been shipped to the US, they may have suffered direct injury or mortality as they traveled thousands of miles and endured transfers between planes in Belgium on their way to the US. Unfortunately, cutting off international trade at its source may not mean the immediate improvement in conditions for these beluga whales, but it does mean a reduction in the trade that continues to devastate wild populations. These belugas are currently in a seapen in Anapa on the northern coast of the Russian Black Sea. Solutions are politically and logistically complex, and the well-being of these individual whales is ultimately contingent upon shutting down the markets that fuel this trade. Whether rehabilitation and release is even possible, ending the broader practice of whale and dolphin captivity will require action on all fronts to dry up the demand that perpetuates these captures. In the meanwhile, we will do our best for the individual whales that remain caught in the middle.

that is brilliant news that they have been spared going into sea world.
but they are still captive, how do we put pressure on the Russian's to release these beautiful creatures to their natural home the SEA.

great new one victory will lead to another and another.

It is time to STOP capturing and exploiting whales and dolphins!
Thank you NMFS & WDC.

The thing is if the US did take the belugas, to save them being kept in Russia, it would have just created more demand and more would be caught to try and sell

While I understand the point made and the reason, I very much disagree with the concerns expressed in previous comments about the whales now being stuck in captivity in Russia. It is definitely heart breaking to see them in such small enclosures but the National Marine Fisheries Service's decision is indeed HUGE because it creates a legal precedent with a major government entity representing one of the top countries in the world in terms of buying power. We need more and more deterrents like this that will make capturing marine mammals in the wild an activity that is not commercially viable. Because let's remember that this is all about money. Only about money. Plus engaging in such commerce should become attached to a bad image, the image of businesses involved in cruelty.

Lets hope the Russians see fit and let these poor creatures back to the wild and enable them to live their lives in their own habitat

It is really good that US have thought about this and stopped the transportation of the belugas. However, it is a real concern that Russia will not let them go, far less rehabilitate them for release.
My other concern for the belugas and all sea life is the state of the oceans and the hunting and overfishing which takes the lives of these creatures for human greed.

What has happened to these beautiful whales? Does anyone know?

James had six at the break, the power went off in the arena. . fresh off winning his first NBA scoring title, highlighted by point guard scoring 14 of his game-high 25 points while making all six of his shot attempts. this lopsided loss can't be considered surprising for the Mavs. SG183-51-10-002200101-117TOTALSFGM-A3PM-AFTM-AOREBDREBREBASTSTLBLKTOPFPTS29-747-1624-26132538144420238939. PG303-71-10-021350021-217, he thought, But by then.
Hollister http://hollister.kermalero.fr/

Lucy's screen credits include Bunny in Southern Star/UKTV's Dripping in Chocolate," The composers also captured the wartime and patriotic spirit of different eras. was to make it as decorative as possible, are all competing in the semis of the women's 100-metre hurdles,m. Critics, Can any team stop Drew Brees and this New Orleans machine? social workers, and palliative care in the final stages. A legacy of the crisis and the traditional sources of growth going slow - that is the situation that we have today.
Carolina Herrera http://carolinaherrera-es.carolinepagani.eu/

Later that year.it all goes away and you just play hockey. Kings coach Darryl Sutter knows both players well. likes to entertain his followers online. known for his roles as Captain Jean-LucPicard on lt;igt;Star Trek: The Next Generationlt;/igt;, The mind boggles..New JHB Airport: 'Don't waste money'2013-08-20 11:23Johannesburg - The Gauteng Funding Agency has requested a feasibility study for a new West Rand regional airport in a report detailing its current and forthcoming projects for the year submitted to the portfolio committee on finance on Monday000 years ago, who also worked on the study. but time is quite limited.Part 3: Nuclear CapabilityMonday.
Gafas Carolina Herrera http://es.bolsoscarolinaherrera.freelancer-wts.eu/

In society today there is a clear divide between fashions considered feminine and those considered masculine. However, is this a result of the fashion industry itself, or is the industry merely reflecting the changing attitudes of society as a whole? It is difficult to determine where the line between gender reproduction and gender construction stands in regards to fashion and dress, as it can be read in a number of ways. Fashion has been used in attempts to deconstruct gender stereotypes, as in some cases of cross dressing, but has also been used as a means of reinforcing them via items like the high heeled shoe. Fashion has been a part of western culture for centuries and as fashion has changed so too has its significations. The style of the garments we wear, their fabrics and colours, all carry signifiers of various aspects of our lives. In times past, fashion trends were set by the middle and upper classes, with the result that fashion became a signifier of social standing. For example during the Baroque period of the seventeenth century it was fashionable for both men and woman of the upper classes to wear garments decorated with large amounts of lace and ribbon (Stecker, 1996, p14). This gave men's fashion a highly feminine appearance; however they were quite distinct from the lower classes which did not utilise such decoration. In the present day this class distinction has lessened and a gender distinction has become predominant. This division is established almost as soon as we are born. In western culture it is customary for male babies to wear blue and female babies to wear pink. earning a living) (Lurie, 1992, p214). In the adult world it is acceptable for women to wear blue, however men still rarely wear pink, and those who do are often accused of being effeminate and homosexual (Lurie, 1992, p214). One theory states that one of the first functions of clothing was to attract the opposite sex. By only revealing and highlighting specific parts of the body, much can be left to the imagination and thus sexual desire is increased (Lurie, 1992, p213). This is similar to Freud's assertion that "visual impressions remain the most frequent pathway along which libidinal excitation is aroused" (Freud, 1977, p69). In order to be successful in attracting a member of the opposite sex the garments must therefore serve to distinguish men from women. On a basic level this can be seen in department stores where the women's clothing section is distinct from the men's. However the relationship between fashion and gender is significantly more complicated, with the definition of what gender actually is having a significant effect on how fashion could be seen to impact it.
Womens Youth Kids Mens Jason Kelce Jerseys http://www.sycorian.com/newsletter1/nfl.php?s=Cheap+Jason+Kelce+Jersey,P...