Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Georgia Aquarium Battles Federal Government Over Belugas

Posted by samzenpus on from the a-whale-of-a-tale dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Georgia Aquarium has argued in court that the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's denial of its permit to import beluga whales from Russia was arbitrary and capricious. The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service says the aquarium failed to meet the requirements of a law meant to protect marine mammals. Both sides accuse the other of twisting the facts, a NOAA lawyer accuses the aquarium trying "to confuse the court," and a lawyer for the aquarium says the government had "cooked the books" on whale population numbers.

5 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. approval by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm so glad I'm a programmer. The only legal issues I have to deal with are patents and copyright suits. So much easier, right?

    According to the article, the aquarium already has some beluga whales in its care. When the new whales arrive, some of them will be kept in Georgia, others will be transferred to Sea World.

    Originally, the regulatory agency gave approval. Then in 2013, the agency changed its mind, and denied the approval. What movie about Sea World came out in 2013?

    In any case, the aquarium is suing the agency to open up the documents that explain why their request was denied. So far that hasn't gone through court yet.

    (Note, this is all from the article, and news articles are frequently wrong. I don't have any inside information here).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:approval by tompaulco · · Score: 1, Informative

      This. The animals are better off dead, but the Republicans won't allow that since they enjoy seeing animals suffer. That is the way of their kind.

      I think you mean Democrats, since aquariums and zoological plants are liberal institutions where environmentalism and the fact that every single species of life on Earth is dangerously close to extinction at any given point in time is constantly shoved down your throat.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:approval by iluvcapra · · Score: 1, Informative

      Indeed. They should shut all the facilities down, euthanize the animals that have no hope of being reintroduced to the wild and outlaw the importation or breeding of whales and dolphins.

      There are rescue organizations and zoos that would be happy to take many of these animals, that they're in captivity is one issue but it's not as important as their mistreatment. When Sea World can't use a whale in an act, they use it to breed more performing animals; if they can't use it to breed, they throw it away, either to a rescue organization or a smaller, even less reputable park.

      And, even if we had to euthanize every last one, at least we could say that no other whales would ever be pressed into this kind of service, which would be a good.

      Oh, and fuck Sea World's investors.

      I'm not exactly sure how someone's right to profits balances against concrete harms visited on intelligent creatures, for no other purpose than doing tricks in front of a paying audience.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    3. Re:approval by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, don't just blindly trust the Fox News story here.

      As to the claim that they didn't give reasons...

      http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pe...

      All of the documents are there, including the public comment, and the response from the company to the public comments, and the denial letter.

      http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pe...
      http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pe...

      I find their responses to the public comments to be evasive, dishonest, and confrontational. They make no attempt to seriously address the issues in a way that could lead to compromise solutions or mitigation of problems.

      They give a bunch of reasons for denial. And they didn't approve it and then unapprove it, either; they processed the application and denied it. The whales were captured in Russia before the permit application. Fox News would prefer it to be ambiguous so that it sounds like the big bad Gubermint is hurting everybody by changing their minds. But that didn't happen.

      Remember, the default thing with importing marine mammals for public display is that you can't do it. You can't just buy a marine mammal and build an aquarium. You need special permission, because these are intelligent animals who are under continued population stress due to human activity. People have gone to great lengths to afford them some minor protections. You need to get a permit, and it needs to be in the public interest. This company seems to think that they have a right to import marine mammals, but they simply don't. That isn't a right. The government has a significant interest in regulating foreign trade.

      Why does Fox News care? Because evul libraaals want to save whales.

      https://www.change.org/p/noaa-...

      There was no approval before the denial. They applied, the public commented, the agency considered, and they denied it. Which is what most of the public wanted in this case. I don't even understand their claim; how could they have approval already before the required public comment period, etc? It makes no sense at all. They knew the process going in; the person doing the review recommended denial, and the Agency agreed and denied. It is a requirement of the law that in order to issue such a permit, it has to not have a negative impact on the species. In this case, these are whales being captured in the wild purely to sell to zoos, and so supporting that trade has a small but negative impact on the species. There is no positive conservation goal identified that balances that. It is purely for entertainment. That is banned under the law where it has any negative impact on the species. In other cases, whales that are threatened in the wild are captured to be used in captive breeding programs that are believed to have a net positive impact on the species. That means it is legal for NOAA to issue the permit in those cases. The Beluga population is not benefiting or expected to benefit from any such breeding program.

  2. Re: it's wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I live in atlanta and we have a season pass to the Georgia aquarium. The reason why the aquarium needs more whales is because for whatever reason the people who run it and the owner, Home Depot founder Arthur Blank, decided the unique attraction would be whale sharks and belugas. Both keep dying in captivity and hence need to be replaced frequently with wild animals to keep the exhibits open. Pretty ridiculous really. The aquarium is excellent without the poor belugas trapped in a small tank.