Georgia Aquarium; SeaWorld Apply For NOAA Permit To Import 18 Wild-Caught Beluga Whales From Russia: First U.S. Import of Cetaceans Since 1993? :(

If you're a cetacean advocate, you are likely aware of this NOAA permit application: 

"Summary:
Notice is hereby given that the Georgia Aquarium Inc., 225 Baker Street, Atlanta, GA 30313, has applied in due form for a permit to import eighteen (18) beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) for public display purposes."

The Marine Mammal Protection Act makes exceptions for aquariums in the acquisition of  "stock."  Boasting of allegedly-wonderful captive breeding programs (don't even get me started), most of the large aquaria have gloated that wild-capture and import of cetaceans ceased ~19 years ago is no longer necessary.  Until now.  Beluga whales are considered a rare species and very little sightings have been observed because they are not big 'breachers'.  They may spy-hop from time to time, but they definitely aren't jumping afficionados.  They are primarily an arctic species.  Since 2006, several Delphinapterus leucas communities, drawn to the Sea Of Okhotsk, Russia, during the salmon spawn season, have been shattered by a series of captures. Apparently, the marine center there began these captures under the purported guise of seeing how feasible it was to capture them.  Fair enough; several were fitted with transponders and some of the belugas' territory has now been mapped.  I don't know though. Just like Georgia Aquarium's justification/PR video regarding their import permit request (see below), we learn that it is marine park money motivating the projects.  I strongly suspect that the monetary clout of the world's seaquaria were behind this whole thing in some fashion. When I'm less emotional, I will do some more research and see if I can find out.

This 2-part, propaganda-style 'documentary' depicts the beluga captures in Russia -- in a sanitized, romanticized presentation.  Well, that's the vibe that myself and a good number of other cetacean rights activists sensed, anyway. What do you think?  Decide for yourself:

To me, honestly, this reminds me of Nazi propaganda films shown to German civilians depicting how good life was for those sent to the concentration [ahem! "work" ] / death camps, depicting smiling, happy families at a "cafe" on the premises when in reality there was no such thing...those sent to the camps were sent to immeasurable trauma, horror and often sadistically protracted deaths.  Propaganda at it's finest?  Attempting to garner public approval by making things look all beautified?  I want to vomit!

What does the permit's principle applicant, Georgia Aquarium, have to say?  Oh, yes...I forgot to mention that part.  The EIGHTEEN belugas aren't all destined to remain in Georgia.  Oh, no...they will be sent to a total of 5 aquaria, 3 of which are each of the U.S. SeaWorld parks (big surprise. *sigh* ).
The following is an excerpt from NOAA's permit record (Full PDF available on the Federal Action page related to this permit):

"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). Georgia Aquarium requests authorization to import 18 wild caught beluga whales from the Utrish Marine Mammal Research Station in Russia to the United States for the purpose of
public display. All 18 beluga whales were collected in Sakhalin Bay of the Sea of Okhotsk in 2006, 2010, and 2011.  Approximately six (6) animals would be transported to the Georgia Aquarium facility in Atlanta, GA, and the remaining animals would be transported to four other U.S. partner facilities; Sea World of Florida, Sea World of Texas, Sea World of California, and Shedd Aquarium pursuant to breeding loans.
Georgia Aquarium and its U.S. partners are: (1) Open to the public on regularly scheduled basis with access that is not limited or restricted other than by charging for an admission fee; (2) offer conservation and educational programs based on professionally accepted standards of the Alliance of MarineMammal Parks and Aquariums and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums; and (3) hold Exhibitor’s Licenses by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131–59). In addition to determining whether the applicant meets the three public display criteria, NMFS must determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activity is humane and does not represent any unnecessary risks to the health and welfare of marine mammals; that the proposed activity by itself, or in combination with other activities, will not likely have a significant adverse impact on the species or stock; and that the applicant’s expertise, facilities and resources are adequate to accomplish successfully the objectives and activities stated in the application."

As for the comments on the actual NOAA notice, I am pleased to report that so far the comments are unanimous:  WE DO NOT WANT THIS! :(  And yes, I added my own.
Now the question is, will the powers-that-be (and the money exchange and projected profits for the aquaria in question) listen to us?

Here's Georgia Aquarium's Justification/PR Video:

I am so appalled. The claims in this video... DISGUSTING AND MANIPULATIVE! :(

Where to begin:
Appealing at the hearts regarding their oh-so-heroic rescue of their first belugas. Sweet story, but not justification for the acquisition of more animals.
Need animals in captivity in order to learn more about them in the wild. IMPOSSIBLE!  The majority of the world's leading cetacean researchers (non-corporate-affiliated) say that very little can be learned about these beings in captivity which correlates to their behavior in the wild.  An artificial environment, complete with supplemental medications in an attempt to minimize the horrific trauma these animals endure in captivity; their behavior is NOT what it is in the wild; they are in chemically-treated waters...ETC. ETC. ETC.
Discuss how endangered and rare the animals are, but then justify taking them from a 'robust population' -- make up your mind!
Oh and my favorite?  94% of Americans agree with your program?  Oh really?  I'd like to see the distribution and actual data you crunched to come up with that figure.  LOOK AT THE NOAA COMMENTS!  I would say they are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the figures you presented.  Comment after comment are appeals NOT to import these animals from Okhutsk,  Nice try.
 -- ok I realize anyone arriving at this blog is likely part of the choir I'm preaching to... so I will stop.  I just find this so fucking disgusting.

I am just so messed up about this.  I feel physically ill and devastated for the plight of these magnificent beings who belong wild and free.  The whole "stock" term and "breeding loans" and all the talk like these animals are objects or property or -- I just...I have no words.
I pray with every fiber of my being that this does not happen...but then, the question remains:  What will the Okhotsk facility do?  Will they stop these captures?  I wish the Cetacean Bill Of Rights proposed by Dr. White ("In Defense Of Dolphins" author and head scientist for the Wild Dolphin Project) will one day be ratified and all of these prisons will be eradicated forever!

I am a very, very distressed delphigirl. :(

RE: Dr. Ridgway's Talking Whale - Malcolm Brenner's Blog Entry 10/26/12

I received permission from Malcolm Brenner to share this entry.  Please visit his blog and share support.  He is an amazing advocate for cetaceans and zoophiles alike: Visit Malcolm Brenner's Wet Goddess Blog

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Dr. Ridgway’s talking whale

This is either Bella or Lugosi, the two beluga whales at the Vancouver Public Aquarium when I visited in the early 1970′s.

I will admit, right off the bat, that I have not read the original, peer-reviewed article “Spontaneous human speech mimicry by a cetacean” in the latest issue of Current Biology.  The magazine wants $31.50 to buy just that one story, and while I am all for supporting such worthy efforts it is not within my modest means to do so.  So at least for the time being, I must rely on the accounts in the popular press.  The first one I read, by  Jennifer Viegas in Discovery News, concluded with the following lines:
The findings open up the possibility of teaching white whales how to speak, but that effort might not be worthwhile, Ridgway suggests.
“They readily learn,” he said. “I think they could be taught many sounds. I do not know that teaching speech would be scientifically worthwhile.”
As I read that last sentence, a series of strange feelings passed over me in rapid succession.  One was anger.  Another was sheer astonishment at the lack of imagination displayed.  And finally, a pervasive and disheartening sense of futility.
I think the anger came from seeing something of profound value to me tossed aside by someone who was in a position to exploit it but chose not to essentially because of a prejudice.  The prejudice being, of course, against the whale; that the whale had nothing to say and was simply making human noises to amuse itself and startle the occasional innocent diver in its tank.
Dolly, the dolphin who courted me, worked very hard to get me to mimic her for just a few minutes.  When I finally mastered the sound she’d been trying to teach me all along, she went nuts, splashing around her pen and throwing water into the air.  Ridgway had a beluga who TRIED TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM FOR FOUR YEARS, and aside from recording its sounds on a sonograph to prove his “fish story,” Ridgway didn’t investigate further.
From my point of view, infuriating.

At the New York City Aquarium in the early 1970′s.

It’s funny, but one of the accusations leveled against zoosexuals like me is that we “can’t get consent from our partners.”  Of course, this is utter bilge, because female animals in estrus have many ways of showing consent, the most obvious and last of which is letting the males successfully mount them!  But our intentions aren’t to harm or even discomfort our partners.  I think I can honestly say most zoosexuals I’m aware of are at least as concerned with their non-human partners’ pleasure as most normally sexed humans are.
You know who else really can’t get consent from their partners?  SCIENTISTS.  In fact, the whole idea of getting consent from experimental animals is preposterous… white rats signing release forms?… EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF CETACEANS.  Apparently whatever kind of science Ridgway wants to practice is independent of the cooperation of the research subject.  Or the research subject is coerced into performing.  Don’t think a captive dolphin or whale (a beluga is actually a large white dolphin species) doesn’t know which side its fish are buttered on!
How could Ridgway’s science NOT benefit from being able to talk to a whale?  Think about the kind of experiments that would be possible from a cooperative, informed subject!  I have heard it said that the foundations of the process for scientific inquiry into a subject were laid largely by William of Occam, based on the principles of interrogation established by the Spanish Inquisition.  I do not know if this is true, but Ridgway’s uninformed, unimaginative and narrow-minded comment makes me afraid it is.
Furthermore, I wonder why Ridgway waited almost 30 years to publish.  (OK, I admit that’s like the pot calling the kettle black but he was publishing a scientific paper, not a tell-all autobiographical novel. I wrote, and threw away, several drafts of Wet Goddess before I found one that worked.)
Viegas writes, At the time, Ridgway presented the news at a scientific conference, but the work was not funded and became lost in the research shuffle until more recently, when colleagues encouraged him to publish the data.
Is this the crux of the matter, then?  Did Ridgway actually want to study the vocalizations of NOC (as the whale was known) but find himself frustrated by a lack of funding?  What does “became lost in the research shuffle” mean?  Who’s to blame for this shortcoming of science?  Could it be… JOHN C. LILLY, M.D.?
What, I ask myself, is unique about Ridgway’s observations?  Didn’t Lilly (and his often uncredited research assistant Margaret Howe) record hours of tape and miles of sonograph paper charting subjects like Elvar and Peter Dolphin trying to learn English?
Maybe several things it turns out.   First, NOC’s vocalizations were spontaneous.  Lilly’s dolphins were conditioned, rewarded for vocalizing by getting to socialize with the trainer, not with fish.  Second, Ridgway is a recognized marine biologist; Lilly was an M.D. specializing in neurochemistry and brain probing before getting into human-dolphin communication.  Third, Ridgway got published in Current Biology; because he wasn’t a marine biologist, Lilly had to publish the reports of  his attempted language acquisition studies in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, where they were easily overlooked by mainstream biologists.
And finally, I feel a sense of futility because I remember how fast I progressed with Dolly and I think about Ridgway having NOC for the four years that he tried to speak to us and, and I feel envious.  I wonder what I could have accomplished in that time, and whether it would even have meant anything to scientists like Ridgway.

At the Vancouver Public Aquarium, early 1970′s.

Tags: beluga, Discovery, dolphins, interspecies communications, John C. Lilly, Ridgway, whale, white

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 25th, 2012 at 11:51 am.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, now on to my thoughts. In short? I agree with Mr. Brenner. I will elaborate on my sentiments when I am better able to articulate them.  Today has been a difficult day.
To Mr. Brenner:  Thank you for continuing to raise awareness about these very important issues. I am grateful for your courage and tenacity; wisdom and works.

A few thoughts...

I've given this idea some more thought, and I am going to remove some of the stories I've posted here.  I thought of making a comprehensive list of delphinic erotica, but I have to admit that my heart just doesn't resonate with some of the material.  I tend to be repulsed by the emotionless "use" of animals for pleasure (i.e., no love; just a kinky sex desire).   As a zoophile, my love for nonhuman animals is not based solely on the erotic elements of interspecies relationships.  I genuinely respect and revere nonhuman animals as much as I would a human mate, and I would never want to seek sexual gratification with no connection.  Because of this, I really feel sad when reading most delphinic erotica.  Some works have even caused me to wince and feel repulsed.  I've decided, therefore, to only to share works which resonate somehow with me.  Fair enough, right? After all, it's my blog and my prerogative!

Scientific American's "Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality": DelphiGirl's thoughts on this article

The following entry is in response to an article from Scientific American's website.  The article below (written in 2010) presents excellent information and cerebral consideration regarding the subject of zoophilia as a sexual orientation.  I, for one, commend the author of this article and am immensely grateful to have found this publication.  I personally distinguish between the terms 'bestiality' and 'zoophilia.'  Not all who feel love and sexual attraction for nonhuman species distinguish between the two terms.  To me, 'bestiality', as the author of this article suggests, is the term used to describe human-nonhuman animal sexual relations as a surrogate for human-human sex.  There are those, myself included, who much more readily resonate with the term 'zoophilia.'  To me, 'zoophilia' describes intimate interspecies sex and relationships out of a genuine preference for said nonhuman animal.
These issues definitely warrant further consideration and exploration.  At least in my experience (and talking to others with similar sexual orientations), zoophiles are NOT deviant perverts who are backward farm people with low intelligence and a paucity of potential female human partners (as Kinsey's work seems to suggest).  This notion is highly offensive to those who identify as zoophiles.  To me (I hesitate to speak in generalities because like everything else, each person and personal concept of sexuality are unique unto themelves), my love for nonhuman animals is not about some kinky fetish thrill or due to some need to attain a lover surrogate [rather than a human male].  As an omnisexual, my attraction is not confined to the rigid little boxes or labels which many seem to want to stick people in.  I am me, period.
Anyway, I'm rambling now...so check out the article if you're interested:
Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality

DelphiGirl Writes: An Introduction

Long have I been captivated by the beauty and majesty of cetaceans.  In this respect, I am far from alone.  What sets me apart from the majority, however, is that my attraction and reverence for these phenomenal beings goes far deeper than most would comprehend.  Dolphins in particular call to my heart, rivet my mind and evoke an intense desire within my body and soul in a manner surpassing the boundaries of common societal norms.  My affinity is spiritual, sexual and deeply romantic; much as most women feel exclusively for men.  For better or for worse, I am definitely not a typical woman.  I am omnisexual, and a delphinic zoophile in particular.
In the already-rare world of the delphinic zoophile, women are the definitive minority.  For the majority of my life, I felt as if I were the only one with this constitution; an aberrant freak destined to a life of solace, shame and despair.  Several years ago, I found Malcolm Brenner's blog.  I was positively shocked and thrilled to learn of his journey, to which I could instantly relate!  Finding this blog precipitated within myself the courage to seek -- and ultimately be fortunate enough to find -- others like myself.  Experiencing the profound depths of loneliness due to my very different constitution regarding love, sex and sexuality has been very difficult to endure alone.  How blessed we are to have such an excellent medium of communication in the Internet!
I wish to thank those who have spoken before me and who have, in their bravery, empowered me to do the same.
Thus far, I have encountered only two other women with similar sexualities, but quite a few men!  I am elated to know that there are others who share my love, respect and admiration of dolphins, and hope to learn from (and envy!) those who have actually experienced relationships with these magnificent beings.  I look forward with great anticipation and joy to share community with others like myself; to celebrate the love we share in the beauty, majesty and humbling potency of delphinic allure.