Comment from Emily Goldstein

It has been said that the purpose for this importation is to have a sustainable genetic diversity of captive belugas in the U.S. Despite the fact that beluga populations are not endangered (with the exception of the Cook Inlet subpopulation), zoological facilities insist that having a self-sustaining population of captive belugas is vital for their survival. This excuse has many flaws.
A first major flaw is supporting the captures themselves: supporting the removal of healthy juveniles that are critical to the future of wild populations seems to be taking a step backwards in conservation. In Russia the capture of cetaceans for aquaria is not conservation, it's business. If the Georgia Aquarium purchases 18 wild caught belugas from them they are supporting the capture of more belugas. This is supply and demand; by encouraging the capture of belugas we are only supporting the capture of other whales. And since belugas are K-selected species, the removal of individuals every year only decreases wild populations.
Another flaw is the purpose itself. Marineland of Canada alone currently has 27 wild-caught belugas. There are 32 belugas in the U.S., and 2 in the Vancouver Aquarium. In total 57 facilities around the world have belugas. Could negotiations not be made with them for breeding opportunities?
Cetaceans are sentient beings with extreme intelligence and complex social structures. To support the removal of individuals to be placed in a captive environment is cruel. The transports are stressful, captive environments are stressful, and their longevity does not prove to be any longer in captivity like many species. Not all animals tolerate captivity in the same way, and cetaceans are one that should be kept as a last resort.
There are many alternatives to educating the public about the importance of cetaceans thanks to today's technology. Interactive exhibits and films could be valid replacements. Doing this is moving backward. Why aren't we moving forward?