BELUGA IMPORT PROJECT
CONTENTS
GEORGIA AQUARIUM – BELUGA IMPORT PROJECT
FACING EXTINCTION
7
In less than 40 years, beluga whales will be extinct in North American aquariums – here’s what we can do
SEARCHING THE GLOBE
8
In order to sustain the North American population, we began looking for options worldwide
POPULATION STUDY
10
A five-year population study was commissioned to ensure that this project would have no negative impact
UTRISH MARINE STATION
11
After reviewing many inadequate Russian facilities, an appropriate temporary facility was found
THE PERMIT PROCESS
12
Georgia Aquarium then applied for the permit – and what should have been months turned into years
DIFFICULT DECISIONS
13
After the permit denial, we were tasked with a series of decisions for the future of beluga whales
UNCERTAIN FUTURE
14
Beluga whales in North America now face a future with no clear outcome
CONSERVATION
15
See how we have committed to this unique species – and always will
EXPERT BIOS
17
Biographies of our leading beluga whale and zoological experts
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS ON MARINE MAMMAL RELEASE
36
Analysis from our Chief Veterinary Officer on the realities of whale and dolphin release
RESPONSES TO ROAST BEEF PRODUCTIONS
42
Read the entire correspondence between Georgia Aquarium and the filmmakers
A flash drive has been provided for you. On this drive you will find:




Photos and video taken by Georgia Aquarium zoological team while at Utrish Marine Station
Photos and video of Georgia Aquarium animal care teams and beluga whales
A digital version of this media kit
A link to belugaimportproject.org – a website completely dedicated to this project
About belugaimportproject.org
This site is dedicated solely to detailing the complexities of our beluga import project in a format that’s
easy to understand. Here you will find videos, photos, and information on Georgia Aquarium and its 12year commitment to this project and beluga whales.
1
GEORGIA AQUARIUM
BELUGA IMPORT PROJECT – OVERVIEW
The population of beluga whales in accredited North American zoological facilities is dwindling. Today,
more than 23 million guests and more than one million students have been inspired by beluga whales at
Georgia Aquarium in its ten years. Georgia Aquarium’s commitment to this majestic species has been
ongoing prior to its opening in 2005. When faced with the reality that millions of people may never have
the opportunity to witness these unique Arctic mammals, ever, in North America – Georgia Aquarium
acted.
Georgia Aquarium’s mission for the beluga import project was to ensure a sustainable population of
beluga whales in accredited North American facilities. Maintaining a healthy population of belugas in
human care is essential to this goal and serves to help the conservation of beluga whales worldwide.
This required adding new whales to the current population in human care to increase the number and
the genetic diversity.
Throughout this guide you will have the opportunity to follow along the entire 12-year process. From
studying the remote region of Far East Russia, applying for the import permit, leading into the years the
permit decision-making languished in court. You will land at the permit denial and the difficult decisions
that followed. Throughout the entire
process we believed we acted morally,
ethically, and acted in the best interest
of these whales.
In the past few weeks we have been
made aware of a crowd-funded film
that casts severe allegations at Georgia
Aquarium and its beluga import project.
While we have not been able to view
the film, we believe the film to have a
host of inaccuracies. We will continue
to address these allegations head-on.
Although these beluga whales will never
come to the U.S. to receive the highest standard of care anywhere in the world, Georgia Aquarium
remains committed to this species. As we look into the uncertain future of beluga whales not only in
North America, but across the globe, Georgia Aquarium continues to protect beluga populations
through research, education, and inspiring millions of people to care for them.
Georgia Aquarium, its partners, and its beluga whale experts committed over 12 years to this project to
sustain a population of beluga whales that needs our help. This guide will detail the complexities of the
project that is so important to us – this is our story.
2
Beluga Import Project Timeline

2004: Georgia Aquarium searches zoological facilities worldwide for beluga whales to acquire.
Search concludes no whales available with one exception. Two male whales, originally sourced
in Russia, at a facility under a roller coaster in Mexico City, were in guarded condition and in
need of rescue.
Additionally, a zoological expert from Georgia Aquarium was sent to eastern Russia, Chkalov
Island, to explore potential for acquisition of whales from a company that sources whales from
the Sea of Okhotsk. Results of the trip indicated collection from this population could be
possible but a population abundance study would be necessary to ensure compliance with
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

2005: Georgia Aquarium rescues two beluga whales from Mexico City and acquires three female
whales on breeding loan from a partner facility. Evaluation of the existing collection at Georgia
Aquarium and at accredited partner facilities in North America indicates the population of
whales will not sustain due to low number of animals and lack of genetic diversity.

2007: Georgia Aquarium provides funding along with SeaWorld, Ocean Park Corp. of Hong
Kong; Mystic Aquarium in Mystic, Conn.; and Kamogawa Sea World of Japan for scientists from
the Russian Academy of Sciences A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution to conduct a
comprehensive population abundance and genetics study of the population of beluga whales in
the Western Sea of Okhotsk (in the Sakhalin-Amur region of far East Russia).
A second Georgia Aquarium zoological expert was sent to the far east of Russia, Chkalov Island
to observe collection and release of whales for the beluga population abundance and satellite
tagging study. The official confirms the process and techniques witnessed were similar to the
methods used by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/Fisheries and other
researchers and agencies during cetacean tagging and health assessments; methods that are
common in wildlife biology and determined to be humane (i.e. required Institutional Animal
Care and Use review of protocols as regulated by the U.S. Animal Welfare Act).

2008: Georgia Aquarium continues funding along with SeaWorld, Ocean Park Corp. of Hong
Kong; Mystic Aquarium in Mystic, Conn.; and Kamogawa Sea World of Japan for an independent
population abundance and genetics study of beluga whales in the Western Sea of Okhotsk.

2009: Georgia Aquarium begins dialogue with NOAA Fisheries permits division regarding the
draft of an import permit to acquire beluga whales from Russia. NOAA encourages Georgia
Aquarium to apply to import an appropriate number of whales to achieve a sustainable
population in human care in North America. This approach would mitigate the need to import
beluga whales in the future.
3

2010: A third Georgia Aquarium zoological expert was sent to Chkalov Island in the Russian far
east, to observe beluga whale collection and release of whales for beluga tagging and
population abundance study. The official also confirms the process and techniques witnessed
were similar to the methods used by NOAA Fisheries and other researchers and agencies during
cetacean tagging and health assessments; methods that are common in wildlife biology and
determined to be humane.
The Russian Academy of Sciences A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution concludes
five years of population abundance research on the wild population of beluga whales in the
Western Sea of Okhotsk. The research concludes that this population of belugas is stable and
that acquiring a limited number from this population will have no negative impact on its
sustainability.
Georgia Aquarium informs Russians of intent to import 18 whales so animals can be identified
for Georgia Aquarium’s import permit application.
Georgia Aquarium establishes partnership with a zoological park in Asia, Ocean Park Hong Kong,
and develops plan to move whales identified for import permit to contemporary facilities at that
park while waiting for permit approval.

2011: The highly respected, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), formed
an independent scientific review panel, led by the Chair of the IUCN Species Specialists Group
for Cetaceans, to assess the sustainability of live capture removals of beluga whales from
Sakhalin-Amur region of the Sea of Okhotsk. The assessment was peer-reviewed and validated
the removal of the whales would have no detrimental impact on this beluga whale population.
IUCN’s assessment is later published and made available to the public. Georgia Aquarium and
others are all listed as participants in the study.
Georgia Aquarium prepares to move the whales identified for import to a contemporary facility
at Ocean Park Hong Kong. Days before transport, Ocean Park Hong Kong backs out of the
project due to pressure from the animal extremist community. With this change in plans,
Georgia Aquarium invests in infrastructure at Utrish Marine Station to establish appropriate
animal management options for the Russian team to care for the whales during the permit
application review process. This investment included building larger pools, food, and animal care
staff, veterinary medicine and supplies and our zoological experts and veterinarians visiting the
station. Additionally, Georgia Aquarium executes contract agreement for the Russians to
provide care for the whales while they are managed at the Utrish Marine Station and establishes
routine schedule of Georgia Aquarium officials to visit Utrish Marine Station to monitor wellbeing of animals and provide feedback to Russian team.

2012: Georgia Aquarium filed a permit application with NOAA Fisheries to import to the United
States 18 beluga whales that had previously been collected from the Sea of Okhotsk in 2006,
2010 and 2011.
4
Georgia Aquarium takes part in a hearing that allowed public comment on the import permit
application. More than 15 scientific, academic, conservation, and animal welfare experts speak
to support Georgia Aquarium’s permit request.

2013: Despite already completing its extensive permit application review process, issuing an
environmental assessment report and drafting the approval letter for the permit, NOAA
Fisheries suddenly changed direction and denied the Aquarium’s permit application.
Georgia Aquarium reviews the denial letter and disagrees with NOAA’s reason for denying the
permit and files a complaint in a U.S District Court in Georgia against NOAA Fisheries and the
Department of Commerce seeking to overturn the permit denial. Taking the decision to court
was the only option for the Aquarium.

Summer 2013: The first of four unfortunate losses occurs. Cause of death is not fully understood
because necropsies were not conducted and Georgia Aquarium staff was not present.

August 2014: Georgia Aquarium files a motion to supplement the record, asking the court to
require the release of more than 20 documents deliberately withheld by NOAA Fisheries from
consideration by the court. These records pertain to NOAA Fisheries’ early indications to
approve the import, the preparation of the import and a complete environmental assessment
showing that issuance of the permit complied with the law. In addition, the records pertain to
any meetings and discussions that then led to the sudden reversal and denial of the permit, and
NOAA’s research papers that showed their population counting methods were arbitrary, and
have never been used before or since.

November 2014: The second of four unfortunate losses occurs. Cause of death is not fully
understood because necropsies were not conducted and Georgia Aquarium staff was not
present.

December 2014: The motion to supplement the record is denied. Georgia Aquarium files a
motion with the court arguing that -- based on the facts before NOAA -- their permit denial was
arbitrary, capricious and not in accordance with law. Georgia Aquarium asks the judge to
invalidate the permit denial and to order that the permit to import the whales be issued.

Summer 2015: The final two of four unfortunate losses occurs. Cause of death is not fully
understood because necropsies were not conducted and Georgia Aquarium staff was not
present.

August 14, 2015: Georgia Aquarium participates in oral arguments to ask the court to uphold
the MMPA and its strong support of zoological institutions, and order issuance of a permit to
bring the belugas into the U.S. as soon as possible.
5

September 2015: SeaWorld backs out of beluga import project publically and will no longer take
any of the beluga whales destined for U.S. accredited facilities upon pending NOAA permit
approval.

September 28, 2015: The U.S District Court issues a 100-page document denying the permit
application and giving Georgia Aquarium 60 days to decide if they want to appeal that decision.

November 2015: Out of concern for the welfare of the animals, Georgia Aquarium makes the
difficult decision not to appeal the court decision

April 2016: Although Georgia Aquarium had no legal obligation to continue sending support or
supplies after the permit decision, the Aquarium continued to send funds for veterinary supplies
and food in its last six months. The Aquarium sent support through the end of April of 2016.
6
Facing Extinction
Beluga whales in accredited zoological facilities are ambassadors for their species. These whales live in
the Arctic; it is cold, remote and expensive to travel to. Seeing beluga whales in person, up close brings
marine mammals and conservation education to life for millions of people. These individuals inspire
people to care about environmental concerns and become involved in the preservation of the natural
world.
Currently in the U.S., there are fewer than 30 beluga whales in accredited facilities.
These whales are aging, and the population as a whole exhibits poor genetic diversity. In as little as 40
years, there will be no beluga whales in human care in North America. This effectively means that the
only belugas millions of children will ever see will be on television or computer screens.
Seeing living beluga whales in person has the potential to inspire a generation of people to care about
the natural world – and it is this end that aquariums strive to achieve.
Without adding new beluga whales to the mix, the dwindling population in human care will become
extinct.
Georgia Aquarium is deeply committed to both the conservation of beluga whales and providing future
generations with the inspiring, educational opportunities that create a culture of preservation.
7
Searching the Globe
Even prior to opening in 2005, Georgia Aquarium has been committed to provide engaging and
transformative experiences that evoke conservation for species. Beluga whales are one such species
that need our help more than ever with less than 30 whales in accredited U.S. facilities. In order to
increase the number of beluga whales in North America, Georgia Aquarium started the process of
searching for unrelated, genetically diverse beluga whales.
Mexico City
In our efforts to bolster the dwindling population of
beluga whales in accredited North American facilities,
Georgia Aquarium began to research other countries
and their resident beluga whales. This search first led
us to an amusement park in Mexico City, where two
mature beluga whales were held in a habitat beneath a
roller coaster. At this point, the search became a
rescue project. Knowing full well one of the Mexican
beluga whales was in ill health, Georgia Aquarium
transferred them to Atlanta in 2005 to provide better
care. Unfortunately, due to their age and already
compromised physical condition, they did not live long.
The exhibit beneath a roller coaster in
Mexico City.
Why Russia?
Looking at the different populations of beluga whales residing
in the Arctic, it seemed most reasonable to seek out areas that had a robust number of whales, were
accessible from a climatology perspective and had historical successes by collectors. Using these
parameters, Georgia Aquarium, in collaboration with SeaWorld, Ocean Park Corp. of Hong Kong; Mystic
Aquarium in Mystic, Conn.; and Kamogawa Sea World of Japan, chose to begin a population abundance
study in Russia. The search continued in Eastern Russia, and Georgia Aquarium sent zoological experts to
Chkalov Island where beluga whales are being acquired from the Sea of Okhotsk for marine parks and
facilities in Asia. It is important to note that Russia allows an annual catch quota of whales based on the
abundance. It was here that our zoological experts also witnessed collection methodologies used by the
teams in Russia and these were consistent with those used by NOAA in beluga whale health
assessments.
The Russian Population of Beluga Whales
Russia has more than one stock (population) of beluga whales residing in different bodies of water. The
population from which the animals were selected was defined as robust by scientific review. This
population will continue to grow, even with the removal of individuals.
Before applying for the permit to import these animals, Georgia Aquarium partnered with SeaWorld,
Ocean Park Corp. of Hong Kong; Mystic Aquarium in Mystic, Conn.; and Kamogawa Sea World of Japan
to conduct an extensive five-year research project on the population abundance and genetic makeup of
beluga whales inhabiting the Western Sea of Okhotsk in Russia.
8
This research was peer-reviewed and validated in 2011 by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), which concluded that the acquisition of these belugas would have no detrimental impact
on the existing population.
This was a very important and necessary milestone in the project.
9
Beluga Whale Population Assessment (2007-2012)
Before even applying for a permit to import beluga whales from Russia, Georgia Aquarium wanted to
ensure that the population that collections were occurring was stable, and there would be no
detrimental impact.
To provide accurate and comprehensive information regarding this region of the world that had not
been extensively studied before, Georgia Aquarium, in collaboration with SeaWorld, Ocean Park Corp. of
Hong Kong; Mystic Aquarium in Mystic, Conn.; and Kamogawa Sea World of Japan, commissioned a fiveyear population study of the Sea of Okhotsk. Funding was provided for scientists from the Russian
Academy of Sciences A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution to conduct this population
abundance and genetic study of the beluga whales in the Western Sea of Okhotsk in the Sakhalin-Amur
region of Far East Russia.
Ensuring Humane Handling of Animals During Study
Zoological experts from Georgia Aquarium were sent to Chkalov Island in Eastern Russia to observe
collection and release of beluga whales as part of the population abundance and satellite tagging study.
The process and techniques witnessed were similar to the methods used by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/Fisheries and other agencies during cetacean field research studied
in North America.
Study Concludes Population is Stable
After five years of study, the Russian Academy of Sciences A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and
Evolution concluded the population of beluga whales in the Sea of Okhotsk was stable. Thus, acquiring a
limited number from the population would have no negative impact on its sustainability.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Validates Study
Another important step in this process was having the entire study peer-reviewed. The internationallyrecognized authority of wildlife conservation, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN), formed an independent scientific review panel. This was led by the Chair of the IUCN Species
Specialists Group for Cetaceans, all to peer-review this extensive and comprehensive research.
Once the research was reviewed, the IUCN panel concluded the acquisition of 18 beluga whales from
the Sea of Okhotsk would have no detrimental impact on the existing population.
Georgia Aquarium then set out to apply for an import permit with NOAA Fisheries to bring the beluga
whales to the U.S.
10
Utrish Marine Station
Following the results of the Sea of Okhotsk population abundance study, we felt confident to move
forward with plans to acquire 18 beluga whales, knowing that such an acquisition would have no
detrimental impact on the population. We began working with Utrish Marine Station, located on the
Russian coast of the Black Sea, as a temporary care facility for the whales. The station had a lagoon with
sea pens, a rectangular pool and a
knowledgeable animal care team. The plan
was to house the beluga whales there for a
few months before moving them to more
contemporary facilities at our accredited
partner facility, Ocean Park Hong Kong while
we awaited approval to import them to the
United States.
Georgia Aquarium did not collect these
animals. Georgia Aquarium worked to ensure
that collection methodologies were done with
recognized, professional and humane
standards. Our zoological experts witnessed
collections in Russia as part of the permit
process with NOAA and noted significant similarities between their collection
methodologies and those used in NOAA’s standards during beluga whale
health assessments.
One of the pools at Utrish
Marine Station
The Aquarium collaborated with Utrish Marine Station to care for the 18 beluga whales identified for
potential importation to the United States, but does not own the animals, nor does it have any influence
related to any other animals managed or cared for at the marine station. There are other marine
mammals there for a variety of purposes and they are kept separate from the beluga whales identified
for import to the U.S. During our visits to the station activities related to other animals housed there
were kept discrete as they involved other affiliates of Utrish unrelated to Georgia Aquarium.
Even though Georgia Aquarium does not own the belugas – and never has - we invested heavily in their
care. Georgia Aquarium invested approximately $6.5 million, not including legal fees, sending members
of our zoological and veterinary teams to Russia an average of twice a year to check on the wellbeing of
the animals and to bring additional material support, such as medical supplies and vitamins.
Although we decided not to appeal our permit denial in 2015, we continued to support UMS with
medical supplies, food, and vitamins for the beluga whales for six months following the project’s end.
11
Permit Process
March 2011: The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) peer-reviews and validates
five years of research confirming that the acquisition will have no detrimental impact on the population
of beluga whales in the Sea of Okhotsk.
June 2012: Georgia Aquarium applies for a permit with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries) to import beluga whales previously collected from the Sea of Okhotsk
to the United States.
October 2012: Georgia Aquarium participates in a hearing that allows public comment on the import
permit application. More than 15 scientific, academic, conservation and animal welfare experts speak in
favor of Georgia Aquarium’s permit request.
August 2013: Despite already completing its extensive permit application review process, issuing an
environmental assessment report and drafting the permit approval, NOAA Fisheries suddenly changed
course and denied the permit application.
September 2013: Committed to educating the public about this species, Georgia Aquarium files a
complaint in a U.S District Court in Georgia against NOAA Fisheries and the Department of Commerce,
seeking to overturn the permit denial.
August 2014: Georgia Aquarium files a motion to supplement the record, asking the court to require the
release of more than 20 documents deliberately withheld by NOAA Fisheries. These records pertain to
NOAA Fisheries’ original decision to approve the import and a complete environmental assessment
showing that issuance of the permit complied with the law. The records also include accounts of
meetings and discussions that led to the sudden reversal and denial of the permit, and NOAA’s research
showing their population counting methods were arbitrary and have never been used before or since.
December 2014: The motion to supplement the record is denied. Georgia Aquarium files a motion with
the court arguing that -- based on the facts placed before NOAA -- their permit denial was arbitrary,
capricious and not in accordance with the law. Georgia Aquarium asks the judge to invalidate the permit
denial and to order that the permit to import the whales be issued.
August 14, 2015: Georgia Aquarium participates in oral arguments to ask the court to uphold the MMPA
and its strong support of zoological institutions, and order issuance of a permit to bring the belugas into
the U.S. as soon as possible.
September 2015: SeaWorld backs out of beluga import project publically and will no longer take any of
the beluga whales destined for U.S. accredited facilities upon pending NOAA permit approval.
September 28, 2015: The U.S District Court issues a 100-page document denying the permit application
and allowing Georgia Aquarium 60 days to decide whether to appeal that decision.
November 17, 2015: Out of concern for the welfare of the animals, Georgia Aquarium makes the
difficult decision not to appeal the court decision.
April 2016: Georgia Aquarium continued to send infrastructure, veterinary supplies, food, and additional
support even without any legal obligation to do so.
12
Difficult Decisions
Throughout this process, we’ve had to make many difficult decisions, but we’ve always done what’s
right for the animals.
Ocean Park Hong Kong backs out.
Early in the project, within days of the beluga whales being scheduled to transfer from the temporary
facilities at Utrish Marine Station, Ocean Park Hong Kong in Asia backed out of the project due to
extremist pressure.
The decision by them to withdraw from the project meant the beluga whales would now be staying at
Utrish much longer than anticipated. With this change in plans, and the animals’ wellbeing the highest
priority, Georgia Aquarium invested approximately $6.5 million, not including legal fees, providing for
their care, including building larger pools, food and animal care staff, veterinary medicine and supplies,
and our zoological experts and veterinarians visiting the station an average of twice a year to monitor
their care, and provide feedback to the Russian team. We maintained regular contact with Russian team
throughout the process.
If we didn’t fight to bring them to the U.S. where they would receive the highest standard of care,
their fate would be uncertain.
NOAA Fisheries violated their longstanding interpretation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which
specifically stresses the importance of caring for animals at zoos and aquariums in order to not only
advance science, but to encourage conservation and awareness in the millions of guests who visit these
organizations. We feel strongly we were doing what was right and lawful. However, at each point in the
legal process, and as we fought their wrongful decision we had to determine whether or not to continue
with our appeal. Especially as the animals were being kept longer in what was supposed to only be a
temporary location, we were at a crossroads.
Concern for the animals’ welfare in Russia
The animals’ welfare has always been at the forefront of our minds, and as the legal battle dragged on,
we learned of some unfortunate health and wellness issues affecting a few of the beluga whales
selected for potential import to the U.S. Between 2013 and 2015, there were four unfortunate losses
from a variety of causes that are not fully understood because necropsies were not conducted and our
staff was not present. We believe the health of a couple of these animals were compromised by long
term management of the animals at a temporary facility. The Russian team does not have the
contemporary resources we have at accredited facilities which allow for timely response to health issues
as well as easy separation of animals for medical purposes.
The belugas need a permanent home in quality facilities
After two years of court deliberation, and although we felt strongly we were in the right, we realized any
further legal action would be fruitless. It wasn’t in the best interest of the 15 remaining animals to stay
at the Russian facility for another year or more of litigation. We made the difficult choice to not appeal
the decision, and we accepted the fact that these belugas will never be allowed to live within an
accredited facility here in the United States. But it now means these animals have an uncertain future.
13
An Uncertain Future for the Belugas in Russia
The beluga whales once destined for accredited North American aquariums and marine parks must now
find homes at zoological institutions in other parts of the world. Many will likely end up in areas where
animal care standards are not always as high as those found in the United States. While this is not ideal,
it is the best option still available. But we are doing everything possible to advocate for their relocation
to contemporary, quality facilities where their care and welfare is a priority.
Georgia Aquarium does not own the animals
that reside at Utrish Marine Station, nor have
any economic gain or control over where they
go. But we are doing everything possible to
advocate for their relocation to contemporary,
quality facilities where their care and welfare
is a priority.
The welfare of these animals has been our
utmost priority throughout this entire process.
It is why we spent approximately $6.5 million,
not including legal fees, to care for and support
these animals.
An Uncertain Future for Belugas in North America and Around the World
There are now fewer than 30 beluga whales left in accredited U.S. zoological facilities, and it is
estimated that by 2050 there may not be any. Without adding to this group of whales, the days of
belugas in human care are numbered. Your children and grandchildren may never have a chance to see
these magnificent animals up close. Belugas represent the Arctic – a place most of us will never get to
see, and an area of the world that is drastically changing as the polar icecap melts. Without belugas in
human care to serve as ambassadors for their species, future generations will not have the chance to
create powerful, personal connections with these animals. These connections are critical to inspiring
people to take action toward the preservation of this species and their natural environment.
Beluga whales in human care also provide us many research opportunities that would be impossible to
pursue with belugas in their natural environment. What we learn from belugas in our care helps inform
conservation decisions for beluga whales worldwide. Maintaining a population of belugas in accredited
zoos and aquariums is essential to the conservation of the species in its natural habitat. Georgia
Aquarium will continue our commitment to ensuring a sustainable population of beluga whales in
accredited North American aquariums and marine parks and to protecting and preserving this species
for generations to come.
14
Conservation
The conservation of beluga whales, and all animals, is at the core of Georgia Aquarium’s mission and
passion. As a global leader in marine research and conservation, we remain steadfast in our
commitment to contribute to wildlife sustainability through:
- Education initiatives inspiring others to conserve the species and its natural habitat
- Participating in cooperative breeding and research programs among North America’s accredited
zoological institutions, applying known and successful practices to build a sustainable
population
- Conservation and research of animals in human care and their natural environment
- Sharing our knowledge and experiences with the international scientific and conservation
community
We have supported and funded more than 100 marine conservation programs in ten years, including
animal health assessments.
Two primary marine mammal conservation programs in which Georgia Aquarium participates include
Bristol Bay Beluga Project in Alaska and the Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) for
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins in Florida.
Bristol Bay Beluga Project
By studying and observing beluga whales in human care, we are able to create baseline indicators to
understand issues threatening beluga whales in the wild. Our animal care team’s daily interaction with
our resident beluga whales helps researchers better understand how to approach and interact with
whales in the ocean in a controlled way. Our daily work with these animals at the Aquarium makes
assessing, and ultimately helping, wild populations
possible.
Since 2008, Georgia Aquarium has participated in a
collaborative study assessing the health of beluga
whales in Bristol Bay, Alaska, where the beluga
population faces significant threats to their natural
environment. We have gained insight into the
effects of underwater sound levels on belugas, how
they respond to increasing pathogens and changing
water temperatures in the wild, and nutritional
needs of belugas that face increasing challenges for
food sources.
15
Through the combination of the Bristol Bay Beluga Project and our studies in human care, we provide
crucial information to researchers and the zoological community. Our goal is to use this vital information
gathered from the Bristol Bay Beluga Project to help identify ways to potentially alleviate threats facing
the critically endangered beluga whale population of nearby Cook Inlet in Alaska. Our work doesn’t just
end with helping one geographic population – we’re marine mammal advocates; our continued work
ensures the protection of beluga whale populations globally.
HERA for Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphins
Initiated by Georgia Aquarium in 2003, HERA is a comprehensive program that assesses and studies
potential environmental and human-induced stressors that may affect the health and long-term viability
of bottlenose dolphin populations. This groundbreaking research takes place in the Indian Lagoon River
in Florida and the coastal waters of South Carolina, where researchers can gain valuable information
concerning zoonotic diseases, contaminant issues and other factors such as antibiotic-resistant bacteria
that have huge implications for human health.
HERA plays an important role in understanding
the health of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and the
possible threats facing the lagoon ecosystem.
Applying our expert animal and veterinary care at
the Aquarium into the field helps maximize the
research collected from dolphin health
assessments and ultimately ensure that these
magnificent marine mammals thrive in their
natural environment.
16
GEORGIA AQUARIUM
EXPERT BIOS AND RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHIES
DR. GREGORY BOSSART, V.M.D, PH.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER
ERIC GAGLIONE, VICE PRESIDENT OF ZOOLOGICAL OPERATIONS
17
Dr. Gregory Bossart, V.M.D., Ph.D.
Senior Vice President, Chief Veterinary Officer, Georgia Aquarium
Dr. Gregory Bossart has spent the last 30 years working in clinical domestic, marine mammal and avian
medicine and wildlife pathology on a national and international basis. He has over 135 peer-reviewed
scientific publications focused primarily on the pathologic basis of disease in wild animals.
Dr. Bossart received his doctorate in veterinary medicine from the University of Pennsylvania. He was a
comparative pathology resident and National Institutes of Health fellow in the Department of Pathology
at the University of Miami School of Medicine. In 1995, he completed his Ph.D. in immunology at Florida
International University. He has been in private veterinary practice and is a clinical veterinary consultant
at facilities in the United States, Latin America and Asia.
Presently, Dr. Bossart is Senior Vice President and Chief Veterinary Officer at Georgia Aquarium in
Atlanta, Georgia where he oversees the animal care, research and conservation programs. He is an
Adjunct Professor in the Department of Pathology at the University Of Miami School Of Medicine,
Adjunct Professor in the Department of Pathology at the University Of Georgia College Of Veterinary
Medicine, Research Professor at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic University
and on the graduate faculty at the Medical University of South Carolina. His recently published research
has documented re-surging and emerging diseases in manatees, whales, dolphins, and birds. He has
helped characterize the first viral disease in manatees and was responsible for developing the first
immunohistochemical technique for diagnosing red tide poisoning in marine mammals and birds. He is
particularly interested in the application of aquatic species as sentinels for the effects of global climate
change, ecosystem and human health.
Dr. Bossart has been presented multiple awards and accolades for his work. Examples of Dr. Bossart’s
research can be found in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Veterinary
Pathology, Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, Veterinary Record, Journal of Avian Medicine and
Surgery, Toxicologic Pathology, Marine Mammal Science, Experimental and Molecular Pathology,
Aquatic Mammals, Florida Scientist, Journal of Raptor Research, Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic
Investigation, Oceanography, Journal of Wildlife Diseases, Environmental Science & Technology, Journal
of Parasitology, Aquatic Toxicology and Veterinary Microbiology and Nature.
18
Dr. Gregory Bossart V.M.D., Ph.D.
Georgia Aquarium Publications and Abstracts 2006-Present
2007
1. Bossart GD, Hansen L, Goldstein J, Kilpatrick D, Bechdel S, Howells E, Kroell K, de Sieyes M,
Stolen M, Noke Durden W, Reif J, Defran R, and McCulloch S. Pathological findings in a rare mass
stranding of melon-headed whales (Peponcephala electra) in Florida. Aquatic Mammals. 33(2):
235-240, 2007.
2. Bossart GD, Hensley G, Goldstein J, Kroell K, Manire C, Defran R, and Reif J. Cardiomyopathy and
myocardial degeneration in stranded pygmy (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf sperm (Kogia sima)
whales. Aquatic Mammals. 33(2): 214-222, 2007.
2008
3. Adams J, Houde M, Muir D, Speakmand T, Bossart GD, Fair PA. Land use and the spatial
distribution of perfluoroalkyl compounds as measured in the plasma of bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus). Marine Environmental Research. 66: 430-437, 2008.
4. Bossart GD, Romano TA, Peden-Adams MM, Rice CD, Fair PA, Goldstein JD, Cammen K, and Reif
JS. Hematological, biochemical and immunological findings in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) with orogenital papillomas. Aquatic Mammals. 34(2): 166-177, 2008.
5. Fayer R, Fair PA, Bossart GD, Santin M. Examination of naturally exposed bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) for microsporidia, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia. Journal of Parasitology.
94(1): 143-147, 2008.
6. Mazzoil M, Reif JS, Youngbluth M, Murdoch EM, Bechdel SE, Howells E, McColluch SD, Hansen
LJ, Bossart GD. Home Ranges of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Indian River
Lagoon, Fl. EcoHealth. 5: 278-288, 2008.
7. Mazzoil MS, Kilpatrick DS, Murdoch ME, Mase-Guthrie B, Odell DK, Bossart GD. Radio-tracking
and survivorship of two rehabilitated bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Indian
River Lagoon. Aquatic Mammals. 34(1): 54-64, 2008.
8. Montie EW, Fair PA, Bossart GD, Mitchum GB, Houde M, Muir DCG, Letcher RJ, McFee WE,
Starczak VR, Stegeman JJ, Hahn ME. Cytochrome P4501A1 expression, polychlorinated biphenyls
and hydroxylated metabolites, and adipocyte sixe of bottlenose dolphins from the southeast
United States. Aquatic Toxicology. 86: 397-412, 2008.
9. Murdoch ME, Reif JS, Mazzoil M, McCulloch SD, Fair PA, Bossart GD. Lobomycosis in bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the Indian River Lagoon, Florida: Estimation of prevalence,
temporal trends, and spatial distribution. EcoHealth. 5: 289-297, 2008.
10. Rector A, Stevens H, Lacave G, Lemey P, Mostmans S, Salbany A, Vos M, Van Doorslaer K, Ghim
SJ, Rehtanz M, Bossart GD, Jenson AB, Van Ranst M. Genomic characterization of novel dolphin
papillomaviruses provides indications for recombination within the Papillomavairidae. Virology.
378: 151-161, 2008.
19
11. Rehtanz M, Bossart GD, Doescher B, Rector A, Van Ranst M, Fair P, Jenson AB, Ghim S.
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) papillomaviruses: Vaccine antigen candidates and
screening test development. Veterinary Microbiology. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.06.017, 2008.
12. Reif JS, Fair PA, Adams J, Joseph B, Kilpatrick DS, Sanchez R, Goldstein JD, Townsend FI,
McCulloch SD, Mazzoil M, Zolman ES, Hansen LJ, Bossart GD. Evaluation and comparison of the
health status of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins from the Indian River Lagoon, Florida and
Charleston, South Carolina. Journal of the American Veterinary Association. 233: 299-307, 2008.
13. Stavros HCW, Bossart GD, Hulsey TC, Fair PA. Trace element concentrations in blood of freeranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): influence of age, sex and location. Marine
Pollution Bulletin. 56: 348-379, 2008.
2009
14. Bechdel SE, Mazzoil MS, Murdoch ME, Howells EM, Reif JS, McCulloch SD, Schaefer AM, Bossart
GD. Prevalence and impacts of motorized vessels on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in
the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Aquatic Mammals. 35: 367-377, 2009.
15. Bossart GD. Emerging diseases in marine mammals (Book Chapter). McGraw-Hill Yearbook of
Science and Technology, McGraw-Hill Co., New York. pp: 103-105, 2009.
16. Fair PA, Lee HB, Adams J, Darling C, Pacepavicius MA, Bossart GD, Henry N, Muir D. Occurrence
of triclosan in plasma of wild Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and their
environment. Environmental Pollution. 157: 2248-2254, 2009.
17. Fire SE, Wang Z, Leighfield TA, Morton SL, McFee WE, McLellan WA, Litaker RW, Tester PA, Hohn
AA, Lovewell G, Harms C, Rotstein DS, Barco SG, Costidis A, Sheppard B, Bossart GD, Stolen M,
Durden WN, Van Dolah FW. Domoic acid exposure in pygmy and dwarf sperm whales (Kogia
spp) from southeastern and mid-Atlantic US waters. Harmful Algae. 8: 658-664, 2009.
18. Houde M, Pacepavicius G, Darling C, Fair PA, Alaee M, Bossart GD, Solomon KR, Letcher RJ,
Bergman A, Marsh G, Muir DCG. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers and their hydroxylated analogs
in plasma of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops turncatus) from the United States east coast.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 28(10): 2061-2068, 2009.
19. Howells EM, Reif JS, Bechdel SE, Murdoch ME, Bossart GD, McCulloch SD, Mazzoil, MS. A novel
case of non-offspring adoption in a free-ranging Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
inhabiting the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Aquatic Mammals. 35 (1): 43-47, 2009.
20. Johnson WR, Tarralba M, Fair PA, Bossart GD, Nelson K, Morris PJ. Novel diversity of bacterial
communities associated with bottlenose dolphin upper respiratory tracts. Environmental
Microbiology Reports. 1(6): 55-562, 2009.
21. Mignucci-Giannoni AA, Rosario-Delestre RJ, Alsina-Guerreron MM, Falcón-Matos L, GuzmánRamírez L, Williams EH, Bossart GD, Reidenberg JS. Asphyxiation in a bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus) from Puerto Rico due to choking on a black margate (Anisotremus
surinamensis). Aquatic Mammals 35(1): 48-54, 2009.
20
22. Mollenhauer MAM, Carter BJ, Peden-Adams MM, Bossart GD, Fair PA. Gene expression changes
in bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) skin cells following exposure to methylmercury
(MeHg) or perfluorrooctane sulfonate (PFOS). Aquatic Toxicology. 91: 10-18, 2009.
23. Rehtanz M, Bossart GD, Doescher B, Rector A, Van Rast M, Fair PA, Jenson AB, Ghim SJ.
Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) papillomaviruses: Vaccine antigen candidates and
screening test development. Veterinary Microbiology. 133: 43-53, 2009.
24. Reif JS, Peden-Adams MM, Romano TA, Rice CD, Fair PA, Bossart GD. Immune dysfunction in
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) with lobomycosis . Medical Mycology. 47: 125135, 2009.
25. Schaefer AM, Reif JS, Goldstein JD, Ryan CN, Fair PA, Bossart GD. Serological evidence of
exposure to selected pathogens in free-ranging Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)
from the Indian River Lagoon, Florida and Charleston, South Carolina. Aquatic Mammals. 35:
163-170, 2009.
26. Schaefer, AM, Goldstein JD, Reif JS, Fair PA, Bossart GD, Antibiotic-resistant organisms cultured
from Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) inhabiting estuarine waters of Charleston
SC and Indian River Lagoon, Fl. EcoHealth. 6: 33-41, 2009.
27. Schwacke LH, Hall AJ, Townsend FI, Wells RS, Hansen LJ, Hohn AA, Bossart GD, Fair PA, Rowles
TK. Hematologic and serum biochemical reference intervals for free-ranging bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) and variation in the distributions of clinicopathologic values related to
geographic sampling site. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 70(8): 973-985, 2009.
2010
28. Bossart GD, Reif JS, Schaefer AM, Goldstein J, Fair PA, Saliki JT. Morbillivirus infection in freeranging Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the southeastern United States:
Seroepidemiologic and pathologic evidence of subclinical infection. Veterinary Microbiology
143: 160-166, 2010.
29. Fair P, Adams J, Mitchum G, Hulsey T, Reif J, Houde M, Muir D, Wirth E, Wetzel D, Zolman E,
McFee W, Bossart GD. Contaminant blubber burdens in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) from two southeastern US estuarine areas: Concentrations and patterns of PCBs,
pesticides, PBDEs, PFCs, and PAHs. Science of the Total Environment. 408: 1577-1597, 2010.
30. Meegan J, Field C, Sidor I, Romano T, Casinghino S, Smith CR, Kashinsky L, Fair PA, Bossart GD,
Wells R, Dunn JL. Development, validation, and utilization of a competitive enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay for the detection of antibodies against Brucella species in marine
mammals. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 22: 856-862, 2010.
31. Rehtanz M, Ghim SJ, McFee W, Doescher B, Lacave G, Fair PA, Reif JS, Bossart GD, Jenson AB.
Papillomaviruses antibody prevalence in free-ranging and captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus). Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 46(1): 136-145, 2010.
32. Staggs L, St. Leger J, Bossart GD, Townsend Jr. FI, Hicks C, Rinaldi M. A novel case of Fusarium
oxysporum infection in an Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of Zoo and
Wildlife Medicine. 41(2): 287-290, 2010.
21
2011
33. Bossart GD, Romano T, Peden-Adams M, Schaefer A, McCulloch S, Goldstein J, Rice C, Saliki J,
Fair P, Reif JS. Clinicoimmunopathologic findings in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) with positive morbillivirus titers. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 97: 103–112, 2011.
34. Bossart, GD. Marine mammals as sentinel species for oceans and human health. Veterinary
Pathology. 48(3): 676-690, 2011.
35. Dona MG, Rehnatz M, Adimey NM, Bossart GD, Jenson AB, Bnde RK, Ghim SJ. Seroepidemiology
of TmPV1 infection in captive and wild Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris).
Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 47(3): 673-684, 2011.
36. Mazzoil M, Murdoch E, Reif JS, Bechdel SE, Howells E, De Sieyes M, Lawrence C, Bossart GD,
McCulloch SD. Site fidelity and movement of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) on
Florida’s east coast: Atlantic Ocean and Indian River Lagoon estuary. Florida Scientist. 74(1): 2537, 2011.
37. Morris PJ, Johnson WR, Pisani J, Bossart GD, Adams J, Reif JS, Fair PA. Isolation of culturable
microorganisms from free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the
southeastern United States. Veterinary Microbiology. 148: 440-447, 2011.
38. Murdoch ME, Mazzoil M, McCulloch S, Bechdel S, O’Corry-Crowe G, Bossart GD, Reif JS,
Lacaziosis in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) along the coastal Atlantic Ocean, Florida
USA. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 92: 69-73, 2011.
39. Schaefer AM, Stavros HCW, Bossart GD, Fair PA, Goldstein JD, Reif JS. Association between
mercury and hepatic, renal, endocrine, and hematological parameters in Atlantic bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) along the eastern coast of Florida and South Carolina. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 61: 688-695, 2011.
40. Stavros HCW, Stolen M, Durden WN, McFee W, Bossart GD, Fair PA. Correlation and
toxicological inference of trace elements in tissues from stranded and free-ranging bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Chemosphere. 82: 1649-1661, 2011.
2012
41. Bonde RK, Mignucci-Giannoni A, Bossart GD. Sirenian Pathology and Mortality Assessment
(Book Chapter). Sirenian Conservation: Issues and Strategies in Developing Countries. (Hines,
Reynolds, Aragones, Mignucci-Giannoni, Marmontel, eds.). University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida. pp: 148-156, 2012.
42. Bossart GD, Arheart K, Hunt M, Clauss T, Leppert L, Roberts K, McCulloch S, Goldstein JD,
Gonzalez C, Sweeney J, Stone R, Fair PA, Cray C. Protein electrophoresis of serum from healthy
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Aquatic Mammals. 38(4): 412-417, 2012.
43. Bossart GD, Mignucci-Giannoni AA, Rivera-Guzman AL, Jimenez-Marrero NM, Camus AC, Bonde
RK, Dubey JP, Reif JS. Disseminated toxoplasmosis in Antillean manatees (Trichechus manatus
manatus) from Puerto Rico. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 101: 139-144, 2012.
22
44. Dove ADM, Leisen J, Zhou M, Byrne JJ, Lim-Hing K, Webb HD, Gelbaum L, Viant, MR, Kubanek J,
Fernandez F. Biomarkers of whale shark health: A metabolomic approach. PLoS ONE. 7(11): 110, 2012.
45. Fair PA, Houde M, Hulsey TC, Bossart GD, Adams J, Balthis L, Muir DCG. Assessment of
perflourinated compounds (PFCs) in plasma of bottlenose dolphins from two southeast US
estuarine areas: Relationship with age, sex and geographic locations. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
64: 66-74, 2012.
46. Fair PA, Stavros HC, Mollenhauer M, DeWitt J, Henry N, Kannan K, Yun SH, Bossart GD, Keil K,
Peden-Adams M. Immune function in female B6C3F1 mice is modulated by DE-71, a commercial
polybrominated diphenyl ether mixture. Journal of Immunotoxicology. 9(1): 96–107, 2012.
47. Goldstein JD, Shaefer AM, McCulloch SD, Fair PA, Bossart GD, Reif JS. Clinicopathologic findings
from Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) with cytologic evidence of gastric
inflammation. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine. 43(4): 730-738, 2012.
48. Mazzaro LM, Johnson SP, Fair PA, Bossart GD, Carlin KP, Jensen ED, Smith CR, Andrews GA,
Chavey PS, Venn-Watson S. Iron Indices in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).
Comparative Medicine. 62(6): 508-515, 2012.
49. McFee WE, Adams JD, Fair PA, Bossart GD. Age distribution and growth of two Bottlenose
dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) populations from capture-release studies in the southeastern
United States. Aquatic Mammals. 38(1): 17-30, 2012.
50. Rehtanz M, Bossart GD, Fair PA, Reif JS, Ghim SJ, Jenson AB. Papillomaviruses and
herpesviruses: Who is who in genital tumor development of free-ranging Atlantic bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)? Veterinary Microbiology. 160: 297-304, 2012.
2013
51. Bossart GD, Hurley W, Biedenbach G, Denny M, Borkowski R, Goricki C, Searcy E, Roberts K, Reif
J. Pathologic findings in stranded cetaceans from northeastern Florida. Florida Scientist. 76(1):
36-50, 2013.
52. Bergfelt DR, Steinetz BG, Reif JS, Schaefer AM, Bossart GD, Mazzoil MS, Zolman E, Fair PA.
Evaluation of single-sample analysis of progesterone in combination with relaxin for diagnosis of
pregnancy in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Aquatic Mammals. 39(2): 198-206,
2013.
53. Cray C, Arheart KL, Hunt M, Clauss TM, Leppert LL, Roberts K, McCulloch SD, Goldstein JD,
Gonzalez C, Sweeney J, Stone R, Fair PA, Bossart GD. Acute phase protein quantitation in serum
samples from healthy Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of Veterinary
Diagnostic Investigation. 25(1): 107-111, 2013.
54. Hickie BE, Cadieux MA, Riehl KN, Bossart GD, Alava JJ, Fair PA. Modeling PCB-bioaccumulaiton
in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Estimating a dietary threshold concentration.
Environmental Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1021/es403166b, 2013.
55. Lee RF, Bulski K, Adams JD, Peden-Adams M, Bossart GD, King L, Fair PA. DNA strand breaks
(comet assay) in blood lymphocytes from wild bottlenose dolphins. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.06.017, 2013.
23
56. Lewis L, Lamb SV, Schaefer AM, Reif JS, Bossart GD, Fair PA. Influence of collection and storage
conditions of Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) measurements in bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus). Aquatic Mammals. 39(4): 324-329, 2013.
57. Reif JS, Schaefer AM, Bossart GD. Lobomycosis: Risk of zoonotic transmission from dolphins to
humans. Vector Borne Zoonotic Diseases. 13(10): 689-693, 2013.
58. Richards VP, Greig TW, Fair PA, McCulloch SD, Politz C, Natoli A, Driscoll CA, Hoelzel AR, David V,
Bossart GD, Lopez JV. Patterns of population structure for inshore bottlenose dolphins along the
eastern United States. Journal of Heredity. 104: 765-778, 2013.
59. Wirth JR, Peden-Adams MM, White ND, Bossart GD, Fair PA. In Vitro PFOS exposure on immune
endpoints in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and mice. Journal of Applied Toxicology.
DOI 10.1002/jat.2891, 2013.
2014
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Bossart GD, Romano T, Peden-Adams M, Schaefer A, McCulloch S, Goldstein J, Fair P, Cray C,
Reif JS. Clinicoimmunopathologic findings in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)
with positive Chlamydiaceae antibodies. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 2014.
Browning NE, McCulloch SD, Bossart GD, Worthy AJ. Fine-scale population structure of
estuarine bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) assessed using stable isotope ratios and fatty
acid signature analyses. Marine Biology DOI 10.1007/s00227-014-2420-z, 2014.
Wirth JR, Peden-Adams MM, White ND, Bossart GD, Fair PA. In vitro exposure of DE-71, a pentaPBDE mixture on immune endpoints in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and B6C3F1
mice. Journal of Applied Toxicology. DOI 10.1002/jat.3008. 2014.
Ghim S, Joh J, Mignucci-Giannoni AA, Rivera-Guzman AL, Falcon-Matos L, Alsina-Guerrero MM,
Rodriguez-Villanueva M, Jenson AB, Bossart GD. Genital Papillomatosis Associated with Two
Novel Mucosotropic Papillomaviruses from a Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris).
Aquatic Mammals. 40(20): 189-194. 2014.
Mealey BK, Baldwin JD, Parks-Mealey GB, Bossart GD, Forstner MRJ. Characteristics of
mangrove diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin rhizophorarum) inhabiting altered and
natural mangrove islands. Journal of North American Herpetology. 2014(1): 76-80. 2014.
Schaefer AM, Jensen EL, Bossart GD, Reif JS. Hair Mercury Concentrations and Fish
Consumption Patterns in Florida Residents. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health. 11: 6709-6726. DOI:10.3390/ijerph110706709. 2014.
Fair PA, Balthis L, Kannan, K, De Silva A, Wu Q, French KM, Houde M, Muir DCG, Daugomah J,
Spencer C, Bossart GD, White ND. Dolphins as sentinels for sediment perflouroalkyl substances
(PFASs) contamination in estuarine areas of Charleston, SC. Poster session: SETAC North
America. 35th Annual Meeting; 2014 November 12; Vancouver, BC Canada.
Farquier D, Goldstein T, Colegrove K, Rotstein D, DiGiovanni Jr. RA, McLellan W, Northeast and
Southeast Atlantic Marine Mammal Stranding Network, Habecker P, Coffee L, Howerth EW,
Gottdenker N, Bossart G, St. Leger J, Waltzek TB, Wellehan J, Saliki, JT, Nielsen O, Garron M,
Mase-Guthrie B, Rowles TK. Dolphin Morbillivirus Outbreak and the 2013-2014 Mid-Atlantic
24
68.
69.
Bottlenose Dolphin Unusual Mortality Event. 63rd Annual International Conference of the
Wildlife Disease Association. July 27-August 1, 2014. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Fair PA, Schaefer AM, Romano TM, Bossart GD, Lamb SV, Reif JS. Stress response of wild
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) during capture-release assessment studies. General
and Comparative Endocrinology. 206: 203-212. 2014.
Browning NE, McCulloch SD, Bossart GD, Worthy GAJ. Fine-scale population structure of
estuarine bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) assessed using stable isotope ratios and fatty
acid signature analyses. Marine Biology. DOI 10.1007/s00227-014-2420-z. 2014.
2015
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Fauquier DA, Goldstein T, Colegrove KM, Rotstein DS, DiGiovanni Jr. RA, McLellan WA, Northeast
and Southeast Marine Mammal Stranding Network, Habecker P, Coffee L, Swist S, Howerth EW,
Gottdenker N, Bossart GD, St. Leger J, Waltzek TB, Wellehan T, Saliki JT, Nielsen O, Garron M,
Mase-Guthrie B, Rowles TK. The 2013-2014 Mid-Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus) Unusual Mortality Event and Dolphin Morbilivirus. 46th Annual International
Association for Aquatic Animal Medicine Conference. April 6-10, 2015. Chicago, Illinois.
Schaefer AM, Murdoch Titcomb E, Jensen EL, Fair PA, Stavros HW, Mazzoil M, Bossart GD, Reif
JS. Mercury concentrations in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) inhabiting the
Indian River Lagoon, Florida and local human residents: Patterns of distribution. 5th Florida
Marine Mammal Health Conference, Gainesville, Fl. June 2015.
Fauquier DA, Goldstein T, Colegrove KM, Rotstein DS, DiGiovanni Jr. RA, McLellan WA, Northeast
and Southeast Atlantic Marine Mammal Stranding Network, Rosel P, Wilcox L, Stolen M, Urian K,
Habecker P, Coffee L, Swist S, Howerth EW, Gottdenker N, Bossart G, St. Leger J, Waltzek TB,
Wellehan JFX, Saliki JT, Nielsen O, Morris SE, Zelner J, Grenfell BT, Garron M, Mase-Guthrie B,
Rowles TK. Dolphin Morbilivirus and the 2013-2015 Mid-Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus) Unusual Mortality Event. 21st biennial Conference on Marine Mammals. San
Francisco, CA. December 13-18, 2015.
McCulloch SD, Goldstein JD, Walsh M, Pelton C, Bossart GD. Cost, Benefits and Solutions An
Overview of Planning and Executing Marine Mammal Health and Environmental Risk
Assessments and Interventions. 5th Florida Marine Mammal Health Conference. Gainesville, FL.
June 2-4, 2015.
Bossart GD, Schaefer AM, McCulloch S, Goldstein J, Fair PA, Reif JS. Mucocutaneous lesions
from free-ranging Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, from the southeastern
United States. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 115:175-184. 2015.
Reif JS, Schaefer AM, Bossart GD. Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) as a sentinel
for exposure to mercury in humans: closing the loop. Veterinary Sciences. (2)407-422:
doi:10.3390/vetsci2040407. 2015.
25
76.
77.
78.
Schaefer AM, Titcomb EM, Fair PA, Stavros HC, Mazzoil M, Bossart GD, Reif JS. Mercury
concentrations in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) inhabiting the Indian River
Lagoon, Florida: Patterns of spatial and temporal distribution. Marine Poll Bull. 97: 544-547.
2015.
Jaing C, Thissen JB, Gardner S, McLoughlin K, Slezak T, Bossart GD, Fair PA. Pathogen
surveillance in wild bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms.
116:83-91. 2015
Cray, C., Rodriguez, M., Field, C., McDermott, A., Leppert, L., Clauss, T., Bossart, G.D. Protein and
cholesterol electrophoresis of plasma samples from captive cownose ray (Rhinoptera bonasus).
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 27(6): 688-695. 2015.
26
Eric Gaglione
Vice president of zoological operations, Georgia Aquarium
Eric Gaglione began his career in 1984 as a sea lion and dolphin trainer at the Aquarium of Niagara Falls
while also earning degrees in Zoology and Wildlife Management at the State University of New York’s
Empire State College. He assumed the role of Curator of Marine Mammals in 1990 and spent five years
overseeing the aquarium’s animal training and behavioral enrichment programs.
In 1995 he joined the Mystic Aquarium as Curator of Marine Mammals & Birds. While at Mystic he
gained valuable experience with beluga whales and a variety of marine mammals and birds including
bottlenose dolphins, California sea lions, Steller sea lions, Northern fur seals, harbor seals, grey seals,
Pacific walrus and African penguins. He was also responsible for the on-site animal care of Mystic’s
stranded marine mammal program and cared for a variety of seal and cetacean species including but not
limited to pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, common dolphins, harbor porpoise, hooded seals, harp seas
and harbor seals.
In 2005, Gaglione joined the Georgia Aquarium and initially managed the Cold Water Quest Gallery
where he assisted the start-up of the one the largest aquariums in the world. Gaglione has continued to
specialize in beluga whale management, training and care and further diversified his experience with
marine animals including whale sharks. He has served in numerous capacities in the zoological division
and is currently Vice President of Zoological Operations. He is responsible for the management, training
and care of the mammal and bird collections in the aquarium exhibit galleries which currently include
beluga whales, bottlenose dolphins, California sea lions, harbor seals, southern sea otters, Asian otters
and African penguins.
Gaglione has an extensive history caring for beluga whales for the past twenty-one years. He has also
participated in field research projects and health assessments involving beluga whales in the Hudson
Bay Nelson River estuary and St. Lawrence River, Canada as well as Bristol Bay, Alaska.
He is involved with several groups and associations related to the care of marine animals. He has been
and continues to be a representative for Georgia Aquarium with the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks
and Aquariums (AMMPA). He is a Professional Associate of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
(AZA) and is member of AZA’s Marine Mammal Taxon Advisory Group Steering Committee. He has been
a member of the International Marine Animal Trainers’ Association (IMATA) since 1985 and served on
the board for six years including Vice President (2010) and President (2013).
27
Chapter 88 Measuring Hearing in Wild Beluga Whales
T. Aran Mooney , Manuel Castellote , Lori Quakenbush , Roderick Hobbs ,Caroline Goertz ,
and Eric Gaglione
Abstract We measured the hearing abilities of seven wild beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) during
a collection-and-release experiment in Bristol Bay, AK. Here we summarize the methods and initial data
from one animal and discuss the implications of this experiment. Audiograms were collected from 4 to
150 kHz. The animal with the lowest threshold heard best at 80 kHz and demonstrated overall good
hearing from 22 to 110 kHz. The robustness of the methodology and data suggest that the auditory
evoked potential audiograms can be incorporated into future collection-and-release health assessments.
Such methods may provide high-quality results for multiple animals, facilitating population-level
audiograms and hearing measures in new species.
Keywords Anthropogenic noise • Sensory • Marine mammal • Cetacean •Odontocete • Arctic
T. A. Mooney
Biology Department , Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution ,
266 Woods Hole Road, MRF MS50 , Woods Hole , MA 02543 , USA
e-mail: amooney@whoi.edu
M. Castellote
National Marine Mammal Laboratory , Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service
, Seattle , WA 98115 , USA
North Gulf Oceanic Society , Homer , AK 99603 , USA
e-mail: manuel.castellote@noaa.gov
L. Quakenbush
Alaska Department of Fish and Game , Fairbanks , AK 99701 , USA
e-mail: lori.quakenbush@alaska.gov
R. Hobbs
National Marine Mammal Laboratory , Alaska Fisheries Science Center,
National Marine Fisheries Service , Seattle , WA 98115 , USA
C. Goertz
Alaska SeaLife Center , Seward , AK 99664 , USA
e-mail: rod.hobbs@noaa.gov
E. Gaglione
Georgia Aquarium , 225 Baker Street NW , Atlanta , GA 30313 , USA
e-mail: egaglione@georgiaaquarium.org
28
1 Introduction
Hearing is the primary sensory modality for odontocete marine mammals. They are generally considered
to have sensitive hearing and may detect a broad range of frequencies. Relying on hearing can be
particularly adaptive in the marine environment where light and other cues are often limited and
natural sounds are frequently abundant. Yet these sensitive auditory abilities may also be easily
impacted by anthropogenic noise.
Human use of the Earth’s oceans has steadily increased over the last century, resulting in an increase in
anthropogenically produced noise (e.g., National Academy of Sciences 2003 ). The Arctic is no exception
to this increase (Blackwell and Greene Jr 2003 ). Reductions in polar sea ice and the opening of the
Northwest
Passage presumably will open up habitats for many top predators. Yet this decrease in sea ice provides
greater human access to a high-latitude environment, and such a change is poised to transform a
relatively pristine environment into one saturated with human activities and associated noise. Sources
are varied and include naval exercises, boundary definitions, shipping/movement along Alaska’s North
Slope, seismic resources exploration, and the construction of an infrastructure needed to support it
(Wang and Overland 2009 ; Titley and St. John 2010 ). These changes encompass the habitats of
Delphinapterus leucas (beluga whales) and other top predators. Despite this obvious overlap of humannatural interests, there is a poor understanding of influences of these sound-associated changes. To
estimate the impacts of this noise, it is crucial to evaluate the natural hearing abilities and the variation
with marine mammal populations.
Yet a primary challenge is that audiograms of odontocete marine mammals have most often been
estimated from stranded animals or nonwild individuals (for a review, see Mooney et al. 2012 ). In many
instances, these records have produced valuable data that are otherwise unavailable. For example,
hearing in several stranded beaked whale species have helped define what these sound-sensitive
animals hear (Finneran et al. 2009 ; Pacini et al. 2011 ). The audiogram of a stranded infant Risso’s
dolphin helped redefine what the species actually detects (Nachtigall et al. 2005 ). Work with trained
odontocetes provides scientific data that are likely unique to those settings and can address how
animals hear or how they may be protected from anthropogenic noise (Nachtigall and Supin 2008 ). Yet,
in many instances, health compromised stranded animals may not have normal auditory abilities and
thus are not necessarily representative of wild populations. Furthermore, without baselines for wild
individuals, it is difficult to put differences and results of nonwild individuals in a relative context.
Clearly, there is value in increasing the number of animals within a species measured for hearing
capabilities whenever possible.
Here we describe the methods and initial results for measuring the hearing of wild D. leucas (Castellote
et al. 2014 ). The goal of this study was to determine hearing sensitivity in wild Bristol Bay D. leucas
during a planned collection-and-release operation. Monitoring of D. leucas has been recommended in
recent years because this species is likely to be negatively impacted by climate change and because such
a broadly dispersed, high-trophic feeder can serve as an effective sentinel of the ecosystem(s) in which it
lives (Moore 2008 ; Moore and Huntington 2008 ; Simpkins et al. 2009 ). Because noise may impact D.
leucas in a variety of ways, it is essential to determine what these animals hear.
29
In view of the expected changes in the Arctic acoustic environment, expanding our knowledge of D.
leucas hearing is of central importance for an appropriate conservation management framework. One of
the five distinct stocks of D. leucas whales that are currently recognized in US waters, the Cook Inlet D.
leucas population is endangered and efforts for its recovery to date have not been successful. The
impact of anthropogenic noise has been identifi ed as a serious threat, potentially impeding recovery
(NMFS 2008 ). On the contrary, the Bristol Bay D. leucas population is increasing and is considered to be
a healthy population (NMFS 2008 ). The acoustic environment in Bristol Bay is different; many of the
chronic anthropogenic sources typically found in the Cook Inlet D. leucas habitat are essentially absent
or seasonally present at lower intensities in the Bristol Bay habitat. This suggests that Bristol Bay D.
leucas are a valuable asset to evaluate baseline hearing and health measures for comparison to affected
populations such as Cook Inlet D. leucas .
2 Temporary Collection of Beluga Whales and Hearing Test Methods
This study was conducted in September 2012 in Bristol Bay, AK. The audiograms were measured during
an overall health assessment study that required the collection and release of D. leucas . Audiograms
were obtained from seven of seven belugas tested. The procedures were similar to those followed by
Ferrero et al. ( 2000 )and were conducted under National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal
Research Permit No. 14245 and approved by the necessary Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committees. The full results are published elsewhere (Castellote et al. 2014 ); here we provide a
summary of the methods and preliminary results.
Bristol Bay is a generally shallow, muddy-bottomed estuary system that supports a population of D.
leucas. Using three 3.5-m aluminum skiffs and one soft-bodied inflatable boat, we searched for an adult
beluga. When a suitable animal was spotted (Fig. 88.1 ), one of the skiffs would follow and gradually
approach the whale to encourage it to swim into shallow water (<2 m). From one of the boats, a 125-mlong by 4-m-deep net made of 0.3-m braided square mesh was deployed around the whale. Once the
deployment boat and net encircled the whale, the inflatable boat approached the outside of the net and
three handlers placed a soft tail rope around the whale’s peduncle. The rope’s other end was fixed to
the inflatable boat to secure the whale.
The large net was gradually recalled while a “belly-band” stretcher was placed under the D. leucas.
Handholds in this stretcher facilitated adjusting the whale’s position as the water depth changed with
the tide. The animal was then positioned parallel to the small inflatable boat. The D. leucas’s head
typically rested on or was just above the soft mud bottom, keeping the lower jaw and primary hearing
pathways below the water surface. The animal’s blowhole was generally above the surface.
30
Fig. 88.1 (a) Spotting a Delphinapterus leucas from the aluminum skiff. (b) Auditory evoked potential
(AEP) audiogram setup. Arrows, recording, reference, and ground electrodes from posterior to anterior
(right to left). A measure of breath is also being taken concurrently. (c) AEP system in its case. (d) AEP
system in the soft inflatable boat during data recording
This setup was consistent for all animals, except one for which the water level was too low and this test
was conducted partly out of the water. Animals were maintained in this position for the audiogram and
health exam. The auditory evoked potential test equipment was outfitted in a ruggedized case; both it
and the operator sat in the small inflatable boat beside the D. leucas during the hearing tests (Fig. 88.1 ).
Hearing was tested using auditory evoked potential methodology following methods generally described
elsewhere (e.g., Nachtigall et al. 2007). Sound stimuli, generated in a custom program, consisted of
amplitude-modulated tone-pip stimuli, 20 ms in duration, and presented at a modulation rate of 1 kHz
and 20 s −1 . Tones were presented through a suction-cup transducer attached to the tip of the lower
jaw.
Evoked potential data were recorded for 30 ms, starting concurrently with tone stimuli. Responses were
bandpass filtered from 300 to 3,000 Hz. Five hundred sweeps were averaged per single record by the
custom program and stored on a semirugged laptop computer. Thresholds were determined taking the
fast Fourier transform-based frequency spectra of each envelope following responses (EFRs), and
plotting those microvolt peaks relative to their respective sound pressure. A best-fi t regression line was
fit to these peak data points. A sound level value where the regression line theoretically generated a 0μV response was taken as the threshold for that frequency.
31
3 Results and Discussion
Audiograms were successfully collected from all seven adult D. leucas whales temporarily collected and
tested. Evoked response waveforms and EFRs were generally easily identifiable and distinct from the
background electrophysiological noise. The inset in Fig. 88.2 shows an EFR that was recorded using
stimuli of ~20 dB around the hearing threshold of 32 kHz. Such a measurement would take ~30 s to
collect. Thus, overall thresholds at a particular frequency were obtained in 3–5 min. This relatively rapid
threshold measurement facilitated collecting multiple thresholds per animal but also minimizing the
“with-animal” time. For example, the audiogram of animal 7 consisted of 12 frequencies tested. Two of
these (4 and 150 kHz) did not induce measureable AEPs. The entire dataset was collected in 55 min,
which included multiple breaks for other measurements such as obtaining blood samples or
repositioning the animal. Records were collected in concert with a suite of other measurements, with no
discernible impact on the physiological noise. This allowed for a relatively efficient data collection when
compared with behavioral methods that require significant time to train animals and conduct
experiments. It is also relatively quick for other AEP audiograms that make take multiple days (sessions).
Here we collected seven audiograms over 6 field days (including 1 day with poor weather conditions
when no whales were sighted).
Despite the potential challenges of the experiment (cold conditions, electrophysiology close to the
water, confined spaces, concurrent measurements potentially introducing noise, and the safety and
welfare of the people and animals), the audiograms were of very good quality. They are of equal quality
to the field-based collection- release audiometric data of Cook et al. ( 2004 ) for bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncates) and of Nachtigall et al. ( 2008 ; see also Mooney et al. 2009 ) for white-beaked
dolphins ( Lagenorhynchus albirostris ) Our success both in the ease and safety of data acquisition and
the quality of the data suggests that the methods could easily be applied to other species in similar
situations.
32
Fig. 88.2 AEP audiogram and waveform (inset) of D. leucas No. 7. This animal had the overall mean
lowest threshold
This is of particular importance for populations where anthropogenic noise is chronic and has been
identified as a potential stressor. Examples are the endangered Cook Inlet D. leucas or the threatened
St. Lawrence D. leucas populations. The prevalence of anthropogenic noise in their habitat and its
cumulative effects might be compromising the survival of both D. leucas populations (NMFS 2008 ; DFO
2012 ). This assertion is based on current knowledge of the level and acuity of anthropogenic noise in
these ecosystems (e.g., Gervaise et al. 2012 ) and our understanding of D. leucas hearing and acoustic
communication. However, because of the inherent difficulties in evaluating the noise impact on
cetaceans, there are no data supporting this hypothesis. Audiograms using the method described here
could be collected in the Cook Inlet and in the St. Lawrence Estuary to measure the hearing of D. leucas
with greater exposure to anthropogenic noise and could then be compared with the baseline audiogram
for Bristol Bay D. leuca .
Acknowledgments
Project funding and field support was provided by the Georgia Aquarium and the National Marine
Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center (NMML/AFSC). Field work was also supported by
the National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Regional Office (NMFS AKR), Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution (WHOI) Arctic Research Initiative, WHOI Ocean Life Institute, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bristol Bay Native Association, Alaska SeaLife Center, the Shedd Aquarium, and the Mystic Aquarium.
Audiogram analyses were funded by Office of Naval Research Award No. N000141210203 (from Michael
Weise).
We also acknowledge the substantial assistance of R. Andrews, G. Biedenbach, B. Long, S. Norman, M.
Keogh, A. Moors, L. Thompson, T. Binder, L. Naples, L. Cornick, K. Royer, K. Burek-Huntington, R.
Hiratsuka, A. Roehl, B. Tinker, and D. Togiak. All work was conducted under NMFS Permit No. 14245 and
in accordance with approval from the NMML/AFSC Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
(IACUC) Protocol No. AFSC-NWFSC2012-1 and WHOI IACUC Protocol No. BI166330.
References
Blackwell SB, Greene CR Jr (2003) Acoustic measurements in Cook Inlet, Alaska, during August
2001. Greeneridge Report 271-2, Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, prepared for the
National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, AK
Castellote M, Mooney TA, Quakenbush L, Hobbs R, Goertz C, Gaglione E (2014) Baseline hearing abilities
and variability in wild beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). J Exp Biol
217:1682–1691. doi:10.1242/jeb.093252
Cook MLH, Wells RS, Mann DA (2004) Auditory brainstem response hearing measurements in freeranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J Acoust Soc Am 116:2504
DFO (2012) Recovery strategy for the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) St. Lawrence estuary
population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO),
Ottawa, ON, Canada
33
Ferrero RC, Moore SE, Hobbs R (2000) Development of beluga, Delphinapterus leucas , capture and
satellite tagging protocol in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Mar Fish Rev 62:112–123
Finneran JJ, Houser DS, Mase-Guthrie B, Ewing RY, Lingenfelser RG (2009) Auditory evoked potentials in
a stranded Gervais’ beaked whale ( Mesoplodon europaeus ). J Acoust Soc Am 126:484–490.
doi:10.1121/1.3133241
Gervaise C, Roy N, Kinda B, Menard N (2012) Shipping noise in whale habitat: characteristics, sources,
budget, and impact on belugas in Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park hub. J Acoust Soc Am 132:76–89
Mooney TA, Nachtigall PE, Taylor KA, Miller LA, Rasmussen M (2009) Comparative auditory temporal
resolution of the white-beaked dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus albirostris ). J Comp Physiol A 195:375–384
Mooney TA, Yamato M, Branstetter BK (2012) Hearing in cetaceans: from natural history to
experimental biology. Adv Mar Biol 63:197–246
Moore SE (2008) Marine mammals as ecosystem sentinels. J Mammal 89:534–540
Moore SE, Huntington HP (2008) Arctic marine mammals and climate change: impacts and resilience.
Ecol Appl 18:S157–S165
Nachtigall PE, Mooney TA, Taylor KA, Miller LA, Rasmussen M, Akamatsu T, Teilmann J, Linnenschidt M,
Vikingsson GA (2008) Shipboard measurements of the hearing of the whitebeaked dolphin,
Lagenorynchus albirostris . J Exp Biol 211:642–647
Nachtigall PE, Mooney TA, Taylor KA, Yuen MML (2007) Hearing and auditory evoked potential methods
applied to odontocete cetaceans. Aquat Mamm 33:6–13. doi:10.1578/AM.33.1.2007.6
Nachtigall PE, Supin AY (2008) A false killer whale adjusts its hearing when it echolocates. J Exp Biol
211:1714–1718. doi:10.1242/jeb.013862
Nachtigall PE, Yuen MML, Mooney TA, Taylor KA (2005) Hearing measurements from a stranded infant
Risso’s dolphin, Grampus griseus . J Exp Biol 208:4181–4188
National Academy of Sciences (2003) Ocean noise and marine mammals. National Academies
Press, Washington, DC
NMFS (2008) Conservation plan for the Cook Inlet beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas ).
National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, AK
Pacini AF, Nachtigall PE, Quintos CT, Schofi eld TD, Look DA, Levine GA, Turner JP (2011) Audiogram of a
stranded Blainville’s beaked whale ( Mesoplodon densirostris ) measured using auditory evoked
potentials. J Exp Biol 214:2409–2415. doi:10.1242/jeb.054338
Simpkins M, Kovacs KM, Laidre K, Lowry L (2009) A framework for monitoring Arctic marine mammals.
Findings from a workshop sponsored by the US Marine Mammal Commission and US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Valencia, Spain, 4–6 March 2007. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Circumpolar
Biodiversity Monitoring Program Report No. 16
34
Titley D, St. John C (2010) Arctic security considerations and the U.S. Navy’s roadmap for the Arctic. Nav
War Coll Rev 63:35–48
Wang M, Overland J (2009) A sea ice free Arctic within 30 years. Geophys Res Lett 36:L07502
35
GEORGIA AQUARIUM
BELUGA IMPORT PROJECT
DR. GREGORY BOSSART, V.M.D., PH.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER
RELEASING CETACEANS
The argument of releasing cetaceans (specifically whales and dolphins) to the oceans following human
care has been brought to the forefront during Georgia Aquarium’s beluga import project, and in
unrelated public news. Georgia Aquarium’s chief veterinary officer has extensive experience working
with cetaceans and provides a unique look into the realities of release.
36
Dr. Gregory Bossart, V.M.D, Ph.D.
Release of Cetaceans
In recent years, the public and media interest of reintroducing cetaceans under human care to the wild
has been a topic of much discussion. Georgia Aquarium staff members have been active in the rescue,
rehabilitation and release of various marine mammal species (including whales and dolphins) that have
been under short-term human care for over 30 years. While scientific protocols for releasing short-term
rescued and rehabilitated cetaceans have been developed to ensure that survivability is optimized, the
scientific literature for releasing cetaceans under long-term human care is sparse and the results of the
few scientifically conducted release projects report widely different results. Issues of concern in longterm situations include disease transmission between released animals and wild animals; the unwanted
genetic exchange between the released cetacean and wild stocks; the elimination of behaviors
developed in human care that could affect negatively impact survivability; and the ability of the released
animal to adequately forage for itself, defend itself from predators and be integrated into a social group
(Bossart, 1996; Spradlin and Terbush, 1999). Because of many of the above issues, the length of time
under human care becomes an important consideration in any release protocol. Importantly, a study
published regarding reintroduction of US Navy dolphins to the wild concluded that the benefits of
reintroduction to either reintroduced animals or the indigenous populations could neither be predicted
nor adequately quantified and that significant mortality risks existed to both the released animals and
the wild stocks (Brill and Friedl, 1993).
Specifically, the reintroduction of the Russian beluga whales could negatively impact their health for
behavioral and medical reasons. Specifically, many of the emerging and resurging marine mammal
diseases we now see in some free-ranging marine mammal populations are not observed in marine
mammals under human care (see disease references below). Thus, any translocation attempt could
negatively impact the health of the reintroduced whales. Additionally, any translocation attempt could
also inadvertently impact the well-being of the free-ranging beluga whale population in which they are
placed. Free-ranging wildlife populations including marine mammals have developed immunologic
tolerance to a host of microorganisms that now live as commensals in their bodies including in the
respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. Alternatively, marine mammals under human care have
developed immunologic tolerance to wide range of different microorganisms that now live as
commensals in their bodies. The immunologic tolerance to different microorganisms is obviously
adaptive and evolved slowly over time and is not an uncommon phenomenon in other mammalian
species. Immunologic naivety to these new, different and potentially undefined organisms which in turn
become opportunistic pathogens have the potential to negatively impact the health of the free-ranging
beluga whale population as well as any reintroduced beluga whales. Precedent has been observed with
similar disease outbreaks in humans and other wild animal species that have undergone various aspects
of environmental translocation.
The length of time under human care also becomes a complicating variable for potentiating the health
issues of concern for any successful reintroduction. In this case, the now normal microbial populations in
the beluga whales housed near the Black Sea have microbes common to that geographic region only.
Unfortunately, one additional complicating factor is the limited comparable health data of the free37
ranging beluga populations in question. This health data would be critical for understanding disease
transmission potential between both the reintroduced animals and the indigenous populations.
Specific behavioral issues of concern in this case would include that during their time in human care the
beluga whales in question have been largely desensitized to humans and dependent on humans for their
basic functions of life. As in other failed release attempts, released animals no longer have a healthy
inherent fear of humans and engage humans in the search of food. In the worst case scenario, these
animals would be unable to feed themselves and actually search out humans for companionship.
Additionally, the social relationships of the reintroduced animals and the indigenous populations are
difficult to determine and could cause unpredictable social consequences to the detriment of either
group.
Probably the most infamous example of similar behavioral/social difficulties occurred with the failed
tragic release attempt of the killer whale “Keiko”, the star of the movie “Free Willy”. According to Mark
Simmons, noted marine mammal behaviorist and naturalist and the author of ‘Killing Keiko”, the release
of “Keiko” who had been under long-term human care was not successful nor was he ever free
(Simmons, 2014). “Keiko” never acquired skills to survive on his own, continued to seek out human
interaction to his final days, never integrated with wild whales and died from improper and negligent
care. According to Simmons, Keiko’s final years and days were cruel and unusual and constitute perhaps
the most infamous case of animal exploitation and animal abuse in marine zoological history. This
tragedy highlights that we must remember that our generous, human compassion for animals is not
always well-conceived. We need to better understand what our actions actually mean for such animals
as opposed to what they mean for ourselves or our agendas. While returning stranded marine mammals
that have been rehabilitated is usually a compassionate act, there is no reason to abandon animals that
have long depended on human care.
Based on these medical, social and behavioral issues of concern we do not consider the beluga whales in
question to be reintroduction candidates.
References:
Bossart GD (2011) Marine mammals as sentinel species of ocean and human health. Vet Pathol 48:
676−690
Bossart GD, Reiderson T, Dierauf L, Duffield D (2001) Clinical pathology. In: Dierauf L, Gulland F (eds)
Marine mammal medicine. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 383−436 pp
Bossart GD, Ghim S, Rehtanz M, Goldstein J and others (2005) Orogenital neoplasia in Atlantic
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Aquat Mamm 31: 473−480
Bossart GD, Goldstein JD, Murdoch EM, Fair PA, McCulloch S (2006) Health assessment of bottlenose
dolphins in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida and Charleston, South Carolina. Harbor Branch
Oceanographic Technical Report No. 93. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute,
Ft. Pierce, FL
38
Bossart GD, Romano TA, Peden-Adams MM, Rice CD and others (2008) Hematological, biochemical and
immunological findings in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) with orogenital papillomas.
Aquat Mamm 34: 166−177
Bossart GD, Romano T, Peden-Adams M, Schaefer A and others (2011)
Clinicoimmunopathologic findings in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus with positive
morbillivirus titers. Dis Aquat Org 97: 103−112
Bossart GD (2001) Manatees. In: Dierauf L, Gulland F (eds) Marine mammal medicine. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 939−960 pp
Bossart GD (2011) Marine mammals as sentinel species for oceans and human health. Vet Pathol 48:
676−690
Bossart GD, Ewing R, Lowe M, Sweat M and others (2002) Viral papillomatosis in Florida manatees
(Trichechus manatus latirostris). Exp Mol Pathol 72: 37−48
Bossart GD, Meisner R, Rommel SA, Ghim S, Jenson AB (2003) Pathological features of the Florida
manatee cold stress syndrome. Aquat Mamm 29: 9−17
Bossart GD, Meisner R, Rommel SA, Lightsey JA, Varela RA, Defran RH (2004) Pathologic findings in
Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Aquat Mamm 30: 434−440
Bossart GD, Reif JS, Schaefer AM, Goldstein J, Fair PA, Saliki JT (2010) Morbillivirus infection in freeranging Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the southeastern United States:
seroepidemiologic and pathologic evidence of subclinical infection. Vet Microbiol
143: 160−166
Bossart GD (1984) A suspected acquired immunodeficiency in an Atlantic bottlenose dolphin with
lobomycosis and chronic-active hepatitis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 185:1413–1414, 1984.
Bossart GD, Odell DK, Altman NH (1985) Cardiomyopathy in stranded pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. J
Am Vet Med Assoc 187:1137– 1140
Bossart GD, Ewing R, Herron AJ, et al (1997) Immunoblastic malignant lymphoma in dolphins:
ultrastructural and immunohistochemical features. J Vet Diagn Invest 9:454–458
Bossart GD, Baden DG, Ewing R, et al (1998) Brevetoxicosis in manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris)
from the 1996 epizootic: gross, histologic and immunohistochemical features. Toxicol Pathol 26:276–
282
Bossart GD, Ewing R, Lowe M, et al (2002) Viral papillomatosis in Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus
latirostris). Exp Mol Pathol 72:37–48
Bossart GD, Baden DG, Ewing RY, et al: Manatees and brevetoxicosis. In: Molecular and Cell Biology of
Marine Mammals, ed. Pfeiffer C, pp. 205–212. Krieger, Melbourne, FL,
2002.
39
Bossart GD, Meisner R, Rommel SA, et al (2003) Pathological features of the Florida manatee cold stress
syndrome. Aquatic Mammals 29(1): 9–17
Bossart GD, Meisner R, Varela R, et al (2003) Pathologic findings in stranded Atlantic bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) from the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Florida Scientist 66(3):226–238
Bossart GD, Meisner R, Rommel SA, et al (2004) Pathologic findings in Florida manatees (Trichechus
manatus latirostris). Aquatic Mammals 30(3):434–440
Bossart GD, Ghim S, Rehtanz M, et al (2005) Orogenital neoplasia in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus). Aquatic Mammals 31(4):473–480
Bossart GD (2006) Marine mammals as sentinel species for oceans and human health. Oceanography
19(2):44–47
Bossart GD (2007) Emerging diseases in marine mammals: from dolphins to manatees. Microbe
11(2):544–549
Bossart GD, Hensley G, Goldstein J, et al (2007) Cardiomyopathy and myocardial degeneration in
stranded pygmy (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf sperm (Kogia sima) whales. Aquatic Mammals
33(2):214–222
Bossart GD, Romano TA, Peden-Adams, et al (2008) Hematological, biochemical and immunological
findings in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) with orogenital papillomas. Aquatic
Mammals 34(2):166–177
Bossart GD, Mignucci-Giannoni Antonio A, Rivera-Guzman Antonio L, Jimenez-Marrero Nilda M, Camus
Alvin C, Bonde Robert K, Dubey Jitender P, Reif John S (2012) Disseminated toxoplasmosis in Antillean
manatees Trichechus manatus manatus from Puerto Rico. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 101: 139-144
Bossart GD, Reif JS, Schaefer AM, et al (2012) Morbillivirus infection
in free-ranging Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the southeastern United States:
seroepidemiologic and pathologic evidence of subclinical infection. Vet
Microbiol 143:160–166
Bossart GD, Romano T, Peden-Adams M, Schaefer A, McCulloch S, Goldstein J, Fair P, Cray C, Reif JS
(2014) Clinicoimmunopathologic findings in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus with
positive Chlamydiaceae antibody titers. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 108: 71-81
Bossart GD, Schaefer AM, McCulloch S, Goldstein J, Fair PA, Reif JS (2015) Mucocutaneous lesions from
free-ranging Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, from the southeastern United
States. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 115:175-184
40
Bossart, G. D., Romano, T. A., Peden-Adams, M. M., Rice, C. D., Fair, P. A., Goldstein, J. D., Cammen, K.,
and Reif, J. S. (2008) Hematological, biochemical and immunological findings in Atlantic bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) with orogenital
papillomas. Aquatic Mammals 34(2): 166-177
Bossart GD, Odell DK and Altman NH. (1985) Cardiomyopathy in stranded pygmy and dwarf sperm
whales. J Am Vet Med Assoc 187:1137-1140
Bossart GD, Cray C, Solorzano JL, Decker SJ, Cornell LH and Altman NH (1996) Cutaneous papovaviral-like
papillomatosis in a killer whale (Orcinus orca). Marine Mammal Science 12: 274-281
Bossart GD, Hensley G, Goldstein J, Kroell K, Manire C, Defran R, and Reif J (2007) Cardiomyopathy and
myocardial degeneration in stranded pygmy (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf sperm (Kogia sima) whales.
Aquatic Mammals 33(2): 214-222
Bossart GD (1996). Release of dolphins was inhumane. articles.sun-sentinal.com./1996-0719/news/9607180251_1_buck-and-luther-atlantic-bottlenose-dolphins-animals
Brill RL and Fridel WA (1993) Reintroduction to the wild as an option for managing Navy marine
mammals. NCCOSC/NRaD Tech. Report 1549, 86 pp.
Fair PA, Houde M, Hulsey TC, Bossart GD, Adams J, Balthis L, Muir DC (2012) Assessment of
perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in plasma of bottlenose dolphins from two southeast US estuarine
areas: Relationship with age, sex and geographic locations. Mar Pollut Bull
64: 66-74
Fair P, Adams J, Mitchum G, Hulsey T, Reif J, Houde M, Muir D, Wirth E, Wetzel D, Zolman E, McFee W,
and Bossart G (2010) Contaminant blubber burdens in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)
from two southeastern US estuarine areas: Concentrations and patterns of PCBs, pesticides, PBDEs,
PFCs, and PAHs. Science of the Total Environment 408: 1577-1597
Fair PA, Mitchum G, Hulsey TC, Adams J, Zolman E, McFee W, Wirth E, and Bossart GD. (2007)
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in blubber of free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) from two southeast Atlantic estuarine areas. Arch Environ Contam
Toxicol 53: 483–494
41
GEORGIA AQUARIUM
BELUGA IMPORT PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ROAST BEEF PRODUCTIONS
On the following pages you will find a full account of Georgia Aquarium’s correspondence with Roast
Beef Productions – the company producing a crowd-funded film casting allegations on Georgia
Aquarium. You will also find copies of all the letter correspondence between Georgia Aquarium and
Roast Beef Productions on the following pages.
42
Roast Beef Productions and Born to Be Free
Born to Be Free is a crowd-funded film that focuses on the industry of international trade of sea animals
in Russia; specifically beluga whales and dolphins. The film previewed at the Sheffield Film Festival in
South Yorkshire, England on June 13 & 14, 2016. It is produced by British-American production
company, Roast Beef Productions.
Roast Beef Productions contacted Georgia Aquarium for comment regarding the film on several
occasions:






Before the oral arguments for Georgia Aquarium’s permit application, Roast Beef Productions
reached out to Georgia Aquarium for an interview – at this point they had not identified
themselves as the makers of Born to Be Free - Georgia Aquarium did not provide a formal
interview due to the court hearing beginning in a few days’ time.
Roast Beef Productions attended the oral arguments in Atlanta in August of 2015 and were
allowed to record audio of the hearing from inside the court room.
o Roast Beef Productions approached Georgia Aquarium for comment during the hearing.
Georgia Aquarium replied that we are unable to provide specific comments during
ongoing legal proceedings.
o Roast Beef Productions approached Georgia Aquarium for comment following the
hearing outside the Federal courthouse. Georgia Aquarium again replied that we are
unable to provide specific comments during ongoing legal proceedings.
Following Georgia Aquarium’s decision to not appeal in November of 2015, Roast Beef
Productions contacted Georgia Aquarium in February of 2016 for an interview.
o Georgia Aquarium did not conduct any interviews with media following this decision.
We did provide Roast Beef Productions with all information about our decision and the
project as we did to all media.
In May of 2016, Georgia Aquarium received a Right to Respond letter from Roast Beef
Productions highlighting severe allegations against Georgia Aquarium.
o Georgia Aquarium responded within 48 hours and asked to view the film in order to
accurately, efficiently, and truthfully respond to the allegations set forth.
o Roast Beef Productions denied Georgia Aquarium’s request to view the film, but instead
sent an additional letter detailing their allegations.
o Georgia Aquarium responded with a highly detailed response to the allegations outlined
in Roast Beef Productions’ letter and provided a video statement from Chairman and
CEO, Mike Leven to be used in the film, as stated in Roast Beef Productions’
correspondence.
Georgia Aquarium sent representatives to the Sheffield Film Festival to view the film and send
back reports. Upon these reports, it is believed that the film is riddled with inaccuracies about
Georgia Aquarium and its beluga import project.
Following the film’s preview, Georgia Aquarium requested from Roast Beef Productions, to view
the film now that it had made its world premiere. This film is not available in theaters or online
as it has not been made available through distribution channels as of the week of June 20, 2016.
o Roast Beef Productions denied this request and made no offer to share the film in the
future to Georgia Aquarium.
43
44
45
46
47
48
GEORGIA AQUARIUM – BELUGA IMPORT PROJECT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CONTACTS
PRESS CONTACTS:

Debbie Campbell, vice president of marketing and communications
e: dcampbell@georgiaaquarium.org p: 404-581-4115

Jessica Fontana, senior manager of communications
e: jfontana@georgiaaquarium.org p: 404-581-4391

Paige Hale, public relations specialist
e: phale@georgiaaquarium.org p: 404-581-4230

Megan Fisher, public relations coordinator
e: mfisher@georgiaaquarium.org p: 404-581-4277

Imogen Farris, public relations coordinator
e: ifarris@georgiaaquarium.org p: 404-581-4294
ASSOCIATION LINKS





The Alliance for Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums
o http://www.ammpa.org/
The Alliance for Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums’ Beluga Whale Fact Sheet
o http://www.ammpa.org/doc_beluga_factsheet.html
The International Union for Conservation of Nature
o http://www.iucn.org/
The International Union for Conservation of Nature: Red List on beluga whales
o http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/6335/0
Association of Zoos and Aquariums
o https://www.aza.org/
BELUGA IMPORT PROJECT ONLINE:

A website solely dedicated to Georgia Aquarium’s beluga import project details the complexities
of the project in an easy to understand, engaging format. Learn more about the entire 12-year
process, the decisions we needed to make, and the uncertain future beluga whales in North
America face – and what we can do to help.
o http://www.belugaimportproject.org
49