Do you know where the two additional Stellar's came from? You mention them getting big--were they born at Mystic (and sired before the castration) or brought in from somewhere else?
Two of Mystic's females are a mother-daughter pairing though I do not know if they were born at the aquarium or not. If they were, I do not believe it was by this particular male. The third female, if memory serves, arrived earlier this year from Alaska. ~Thylo
He (the owner) died in the past year, and I believe his wife is now the “owner.” I think if the laws allowed easier transfers, there would be a lot more animals leaving Marineland.
Wow, that is big news. He was known for going to great lengths to save and make money, going so far as to evict a mobile home community that had been renting land with a lease insisting he needed the land immediately and forced them all to move--then left it sitting there empty. They have had such a problem of violations, I'd imagine the government would be eager to help them liquidate. Maybe this heir will be sick of all the activists and deaths and just sell the place. But how many belugas, sea lions, and dolphins are left, in addition to Smooshi and Sitka?
Mystics current Steller's are 12 year old castrated male Astro, who is a non-releaseable rescue animal. Their females are 17 year old mother Eden (originally wild caught as a pup by Vancouver aquarium for research purposes) and 2 year old daughter Perl (born at the Alaska Sealife Center, sired by captive bred male Pilot), and 12 year old Sitka, a captive bred female originally born at the Dolfinarium Harderwijk (she's also Pilots full sister, so she's an aunt to Perl). Also this is more off topic, but Marineland currently has around 53 Beluga Whales, 5 female Black Sea Bottlenose Dolphins, and 5 female California Sea Lions. The reason none of the belugas going to mystic have bred, is because they're all too young. Only one female is really old enough to bred, and she has not been housed with any mature males since the fall of 2018. Due to Canada's stupid new cetacean breeding stop, marineland will not intentionally be producing any new calves, all their mature males (and a few immature females) are housed in one pool complex, and their females and immature males in a completely separate pool system. However their breeding program has been incredibly successful, they've had multiple calves born every single year for the past 12 years.
Do you see Marineland gradually selling off and closing the park? Or is this successful beluga breeding program what's keeping the park alive? 1 walrus, 1 orca, 5 dolphin might be their performance quota, but 53 belugas sounds much more like a production operation. I would love to see these 53 sold off to zoos under an SSP to create an ambassador program, and contingency population plan.
The new 2019 law making it unlawful for Canadian aquariums and zoos to hold whales and dolphins "grandfathered in" whatever of the species both Vancouver and Marineland currently held. At the writing of the law, that was 53 belugas, and Marineland sued to have the calves of the "many pregnant females" included in the grandfathering. I can find no clarification of this outcome, but the fact that Marineland sold Mystic 5 belugas and ML still has 53, means that ML increased its pod by exactly five and then sold exactly five. While I briefly hoped that ML was beginning a giant sell-off to go out of operation, it now looks as if they may only be selling because they were not allowed to keep the new births. I'll be interested to see if Mystic actually receives those calves, or if ML complied with the letter of the law but not the spirit by selling adult belugas. This article below suggests the latter, saying ML claimed that their current animals could still be alive for 50 years, the lifespan of belugas in the wild, and thus Marineland could continue to operate with its marine animals as attractions for another five decades. However, the law was clear that any future births could not live in Canada. It would be nice to think that the segregation mentioned above would result in no new births to comply with the law, but what is the Law going to do if there are five more calves next year? Surely they'd have to remain at ML long enough to be weaned, thus violating the law. They're so profit-hungry, I can't imagine that this won't be something they attempt. What could happen? No one is going to euthanize a groups of calves even if they are not allowed to be there, so weaning and sales would proceed. Marineland Can Keep Their Whales And Dolphins Captive Despite New Canadian Ban
A bill proposed in Connecticut would ban cetacean captivity in the state, and the Mystic Aquarium is predictably opposing it. Mystic Aquarium urges lawmakers to reject bill prohibiting whales, dolphins from being kept in captivity
The Mystic Aquarium in Connecticut has planned a partial re-opening on May 23. The outdoor exhibits (belugas, seals, sea lions, and penguins) will be accessible to guests while the aquarium building itself will remain closed: Mystic Seaport plans May 23 partial reopening
Mystic Aquarium granted approval of permit to import 5 belugas (1.4) from Marineland Canada. However, the breeding part of the permit is notably not approved in the actual permit from NOAA/NMFS. Mystic has to have a contraception plan in place and approved before the animals can be imported. This is very unfortunately for the sustainability of the beluga population and genetic diversity of the population in the US. NOAA approves Mystic Aquarium to import 5 beluga whales
Beluga are an endangered species. The US itself is selling out the Arctic Wildlife Refuge ... What is the darn rationale behind no breeding. If we do not start investing in conservation breeding as an assurance measure and the general public cannot interact with whales and dolphin species sustainably in captive conditions we are not going to save wild cetaceans full stop. The very same is true for California and their policy on sea otters. Or how things stand with walrus - Atlantic or Pacific and how current policies for captive facilities at times seem wanton to prevent captive-breeding. It is fundamentally flawed ....
I'm curious why you believe this. Great whales are one of our greatest conservation success stories, and their populations recovered with (almost) none in captivity.
Also, the fact the Marineland of Canada has created hybrid belugas basically renders these animals moot genetically, as does the rest of the captive North American population. They're genetically worthless, so let's stop the assumption that these animals can somehow be saved to be released into the wild. Let's just say it as it is: they're needed sure up a depleted captive stock of "beluga" regardless of origin or sub-population.
The larger whales thanks to IWC management have to some extent recovered stocks, but there remain quite a few like blue and humpback whales where their status continues to be cause for concern. Beluga are one of the smaller whale species and have had a long tradition in captive conditions. I personally consider beluga in the same brackets as Bryde's or pilot whale and orca. Some of these have also been maintained in captivity for longer periods of time. Lumping in the smaller with the larger whales and then claiming that they have been saved no thanks to captive-breeding is true, but then maintaining humpback or blue whales in captivity remains a mirage .... (for now) hence bringing this example to the table is beside the point of maintaining stocks of smaller whale species for research, breeding and public awareness. Also, a conservation assurance program does not imply a release or reintroduction scheme. I never even alluded to that notion. TMM at this time a beluga release program is nowhere near required, I was merely talking of a captive component. That their genetics have been compromised might be true, allthough I would like to see the evidence for individual population structures existing there. TBH, I do think that even given the population (guess-)estimates for some species and their reliability their status remains under constant review and should be so given the way we as humankind have sought to hunt/poach whales and dolphins, continuous and "inexplicable" strandings, marine pollution, top predator accumulation of pollutants and plastics and sea mining and shipping and (over-)fishing and habitat destruction should keep us on our guards.
Marineland of Canada has purchased Russian captured whales from two distinct locations as well as their original stock from Hudson Bay before it was illegal. They haven't separated those individuals to create different stocks within their institution. So right there you have three separate and distinct sub-populations that have been intermingled genetically. This is not an issue just left to Marineland. US aquariums have the same issue with their whales, even orcas (populations from Iceland mixed in with populations in Puget Sound). My point is that institutions need to stop the argument that by breeding these hybrid species, they are somehow saving them in case wild populations become depleted. You've lost the diversity from these distinct sub-populations forever.
They're not breeding "hybrid species", though. If the Belugas from these different populations really are just sub-populations (not even subspecies, just sub-populations), then their offspring are not hybrids, they're just Belugas. I do agree that it's important to maintain distinct population segments as much as possible in the name of conservation and biodiversity, but the mixing of these populations appears rather harmless to me especially since these animals will never be reintroduced and they are the same species afterall. The orca is different because studies have shown that the orca is likely a species complex and therefore the mixing of these population is direct hybridization of different species. In particular, the critically endangered Southern Pacific Resident Orca is represented by a single captive specimen kept at the Miami Seaquarium, however a lot of the captive stock in America and Europe are either direct hybrids of descended from hybrids with this population/species. I'm unfamiliar if this is also the case with captive Beluga, but I've never heard of this being the case nor does a quick search reveal anything of the sort. As far as I can tell, this is no different from mixing Cougars from California with Cougars from Florida. At the end of the day, they're the same species, same subspecies, and cross-breeding them doesn't really result in much of a loss in biodiversity. ~Thylo
NAIBVolunteer, can you provide any scientific evidence for the existence of distinct and disjunct sub populations in the beluga across the Arctic waters from Greenland up to Okhotsk Sea, Bering Strait, Alaska and back up beyond? Various publications cite 29 sub populations, but how many of those are genetically distinct? Has any research been done to that effect. BTW: mixing of subspecies - if any - has not just been reserved to beluga whales, it as also been self evident in other cat species. In itself that is not the end. However, I do agree that if evolutionary significant units exists these need to be maintained separately. From what I know about Hudson Bay beluga is that they are heavily loaded with pollutants ....
So I guess I shouldn't of used the word hybrid species at all, but these are definitely distinct populations genetically and are regulated as such.
