UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals

Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 51 of 64115. However, Defendants’ permit denial admits: “The removals for livecaptureof the beluga whales from the Sea of Okhotsk at the levels reported from2000-2011 should not impede the stock’s growth or recovery.” Defendants’ permitdenial further states: “If the removal of beluga whales for public display were theonly source of mortality from this stock, then it would be increasing at a slowrate.”116. After these admissions, Defendants’ assert there are six sources ofremoval of beluga whales in the Sakhalin-Amur area in addition to public displayremovals that “cannot be fully discounted or assumed to be zero.” However,Defendants admit there is a “lack of substantiated data” regarding any sources ofremoval in addition to public display removals. Nevertheless, Defendantsconcluded these unsubstantiated sources of removal should be assumed to be at alevel that when added to live captures result in the total annual number of takesbeing above the sustainable PBR.117. The first possible source of additional mortality cited by Defendants issubsistence harvests. The permit denial cites a Russian scientist’s report that theannual subsistence take was possibly one-three animals per village. However, theestimate in that report is anecdotal only and is not supported by any scientificinvestigation or analysis. In fact, the alleged subsistence takes referenced in that51