UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals

Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 59 of 64U.S. will be participating in the collective management of these imported animals.Therefore, it is extremely unlikely, but not impossible, for other marine mammalfacilities to request a similar permit in the future.”134. Furthermore, even if an application for import or collection wassubmitted by a facility subject to the MMPA, Defendants’ Final EnvironmentalAssessment regarding the permit application states that any decision on theGeorgia Aquarium permit application is not a precedent for a decision on any otherpermit application and each permit application will be judged on its own merits.135. Given Defendants’ admission that it is “extremely unlikely” that anyfacility subject to the MMPA will submit an application to import or collect belugawhales in the future, Defendants’ sole factual basis for permit denial under 50C.F.R. §216.34(a)(7) is that non-U.S. entities not subject to the MMPA may seekto import into their sovereign countries animals collected in Russia because theimportation of beluga whales by Georgia Aquarium will cause such non-U.S.entities to seek to import beluga whales for public display.136. Defendants offer no evidence that the import of beluga whales into theUnited States will “contribute to the demand” for beluga whales in other countries,particularly when the purpose of the import is to reduce the need for futurecollection.59