By Hoe Jia Wen
Animal activists have raised legal and welfare concerns about the impending transfer of 18 bottlenose dolphins to Marine Life Park Resorts World Sentosa. These wild dolphins, caught from the Solomon Islands, are currently being trained in Ocean Adventure Park in Subic Bay Freeport of the Philippines, while awaiting the completion of the integrated resort.
Illegality
As a signatory of CITES, Singapore must ensure that its animal trade activities conform with CITES regulation principles. Since the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin comes under Appendix II of CITES, international trade of the dolphin can only take place with export permits and a valid Non-Detriment Finding (NDF) given out by the Scientific Authority of the country of export.
However, the Cetacean Specialist Group (CSG) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) determined in 2003 and in 2007 that the Solomon Islands government cannot issue a legitimate NDF. As valid local dolphin population estimates do not exist, so it is not possible to verify whether the export of dolphins will exhaust the dolphin population. The CSG reported that “therefore, CITES Parties should not issue permits to import dolphins from the Solomon Islands”.
As a result of the CSG findings, the Philippines CITES Scientific Authority had announced that the dolphin imports to Subic Bay were illegal. The CITES Secretariat however did not declare it so, allowing Mr Danny Cham of Weber Shandwick, which represents Resorts World Sentosa, to maintain that “animals required for its Marine Life Park are in accordance with CITES.”
That being said, Ms Jaki Teo of Sea Shepherd Asia opined that ‘this does not mean that the trade was legally conducted in accordance with CITES principles.’
There is also another legal problem in that the Solmon Islands has not issued phytosanitary/veterinarian certificates, which are required under Philippines law for the imports of cetaceans to testify that the dolphins are not carrying bacteria.
Animal rights concerns
Ms Teo also fears for the general welfare of the dolphins, observing that wild dolphin populations are dwindling due to habitat destruction and incidental catches. She believes that the capture of wild dolphins exacerbates this problem.
Indeed, some like Mr Louis Ng, executive director of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres), feels that “it’s not necessary to take them from the wild” as “there are so many captive-bred dolphins.”
Captivity is another cause for alarm for activists.
Ms Deirdre Moss of the SPCA has raised concerns about the strain of transportation and long holding periods. Forcing them to adapt to life in a man-made structure is also an issue.
Ms Moss said that “For wild caught dolphins, there are major concerns in that they have had to deal with sudden confinement, forced association with humans, and lack of various stimuli provided by their natural environment.”
Ms Teo also warned that “killing a dolphin and keeping it in captivity is exactly the same,” as wild animals lose its purpose when taken into captivity and displaced from their role in the ecosystem.
The chairman of the Mexican Congress Committee of Environment, Senator Jorge Legorreta Ordorica, had written a letter to National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, cautioning him on the dangers of captivity. Out of 28 captive dolphins, “Twelve of the dolphins eventually died which we see as an appalling mortality rate”.
In response to these concerns, Marine Life Park issued a statement in 2009 defending their actions. They argued that having the dolphins in the park would educate the public on the beauty of marine animals, particularly among urban-bred Singaporeans. Further, evidence has shown bottlenose dolphins adapt easily to ‘controlled environments’.
Marine Life Park similarly believes that there is a sustainable population of dolphins in the wild, numbering at least 600 000. The capture of wild dolphins was unavoidable due to lack of surplus dolphins in other aquariums. Mr Cham added that the dolphins are in good condition, and are “being looked after according to international standards.”
The SPCA however remains “firm and objects strongly to dolphins being taken away from their natural habitat”, saying that evidence has shown dolphins in captivity to experience depression. Even if they do adapt, it is not without harm, as the Mexican case demonstrated.
Ms Teo also derided how, “for the sake of educating the public about the species”, Marine Life Parks has had to “… capture dolphins from the wild, ship them halfway across the world, force them to perform unnatural tricks for food, and have them in a captive environment for the rest of their lives.”
Significantly, UPS, which shipped 7 of the dolphins to the Philippines, had since declared that it would not transport such cargo in the future on the grounds that it contravened their environmental principles.
However, despite these strong objections from animal activists, the dolphins’ dubious path to Resorts World Sentosa continues. What will eventually happen to them remains to be seen, but the picture isn’t rosy.
_______________________________________________
Related posts:
- Activists want dolphins destined for S’pore returned to Solomon Islands
- First ever animal lovers gathering at Speakers’ Corner
- Undercover investigation on illegal tiger parts trade
- Singapore coping with oil spill
- Singapore accused of launching ‘Sand Wars’
Is it possible to write representations to CITES secretariat asking for a clarification of the legal status of the Solomon Island-Subic bay dolphins? can the Philippine CITES scientific authority facilitate that process? Once you get the declaration of illegality from CITES perhaps that can be the starting point to question the contract of sale to RWS. I’d be happy to help in any way possible.
I can’t wait to see the cute dolphins !
the irony.. if a singaporean never sees a dolphin (in captivity), how will they ever care?
I cant wait to see you in an underwater cage!
U can see, but can’t touch them. Too bad
Jia Wen, tks for a good read, honestly didn’t know that there are a number of legal interventions to the “involuntary migration” of dolphins.
However, see it as a case of the Philippines CITES Scientific Authority not talking to the CITES Secretariat, otherwise there would be no permits issued to begin with. Feels very gahmen, which makes me think there could be a mountain of paperwork to swim thru before the permit is revoked. Hopefully, the dolphins would not be in Sg by then.
RWS: “They argued that having the dolphins in the park would educate the public on the beauty of marine animals, particularly among urban-bred Singaporeans.”
Is this the same way that having sharks will educate urban-bred Singaporeans about the unsustainability and inhumae practice of shark-finning and shark fin soup?
I donate to SPCA every year. Will find out more about ACRES now. Glad they spoke up against Sentosa. I suggest we keep Mr Cham in an enclosure for a year and make him perform tricks for the public to earn his meals. Enough said.
You must understand, it was the dolphin and the whale that was responsible for the bombings in Singapore during World War 2.
The Japanese were nice enough to send us a picture that clearly shows a dolphin and a whale flying the bomber during 1942. We were so grateful to them that we ended the war with the Japanese immediately in 1945.
Fxxx you dolphin and Fxxx you whale!
I read through the article. It doesn’t prove any wrong doing. Opinion is not the same as evidence, and only opinions are stated, not evidence. Environmentalist bull as usual.
Hi all, thank you for your interest.
CITES as an international organisation is entire self-policed, so even if the Philippines CITES Scientists have evidence that the import from the Solomon Islands was illegal under CITES regulations, the Singapore CITES council and the CITES Secretary-General can still decide to issue permits and ignore the scientific recommendations.
Ignoring CITES scientific recommendations is against the CITES principles but the economic benefits to both sides are clearly what the decision-makers care more about.
If anybody wants more information you can come to the Sea Shepherd booth at Asia Dive Expo this weekend or email me :)
If the general public places pressure against the import, Resorts World will have to resort to not importing the dolphins. Firstly, it’ll be very bad for their reputation and brand, and secondly, that and public disdain towards the display means bad economic returns.
Can we start a worldwide petition like it was done for the whale shark? On Facebook Causes?