Urgent help needed for letters to CITES

[Guest guest]

Hi Louis,

 

It seems CITES is a joke in some parts of the world, where corruption easily

guarantees ways around clear and obvious laws designed to protect animals,

not use them for commericial enterprise.

 

I'm not into the investigative side of these crimes like you are, but from

what I've learned regarding the Taiping 4 gorilla case, there are some

dubious characters using the CITES banner to achieve their own goals, which

are not animal friendly.

 

On the other hand, there are some wonderful CITES people trying to enforce

the laws and make sure the entire purpose of the convention is upheld.

 

These dolphins were clearly not captive bred, as claimed. CITES should

uphold its own laws and so I'm copying the only two CITES people I know, in

hopes they will read the details in your post to me (below) and do the right

thing.

 

Sadly, as in the case with gorillas, the terminology used by some officials

as " specimens " not individuals, with intelligence, emotions, feelings, etc.

shows a basic lack of respect, and doesn't leave me with much hope for the

future of our planet.

 

Jane

 

-

" ACRES " <dolphin

<jdewar

Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:25 PM

Urgent help needed for letters to CITES

 

 

> Dear Jane,

>

> In September 2003, the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society

> (Acres) launched the 'Suffering, not Smiling' campaign in Singapore. The

> campaign aims to create awareness on the plight of captive dolphins and

> secure the freedom of the dolphins currently held in captivity at

> Underwater World Singapore (UWS).

>

> The six dolphins at UWS were imported from Oasis Seaworld, a marine park

in

> Thailand. Four of the dolphins were caught from the wild. However, all

> dolphins were listed as captive bred, and the import and export were

> approved by the Singapore and Thailand CITES respectively. UWS also

> maintains that the dolphins were captive bred and has refuted Acres's

> earlier claims that 4 dolphins were wild caught.

>

> Acres has since filed a compliant to both governments, alleging that the

> dolphins were not captive bred as listed by both countries.

>

> On 20 January 2004 however, the Singapore CITES informed Acres, that they

> had made a mistake in processing the CITES import permits and that indeed,

> only two dolphins were captive bred. Singapore CITES further stated that

> they would be amending the 1999 CITES annual report, changing the source

of

> four out of the six dolphins imported, to wild caught.

>

> This case is similar to the case where four gorillas were exported from

> Nigeria to Taiping zoo, Malaysia, based on falsified documents. The

permits

> stated that the four gorillas were captive bred when they were similarly

> wild caught. The Malaysian government has since confiscated all four

> gorillas from Taiping zoo, in accordance with the Convention on the

> International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),

> of which both Singapore and Thailand are signatories.

>

> Singapore CITES also mentioned that the Thailand CITES had also made the

> same mistake of listing the dolphins as captive bred and will similarly be

> amending their 1999 CITES annual report.

>

> We urge you to write to the CITES Secretariat and ask for an investigation

> into how both Singapore and Thailand CITES made similar mistakes in

> allowing wild caught dolphins to be traded on captive bred permits. Acres

> has also sent a letter to the CITES Secretariat requesting for further

> investigation into this issue.

>

> Furthermore, IUCN has reported with regards to the Indo-Pacific

hump-backed

> dolphins that " the demand for live specimens in Thai oceanaria has

recently

> led to the development of a directed fisheries there and that the

> Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphins are no longer present in large parts of

> their former home range in inshore waters of Thailand. " Given that CITES

> Convention text, Article III Para 2 states that " an export permit shall

> only be granted when the following conditions have been met: (a) a

> Scientific Authority of the State of export has been advised that such

> export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species " , permits

> should not be issued for wild caught Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphins

> since it is clearly detrimental to the survival of this species.

>

> We urge you to also write to the CITES Secretariat and ask that CITES does

> not issue new permits for the four wild caught dolphins exported to UWS

and

> that these dolphins be repatriated back to Thailand.

>

> If you have further queries, please contact me at +65 97968592 or email me

> at dolphin

>

> Acres's letter to CITES is attached below, please send similar letters to

> the CITES Secretariat urgently. We need your support to secure the freedom

> of the dolphins currently held in captivity in Singapore.

>

> Sincerely,

> Louis

> President

> Acres

>

> CITES email: willem.wijnstekers

> CITES Fax: (+41 22) 797-3417

>

>

> 30 January 2004

>

> Mr Willem Wijnstekers

> Secretary General

> CITES Secretariat

> International Environment House

> Chemin des Anémones

> CH-1219 Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland

>

>

> Dear Sir,

>

> Re: Exportation of dolphins from Oasis Seaworld (Thailand) to Underwater

> World Singapore

>

> I refer to the information provided to the CITES Secretariat on 15

December

> 2003, concerning the exportation of six Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphins

> (Sousa chinensis) from Oasis Seaworld (OSW) to Underwater World Singapore

> (UWS) in 1999.

>

> The Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) had alleged

that

> some of the dolphins exported by OSW to UWS, which were registered with

> CITES as captive bred, were instead wild caught.

>

> Both the Thailand and Singapore CITES had similarly made claims that all

> six dolphins were captive bred. On 20 January 2004, the Singapore CITES

> informed Acres, that they had made a mistake in processing the CITES

import

> permits and that only two dolphins were captive bred. Singapore CITES

> further stated that they would be amending the 1999 CITES annual report,

> changing the source of four out of the six dolphins imported, to wild

> caught.

>

> Acres would like to clarify the following points:

>

> 1. Can annual reports filed be amended so easily?

> 2. The exporter, OSW claims that: " some of the dolphins were caught in

Thai

> waters but the Thai and Singapore authorities cooperated to do this

> legally " . Should the CITES Secretariat investigate further into this

> statement?

> 3. Is it possible that both Thailand and Singapore CITES made the same

> mistake on the source of the dolphins at the same time?

> 4. Are the Thailand and Singapore CITES allowed to issue new permits for

> the six dolphins?

> 5. IUCN reported with regards to the Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphins

that

> " the demand for live specimens in Thai oceanaria has recently led to the

> development of a directed fisheries there and that the Indo-Pacific

> hump-backed dolphins are no longer present in large parts of their former

> home range in inshore waters of Thailand. " Given that CITES Convention

> text, Article III Para 2 states that " an export permit shall only be

> granted when the following conditions have been met: (a) a Scientific

> Authority of the State of export has been advised that such export will

not

> be detrimental to the survival of that species " , should the CITES

> authorities review if export permits should be issued for the four wild

> caught dolphins?

>

> Acres appreciates the time and efforts the CITES Secretariat has spent on

> this issue and we look to hearing favourably from you soon.

>

> Kind regards,

> Louis Ng

> President

>