Confiscate UWS' pink dolphins (letters to the press)

[Guest guest]

TODAY 10 Feb 2004

 

Confiscate UWS' pink dolphins

 

Step is necessary to preserve species: Acres

 

 

I refer to the letter, " Pink dolphins: Singapore's reputation is at stake "

(Today, Feb 9).

 

 

Indeed, the issue now is what Singapore does to resolve the issue.

 

 

As a signatory to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites), Singapore is obliged to ensure the

protection of pink dolphins.

 

 

The species is so critically threatened with extinction that it is listed under

Appendix I of Cites' most endangered species.

 

 

Article III of the Cites convention states clearly that the export of Appendix I

species " cannot be detrimental to the survival of that species " .

 

 

If Underwater World Singapore's (UWS) pink dolphins were captive-bred, then

their trade would not have a detrimental effect on the species and could be

allowed.

 

 

However, it has now been established that at least four of the dolphins were

caught in the wild.

 

Furthermore, they were caught in Thailand, where the World Conservation Union

has reported that fishermen catch live specimens of pink dolphins because of

demand from marine parks.

 

 

The organisation has also reported that the dolphins are no longer found in

large parts of their former home range.

 

 

There is no doubt that allowing dolphins that have been caught in the wild to be

imported from Thailand has a detrimental effect on this species.

 

 

It is not a question of whether these dolphins are for educational or breeding

purposes.

 

 

The Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) recommends that the

dolphins in question be confiscated from UWS.

 

 

We make this recommendation following the recent Taiping Four case, in which

four gorillas were exported from Ibadan Zoo in Nigeria to Malaysia's Taiping

Zoo.

 

 

The gorillas, which are also listed in Appendix I, were caught in the wild but

were similarly recorded as captive-bred on permits.

 

 

These gorillas were also for educational and conservation purposes.

 

 

However, Malaysia has since confiscated all four gorillas, in accordance with

Cites' recommendations.

 

Louis Ng

 

President

Acres

 

 

 

Straits Times 10 Feb 2004

 

Confiscate pink dolphins

 

 

 

I REFER to the article, 'Pink dolphins caught in wild but they can stay' (ST,

Feb 6).

 

 

 

The Underwater World Singapore (UWS) was established with the aim of marine

conservation and education but the new revelation casts doubts on its sincerity

in conserving the marine environment.

 

 

 

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) has said that UWS can keep the

dolphins despite Singa-pore being a signatory to the Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites). Cites is an

inter-national accord to ensure that trade does not threaten wildlife with

extinction.

 

 

The World Conservation Union has stated that fishermen are catching pink

dolphins in Thailand for marine parks and that there are not many left in the

wild.

 

 

 

In a similar case, four gorillas were transferred from Ibadan Zoo, Nigeria, to

Taiping Zoo, Malaysia. As with the pink dolphins, these gorillas had been caught

in the wild but were listed as captive-bred on the permits. Malaysia, which is

also a signatory to Cites, has since confiscated the gorillas, even though they

were also imported for education and conservation.

 

 

 

If indeed UWS is allowed to import wild endangered species, what mechanisms are

in place to ensure that it does not get more wild pink dolphins from Thailand,

pushing this species even closer to extinction?

 

 

 

JAGDISH RAMAKRISHAN

 

 

 

 

 

WHEN shown evidence that some of the pink dolphins had been caught in the wild

and not bred in captivity, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority put it down to

an 'administrative error'.

 

 

 

I find the logic of its stand to be somewhat puzzling. If an illegal act had

been committed, it should not be condoned, with the status quo allowed to

continue, by saying that it is still legal for UWS to keep the dolphins for

educational and breeding purposes or that the mistake was due to a clerical

error.

 

 

 

LEONG SZE HIAN