Why do we fight for the dolphin? What makes them different from other animals?

By Elisabelle Aruldoss -

In spite of the recent campaigns against the Resort’s World Sentosa’s use of captive dolphins in their marine exhibition, RWS is still planning to exhibit the remaining twenty-five dolphins. Three dolphins have died so far; two in 2010 and one recently. But to date, RWS has not shown any intention of releasing them and so I feel inclined to share this article which outlines why I choose to fight for the dolphins.

It has also come to my attention that many Singaporeans are unconvinced towards past articles written in relation to RWS dolphins as they feel that there is some inconsistency between the treatment of dolphins and other animals. I am sure a portion of Singaporeans are uncertain as to why many are against captive dolphins when there are captive animals in zoos and pets at home. I understand that little has been shared about the sensitivity of captive dolphins so bear with me as I first explain how intelligence plays a significant role in this argument.

There are terms used to describe the intelligence of animals such as ‘sentience’ and ‘cognition’. Animals that are sentient can exhibit emotions like fear, anxiety, stress, playfulness and sometimes empathy[1]. There are also animals that demonstrate cognition. These animals are distinguished from merely sentient beings as they have superior abilities such as the ability to solve problems, to have episodic memory, to form complex relationships or even to form a mental image of an absent object[2].

Dolphins are highly intelligent and display higher levels of cognition[3] and therefore, their emotional needs are drawn to such an extent where they can die when not given the proper requirements[4].

What makes dolphins different from the rest?

I would like to shed light on a common question that some Singaporeans ask. This question was apparent in Mr. Patrick Tan’s letter ‘RWS dolphins can be of educational value’. In his letter, he asked ‘Why cry over three dolphins when there are some birds and dogs that should not be kept in homes in Singapore? Are these not animals that should be allowed their natural freedom?’ [5]

Domestic animals

Here I will explain the vast difference. It has to be noted that dogs and birds have co-existed in our households as pets i.e. they are domesticated animals. A domesticated animal cannot be compared to a wild animal.

Despite the obvious differences in their sensitivity towards living requirements, dolphins are born in and are adapted to the wild, whereas dogs for example have evolved over the years to co-exist with humans as part of their survival. John Bradshaw has theorized that socialization with humans was an ability that was not generated as a result of the domestication of ancestor wolves, but a pre-adaptation that allowed for domestication of a few wolves to become domestic dogs[6]. Simply put, in dog evolution, co-existence with humans is seen as an adaptation, whereas this is not the case for dolphins.

Zoo animals

Captive animals in the zoo do experience negative effects as a result of captivity. But like I mentioned earlier, dolphins are highly intelligent, and exhibit higher cognition levels. Therefore, they have stricter requirements for their survival compared to animals of a lesser cognition level. I am not saying that zoo animals lead a stress-free and good quality of life. I am simply saying that the captive dolphin issue is the one in dire need of addressing as the negative impacts are not just on a stress-scale but a death-scale.

There some cases where zoos fail to provide their captive animals with the basic requirements of proper animal welfare. In those cases, thankfully there are many concerned organizations that will speak up to release them from captivity; for example ENCAP[7], BornFree[8] and WSPA[9] . We can measure how much an animal suffers by assessing lack of natural behavior expression, persistence of stereotypic behavior, physical and affective states[10]^,[11],[12]. Routine checks should be conducted in captive wildlife bodies to ensure that the animals are healthy and under good welfare. So, the high death rate of RWS dolphins clearly shows the negligence of proper animal welfare.

The difference between Zoos and RWS

Zoos are not all that bad, as they can have a greater purpose behind exhibiting captive animals for the public. Some zoos play a vital part in conservation, developing projects and action plans such as captive breeding. Besides having the expertise to conduct research vital for the conservation of wildlife and educating the public on wildlife matters[13], zoos are important financial contributors to wildlife[14]. For example, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums members have altogether contributed US $350 million per year towards wildlife conservation efforts, putting them in third place after World Wildlife Fund Global Network and Nature Conservancy[15].

Those zoos make significant contributions to wildlife conservation. Besides benefitting the wildlife conservation community, they have the proper resources, skills and expertise to to hold captive animals.

I am against dolphins in captivity not because I am fonder of them, but because these highly sensitive creatures are not as tolerant to a captive environment as dogs, other domesticated or some captive wild animals are. If any other animal was in the same position as the RWS dolphins are, I would speak up for them too.

To sum this up, I would like to urge RWS to follow Monterey Bay Aquarium’s[16] example in not having wild dolphins. Instead, they have plastic dolphins that probably give the same observational educational value as captive dolphins. The best way to learn about wild dolphins is to read about them in books or watch television documentaries, not by watching them in captive environments. There are many other Marine Park’s that have shut down their captive facilities as they understand that dolphins should not be in captivity[17]. RWS can still follow their example and let their dolphins roam freely in the ocean where they belong. I sincerely hope that the relevant readers would recognize the plight of these dolphins and start to consider their well-being.

---

[1] Silverman, J 2008, ‘Sentience and Sensation’, Lab Animal, pp. 465

[2] Vallortigara, G., Chiandetti, C., Rugani, R., Sovrano, VA & Regolin, L 2010, ‘Animal cognition’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 882-893

[3] Marino, L 2004, ‘Dolphin cognition’, Current Biology, Vol. 14, No. 21, pp. R910 – R911

[4] Grimm, D 2011, ‘Are dolphins too smart for captivity?’, Science, Vol. 332, No. 6029, pp. 526-529

[5] http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC121127-0000019/RWS-dolphins-can-be-of-educational-value

[6] Bradshaw, J 2011, ‘How wolves became dogs’, Dog sense: how the new science of dog behavior can make you a better friend to your pet, Basic Books pp. 29-66

[7] http://www.endcaptivity.org/

[8] http://www.bornfree.org.uk/

[9] http://www.wspa-international.org/

[10] Bekoff, M 1998, ‘Animal Welfare’, Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare, pp. 55

[11] Bracke, MBM & Hopster, H 2006, ‘Assessing the importance of natural behaviour for animal welfare’,Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 77-89

[12] Dawkins, MS 2004, ‘Using behaviour to assess animal welfare’, Animal Welfare, Vol. 13, pp. S3-7

[13] Whitehead, M 1995, ‘Saying it with genes, species and habitats: biodiversity education and the role of zoos’, Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 4, pp. 664-670

[14] Tribe, A & Booth, R 2003, ‘Assessing the Role of Zoos in Wildlife Conservation’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 8, pp. 65–74

[15] Conde, DA., Flesness, N., Cholchero, F., Jones, OR & Scheuerlein, A 2011, ‘An Emerging Role of Zoos to Conserve Biodiversity’, Science, Vol. 331, pp. 1390-1391

[16] http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/

[17] http://savejapandolphins.org/blog/post/captive-facilities-closed

Original link here : http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/12/why-do-we-fight-for-the-dolphins-what-makes-them-different-from-other-animals/#_ftn17

Another dolphin death! Its time to start thinking straight...

Another dolphin death! It’s time to start thinking straight...


By : ElisabelleAruldoss


On 22 November 2012, it was reported that another Resorts World Sentosa(RWS) dolphins died during transport to Singapore.[1]


Originally, there were 27 bottlenose dolphins that were bought from the Solomon Islands to be put in the dolphin exhibition at RWS Marine Life Park. Of that 27, two died last year due to a bacterial disease. With another death, the pod has been reduced to 24.


There have been on-going petitions from Singaporeans warning RWS of the consequences that the RWS dolphins will face when put in captivity. Many concerned Singaporeans participated in these campaigns and pleaded with RWS to release the dolphins back into their natural habitat. About a year ago, I wrote an article ‘Dolphins and captivity don’t mix’[2] providing evidence of the negative effects dolphins experience in captivity all around the world. My article explicitly predicted the outcome of RWS dolphins in the future; however, I did not foresee another death so soon.


In 2003, 28 bottlenose dolphins were transported to Mexico’s wet ‘n’ wild park. Within five years, at least 12 dolphins have died due to illnesses and stress. The Mexican government then decided to impose a ban on the exportation and importation of live cetaceans for entertainment purposes. It is interesting to note that the death of one dolphin led the Mexican government to implement the ban. This is in comparison to RWS’s case where the death of three dolphins is insufficient to influence RWS to make the right decision.The dolphins have not even been established in the marine park and yet it already seems as though their fate is approaching that of the Mexican dolphins.


Wen Wen, the ten-year old dolphin that died recently, has been known by the RWS Marine Life Park as ‘a sociable dolphin that survived a shark attack in the wild’[3]. The Marine Life Park also concluded in their statement that ‘Wen Wen and his trainer had developed a strong bond during their four years together’.[4]


Wen Wen had to be a physically strong dolphin to survive a shark attack. Despite that and the alleged strong relationship between the cetacean and its trainer, it nevertheless died. This goes to show how vulnerable any dolphin, let alone a strong one with a good relationship with its trainer, is in captivity.


In the Marine Life Park’s statement, they mentioned that ‘we continue to monitor them and observe their quarantine period. No effort or resources will be spared in ensuring the health and well-being of our dolphins and all marine animals at Marine Life Park.’[5] This statement seems mildly familiar to the other statements made by RWS in the past. RWS has previously stated: ‘We can assure you that the dolphins in our care are healthy and residing in a facility that is safe and conducive to their health and well-being.’ They also talked about their highly qualified veterinarians and experts, medical examinations and facilities[6]. However, these assurances are starting to seem more meaningless as more dolphins die.


The Marine Park also stated that the death was sudden and that ‘No medical results or behavioural observations indicated that Wen Wen was in a compromised condition to make the journey.’[7] This proves the point that I had made earlier of how dolphins are vulnerable in captivity no matter what condition they are in. An apparently healthy dolphin can just suddenly die without a known cause. If top-class care and highly experienced personnel cannot prevent the deaths of dolphins, then it is only just to return them back into the wild where they can thrive or at least lead a quality life.

Dolphins should not be in captivity for any other purpose except for rehabilitation and conservation. Many marine parks pose as conservationists or claim that their dolphin exhibitions are of educational value to justify the use of dolphins. However, the captive environment is radically different from the natural environment, and this would significantly impact the dolphins’ behaviour. There is copious evidence showing the abnormal behaviours termed ‘stereotypies’ that dolphins portray in captive environments that indicate stress[8],[9].
Apart from the abundant evidence about the abnormality of captive environments, many dolphin experts such as Dr. Lori Marino, a neuroscientist who has written over 80 publications on cetacean neuroanatomy and related fields, also concur with the absent educational value[10].

Influential dolphin activist RicO’Barry also stated that ‘the external anatomy of the captive dolphin is the only thing that is similar to that of the wild dolphin. In captivity, their behaviour is so radically altered; the educational value is highly questionable.’[11] Therefore, the educational value of dolphin exhibitions is very much debatable and should not be used as a reason for having them in marine parks.

Quoted from RWS’s blog, ‘High on our agenda is our mission to make the Marine Life Park (MLP) a world-class institution for conservation of marine mammals’[12]. What kind of conservation are they promoting if three dolphins have died under their world-class care?

No matter what reasons the captive dolphins are here for, keeping the dolphins in captivity will not only confine them to an unnatural environment, but also give them a life of stress that can ultimately result in death. The fact that dolphins in the wild face dangers and predators does not justify stripping them from the ocean and placing them into artificial tanks. They are born wild, not captive, and are adapted to the ocean, not artificial environments.Hopefully, the authority behind the Marine Life Park would start to think straight and learn from Mexico’s experiences as well as the past three RWS dolphin deaths.

How many more dolphins have to die to convince RWS that they are leading the dolphins into a tragic fate?

About the author: 
ElisabelleAruldoss, aged 19 is a Singaporean in her final year of her Bachelor of Animal Science Degree at the University of Adelaide (Australia)


[1]http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC121122-0000164/Dolphin-at-RWS-dies-en-route-to-Singapore


[2]http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/08/dolphins-and-captivity-dont-mix/


[3]http://mlp.rwsentosablog.com/2012/11/22/in-memory-of-wen-wen/


[4]http://mlp.rwsentosablog.com/2012/11/22/in-memory-of-wen-wen/


[5]http://mlp.rwsentosablog.com/2012/11/22/in-memory-of-wen-wen/


[6]http://mlp.rwsentosablog.com/2011/08/11/about-the-state-of-dolphins/


[7]http://mlp.rwsentosablog.com/2012/11/22/in-memory-of-wen-wen/


[8]Carter, N 1982, “Effects of psycho-physiological stress on captive dolphins”, International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, Vol. 3, pp. 193–198


[9]Davis, E., Down N., Garner J et al 2004, “Stereotypical behavior: a LAREF discussion”, Lab Primate Newsl, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 3– 4


[10]http://animal.discovery.com/tv/blood-dolphins/dolphins/opposition-dolphins-captivity.html


[11]http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/10/ric-obarry-we-can-save-the-planet-by-controlling-our-desires/


[12]http://mlp.rwsentosablog.com/2011/08/11/about-the-state-of-dolphins/

Reuse, Reduce, Recycle. What does that have to do with dolphins?

~by: Elisabelle Aruldoss and Jewel Philemon~

Resorts World Sentosa’s (RWS) recent acquisition of wild dolphins has led to much uproar among Singaporeans. However, in all the commotion, we may have forgotten about other wild dolphins which have been held captive in Singapore for the past 12 years.

Dolphin Lagoon, a tourist attraction on the island of Sentosa, is still up and running and it houses six indo-pacific hump-backed dolphins in a cramped concrete pool.

Curious as to why all the attention has shifted so quickly, TOC decided to investigate the dolphinarium and whether it is as big an issue as RWS.

A junior staff member, whom we spoke to, explained that these are in-bred captive dolphins and that there are more pools located in the facility where the dolphins can swim freely. He further added that dolphin lagoon handles its dolphins more humanely and this is what sets them apart from RWS.

After sitting through the half-hour dolphin and sea-lion show, we approached one of the dolphin trainers to gather more information on in-bred captivity. However, she refused to answer our questions, due to ‘protocol’, and directed us to the duty manager.

The duty manager was more at ease in answering our questions and reiterated that all six dolphins are in-bred captive dolphins, but four of these dolphins are actually from an “exchange program in Thailand”.

However, he declined to answer our questions on differences between dolphin lagoon and RWS.

In-bred captivity or…?

We of course were eager to find out more about the impacts of in-bred captivity and engaged in our own research. However in-bred captivity in Singapore did not yield many substantial hits and we were about to give up when we chanced upon a report by ACRES on dolphin lagoon, titled ‘Suffering, not Smiling’.

The report claimed that four of the dolphins were indeed caught from the wild and that Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA), which regulates wildlife imports, said that there was a clerical error in processing Underwater World Sentosa (UWS)’s permit to acquire these dolphins (see HERE). AVA confirmed that only two of the six endangered dolphins were captive bred and the rest were caught from the wild.

We decided to visit ACRES at 91 Jalan Lekar, to gather more evidence on this issue.

Incompetence and irresponsibility

Mr Louis Ng, founder of ACRES, confirmed that four of the dolphins were actually caught in the gulf of Thailand. He said that this was deduced quite easily as UWS claimed that the dolphins were born at Oasis Sea World thirty years ago. It is curious to note that Oasis Sea World did not even exist thirty years ago – it was founded about 20 years ago.

ACRES then lodged a complaint with the Thai Forestry Police who, after much investigation, managed to elicit a confession from Oasis Sea World which admitted to taking in wild dolphins caught by fishermen.

Soon after this discovery, UWS, in a public statement, said that the dolphins were rescued from Thailand where they were meant to be food.

As mentioned previously, AVA announced that there was clerical error in UWS’s permit to acquire the dolphins. It said that UWS stated “a number of dolphins” were in-bred captive dolphins and AVA assumed that this applies to all six of the dolphins. AVA also revealed that the misunderstanding arose because UWS did not fill a required field on the permit application. This field requires the applicant to state the source, or origins, of the animals.

AVA also announced that UWS can still keep the dolphins as it is classified as a zoological facility, which is permitted to import wild endangered species. It added that Thailand has approved the export as well.

Miss Lye Fong Keng, head of AVA’s wildlife regulatory branch, went on record to say that UWS had notmisrepresented any information regarding the source of the six dolphins. She further elaborated in the year 2004, that UWS had mentioned that the dolphins were held in captivity in Thailand for three years. Miss Lye also emphasised that neither Thailand nor CITES (The Convention on international Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) have imposed a ban on the export of these wild cetaceans.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (who was then Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports) seconded Miss Lye’s sentiments saying that acquisition of the six hump-backed dolphins “did not contravene CITES’s requirements”.

While these justifications may seem credible, it is irrelevant in light of the fact that the application was processed and approved despite UWS’s failure to fill in a compulsory field. It is surely bizarre that AVA, a government agency, has not revoked dolphin lagoon’s license to date. This can only be deemed as irresponsible and incompetent.

In a later statement, Miss Lye said that AVA and Thai officials would be “making corrections” to their “permit and annual record matters”.

It is amusing to note that making corrections to documents would automatically improve the living conditions of these dolphins who are forced to live in confined spaces as opposed to swimming freely in the wild.

Regressing instead of improving

Speaking of living conditions, these dolphins were initially kept at Palawan Beach, which provided a more natural habitat than its current quarters.

Imagine you are a wild dolphin swimming freely with your pod mates in the ocean 40 to 50 miles a day, living in a world full of familiar sights, smells and sounds.

Suddenly, you are captured and stripped away from your family, friends and your natural world and placed in an foreign environment. You struggle to adapt to this unfamiliar environment alone and as you are beginning to adjust to it, you are taken away yet again to another foreign body of water.

However due to an unfortunate incident regarding a fatal stonefish bite, all the dolphins were moved to their current location – an open air enclosure which resembles an oblong lap pool. It should be stressed that this less-than-Olympic sized pool hold six fully grown dolphins.

“You should improve the conditions of these dolphins! Instead, we are regressing quite terribly.”, lamented Mr Louis Ng

Since ACRES’s 2003 campaign, dolphin lagoon has discontinued more of the circus styled tricks such as using the dolphins as water skis and some of the more extensive ball tricks.

They have also stopped dolphin beaching and have hiked the prices of their photography sessions in an effort to reduce dolphin petting.

The dolphin’s skin is very sensitive to sunlight and can get burnt upon overexposure to the sun. Trainers at dolphin lagoon used to avoid this problem by splashing water constantly on the dolphin’s back.

“Reuse, Reduce, Recycle. What does that have to do with dolphins?”

There is really no justification in keeping these dolphins if you think about it. As audience members who have witnessed the dolphin show, we can attest that there is no real educational value.

Nevertheless, UWS insists that education and awareness, as opposed to profits and entertainment, are their primary reasons for hosting such shows.

Mr Ng brings up a good point: “I believe their message is reduce, reuse, recycle. What does that have to with dolphins? That is more relevant to rainforests.”

Instead, we could adopt Monterey Bay Aquarium’s example, which uses life-sized models of dolphins and whales to educate rather than housing live marine mammals in artificial habitats.

Mr Ng says that this will be a much better and more applauded alternative, if education is the main goal of UWS.

He also questions the credibilty of UWS, saying, “How good can an educator possibly be if he cannot tell the truth of where these dolphins came from?”

Repatriate, Rehabilitate, Release

UWS has not publicly admitted to owning wild dolphins, to date. On the contrary, it has continued to mislead the general public (and quite possibly their staff members as well) by claiming that these dolphins are from an exchange program in Thailand or saved in a rescue mission. If these dolphins were rescued, wouldn’t it be natural to rehabilitate and release them back into the wild? Why conduct daily shows?

Mr Ng agrees that having dolphin attractions are highly profitable but he also points out that developing countries like Mexico and Chile are imposing bans on the export of live cetaceans, choosing to forgo profits in order to focus on moral progress.

“As a developed country, I am sure we can forgo the huge profits that have been involved.”, he opined.

This is indeed true as Singapore’s economy seems to be doing well and does not need to imprison these sentient creatures in order to make money. We should instead, rehabilitate and release the dolphins from both UWS and RWS back into the wild and focus our energies into conserving this endangered species rather than capturing them and forcing them to perform for profits.

Adopting Monterey Bay’s model is an ideal alternative and we should concentrate our efforts into petitioning for such an aquarium. Such change will undoubtedly require an indefinite period of time, but we can still do our parts by not buying a ticket to any dolphin facility and spreading awareness to our fellow citizens.

–
picture: ACRES

Ric O’Barry: We can save the planet by controlling our desires

~by: Elisabelle Aruldoss~

ACRES hosted an open dialogue session with influential dolphin activist, Mr Ric O’Barry, on 4th October at the Grand Copthorne Hotel. The event saw a successful turn-out as a long line of eager people started queuing up in front of the conference hall, anticipating the start of the session.

Video clips of spirited dolphins roaming free in the oceans, messages from celebrities pleading against captivity, and a sombre message from popular primatologist, Jane Goodall, captivated the audience of about 1000 as they took their seats while anxiously awaiting the arrival of Mr O’ Barry.

A standing ovation by the excited audience indicated the arrival of Mr O’ Barry as he made his way down the aisle, at approximately 7.30pm.

The evening started off with a brief but informative presentation by Acres’ President, Mr Louis Ng. In his presentation, Mr Ng explained the plight of the captive dolphins and emphasized the importance of public awareness. Mr Ng also expressed concern for the questions that they have been profusely asking Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) for a few months, which have not been answered to date.

Mr Ng added that, “Every single thing about captivity is artificial for them”, and informed the audience of a report commissioned by the Solomon Islands government which indicated that bottlenose dolphins (that were tracked) swam 113km in 10 days. He went on to question the audience whether they can provide that sort of environment in captivity.

Mr Ng also echoed famous zoologist, Mark Carwardine, who said, “Anyone who says it is okay to keep dolphins in captivity is a liar or unbelievably naive. And it’s totally wrong – morally and ethically – to swim with captive dolphins.”

Mr Ng ended his presentation by urging the audience to be active in the petition to save the dolphins and to spread awareness before finally welcoming Mr Ric O’ Barry onto the stage to begin the dialogue session.

“You can have a successful aquarium without having live dolphins.”

During the dialoge, a you g participant asked “Is there anything more that students or school communities can do to help this cause apart from signing the petition”. Mr O’ Barry replied that finding out who will get involved is exactly the purpose of the session. Mr Ng interjected, adding that Acres will persevere until the dolphins are released.

Mr Ng also reiterated that students can play their part by spreading awareness. He said “Go to our website ‘saddest dolphins.com’; there is a Facebook icon, click it to like the Facebook page”.

“What more can we do with the government?”, another concerned participant asked, “I have written letters to them and they haven’t replied. There are perfect examples like the Monterey Bay Aquarium that teaches you how to be sustainable and it doesn’t have dolphins”. She added that the government of Singapore should realize what a bad shadow the captivity of dolphins is casting on our nation. “It (The government) should worry about what people think of Singapore”, she expressed.

At the mention of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, situated in California on the Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Mr O’Barry quickly responded that, “It is proof that you can have a successful aquarium without having live dolphins. There are many dolphins there and they are hanging from the ceiling made of plastic”.

He also stated that the external anatomy of the captive dolphin is the only thing that is similar to that of the wild dolphin, as he continued to inform the audience, “In captivity, their behaviour is so radically altered, the educational value is highly questionable.”

Mr O’Barry then complained, “How you get to the decision makers is the problem.” and joked, “You are always dealing with somebody at lower level and these guys are upstairs hiding under their desks.”

“How would you convince people who think that whale watching as an alternative would be too expensive?” another participant asked.

“A journalist was saying, ‘If the dolphins weren’t here, the kids wouldn’t get to see the dolphins’. The reality is, you can’t always get what you want”, pausing briefly for the interruption of applause Mr O’Barry continued, “The very same children would not get to see a snow leopard. Does that mean that we have to go to the Himalayas and drag a snow leopard here?”

“Do we teach our children to control their desires. I think that’s the most important thing in saving this planet – controlling our desires” , he emphasised.

Mr O’ Barry ended the dialogue by saying, “In a world where so much that is wild and free has already been lost to us, we must leave these beautiful animals free to swim as they will and must. They do us no harm and wish us none, and we should let them alone.”

As an aspiring wildlife conservationist, I feel that this event was an important one that helped answer many burning questions related to dolphin captivity and shed more light on the issue. The public needs to be aware that Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) is a company that depends on consumer demand. Singaporean consumers, have the power to control the demand of ticket sales and we can help by not buying a ticket or not getting involved in any attraction with captive dolphins.

There are indeed various alternatives in place of a dolphin show. RWS is already earning billions and I think they are fairly capable of thriving without a dolphin attraction. The question that constantly frustrates me is “why would RWS still insist on carrying on with the dolphin exhibition when so many are clearly against it?”

Ric O’ Barry’s wise words – controlling our desires- struck me as something that should be crucial to humans. We humans have consumed and destroyed too much of our fragile earth and the only way towards a sustainable world is to live by these words.

We cannot always do as we please and these dolphins are best left alone in their natural habitat.

Many people, who have already tried writing letters to no avail, have raised questions about what else they can do since RWS has not displayed the decency to respond to them.

Is the government also a party to this as they were the authority which awarded the preferred contract to RWS (Genting Highlands) which asserted that the dolphin exhibition should be one of their attractions?

If so, the best way to pressure the government would be to create awareness, to get more Singaporeans involved in the issue and to action their involvement by writing letters to appropriate government agencies, their Members of Parliament, and even to our Prime Minister.

Dolphins and captivity don't mix

Here is an article I recently wrote on why dolphins should not be in captivity. My article was published by The Online Citizen, a leading socio-political website in Singapore, on 29 August 2011.

DOLPHINS AND CAPTIVITY DON'T MIX

In 2008, Resorts World Sentosa in Singapore bought 27 wild bottlenose dolphins from the Solomon Islands to be placed in a dolphin exhibition in their Marine Life Park in 2012. Nine of the dolphins were then transported to Langkawi and the rest were put in Subic Bay, Phillipines.

However, in 2010, two female dolphins that were put in a holding area in Langkawi died from a bacterial infection known as Melioidosis. Melioidosis is caused by the soil-dwelling bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei and most commonly occurs when a wound comes into contact with contaminated soil and muddy water.

Following the deaths of the two dolphins, the other dolphins in Langkawi were then transported to the Philippines and are currently undergoing training in preparation for their arrival in 2012.

A similar event occurred in 2003, where 28 bottlenose dolphins from the Solomon Islands were imported to the Atlantida facility in Mexico for entertainment purposes in their Wet ‘n’ Wild Park.

However, at least 12 dolphins died within five years of the transport. One died as a result of stress a month after its arrival, and another six died in the next two years due to illnesses. Following this tragic outcome, the Mexican government implemented a ban on the exportation and importation of live cetaceans for entertainment uses.

THE PLIGHT

The surviving RWS dolphins will potentially face a life of suffering and their fate may be similar to that of the Mexican dolphins. It is important to consider the conservation and well-being of wildlife and therefore I do not believe that the RWS dolphins should be kept in captivity.

The public needs to know that the beauty of wildlife should only be observed in their natural habitat. The intelligence of dolphins is one that is rare in nature, and they should not be degraded for entertainment. The deaths that occurred in captive environments all over the world furthermore prove my point that the RWS dolphins cannot thrive in captivity.

Taken from RWS website and I quote “Research, public education and conservation efforts for marine life are the cornerstones of the Marine Life Park.” The irony of it all is that while they uphold conservation as a key cornerstone, two unfortunate dolphins have already died under their care.

What kind of conservation are they promoting? How many more dolphins have to die before RWS gets the hint that they are leading these dolphins to misery? With much support and persuasion to abolish the dolphin exhibition in RWS, these dolphins can lead a life of freedom in the ocean where they belong.

IMPACTS OF CAPTIVITY

Captivity causes unstable relationships:

Dolphins cannot thrive in captivity. An oceanarium, no matter how big it is, cannot recreate the dolphin’s natural habitat – the ocean[i]. It simply cannot provide the same social environment for these marine creatures.

Social relationships play a very important role in the well-being of dolphins[ii]. Unstable relationships usually lead to stress and aggression in dolphins[iii], and loss of social support results in increased stress and a higher risk of mortality[iv]. Unstable relationships often occur when dolphins are captured from the wild and thus stripped from their social groups. Also, the death of one or more pod mates, which has already occurred in the RWS dolphins, can result in further suffering for the pod group as dolphins are highly sociable creatures.

The dolphin groupings determined by humans are artificial and is different from the natural groupings in the wild. Dolphins that do not get along with the group will be isolated or try to escape confinement. A newly matured dolphin or an introduction of a new dolphin to the group affects the social hierarchies and relationships already in place[v]. This instability in the dolphin group can lead to an increase in the risk of injuries, illnesses and aggression between the dolphins[vi].

Captivity ignores behavioural needs and causes stress:

Wild dolphins are used to swimming forty to fifty miles a day and diving hundreds of feet. They are constantly swimming, looking for food and playing with their pod mates[vii]. Unfortunately, marine parks are just too small to cater to the dolphin’s behavioural needs. The use of echolocation by dolphins for hunting and detecting objects is also severely limited in captivity.

Dolphins denied the ability to partake in their natural behaviour will exhibit stereotypical behaviours[viii], which are abnormal behaviours caused by psychological stress. Stereotypical behaviours are believed to be triggered by artificial environments that do not allow animals to meet their behavioural needs[ix].

Merely transporting dolphins can cause severe stress and many dolphins have died as a result of transport. According to WSPA, the risk of dying is increased six times during the first five days after capture. It is also found that 53% of captive dolphins, who have managed to survive the trauma of transport, die within the first three months of confinement.

Tragic outcomes:

Kathy the dolphin who played the character Flipper in the popular television series “Flipper” died in captivity in 1970. After the TV series ended, Kathy was put in a steel tank without much interaction with other dolphins and humans. Kathy slowly showed signs of stress and depression according to dolphin trainer Ric ‘O’ Barry. Eventually, while still the trainer’s arms, Kathy sank underwater and did not swim up for another breath. As dolphins are not automatic air breathers they can chose to end their life if they find it too unbearable by simply not breathing. Kathy’s death proves the extent of suffering dolphins can experience in captivity.

Here are some cases of dolphin deaths in captivity according to the Oceanic Preservation Society:

At the Miami Seaquarium in Miami FL, 62 dolphins have died from various diseases such as salmonella, toxic hepatitis and many others.

In Australia’s Sea World enterprises, 16 dolphins have died from injuries such as spine fractures, twisted bowels, heart and mammary abscesses, “operating stress” and severe anemia.

The Orlando Sentinel performed a computer analysis of captive dolphins in the 1980s. They found that in the waters off Florida and other Gulf states, there were altogether 414 dolphins that were captured or born into captivity. However, over one third of these dolphins were dead by first January 1990.

Dolphins should be in captivity only for rehabilitation or conservation purposes but not for entertainment.

Yes, there are indeed some facilities that are focused on dolphin conservation and rehabilitation. But there are also many other marine parks that pose themselves as promoters of conservation; whose genuine intention is to build a money-making industry at the expense of their captive cetaceans.

Resorts World Sentosa certainly seems to be the latter. Besides the revenue it would earn RWS and enjoyment of visitors, no other benefit can be derived from the dolphin exhibition in Resorts World Sentosa Oceanarium. And more importantly, there will surely be detrimental impacts on the cetaceans’ wellbeing.

Although there is an argument that dolphins in captive environments have increased life span compared to wild dolphins, one thing is clear; captivity severely reduces the dolphins’ quality of life.

---

[i] Curtin, S. C. and Wilkes K. 2007, “Swimming with Captive Dolphins: Current debates and Post-experience dissonance”, International Journal of Tourism Research, vol. 9, pp. 131-146

[ii] Waples, K and Gales, N. J. 2002, “Evaluating and Minimising Social Stress in the Care of Captive Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops aduncus)”, Zoo Biology, Vol. 21, pp. 5-26

[iii] Von Holst, D 1998, “The concept of stress and its relevance for animal behaviour”Advances in the Study of Behaviour, Vol. 27, pp. 1-131

[iv] House, JS ., Landis KR., Umberson D 1982, “Social relationships and health”,Science, Vol. 241, pp. 540–545

[v] Caldwell, DK and Caldwell, MC 1968, “Social behaviour as a husbandry factor in captive odontocete cetaceans” Boca Raton: Proceedings of the second symposium on disease and husbandry of aquatic mammals.

Caldwell, MC and Caldwell, DK 1977, “Social interactions and reproduction in the Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin” In: Ridgway SH, Benivschke K, editors. Breeding dolphins: present status, suggestions for the future. Washington, DC: Marine Mammal Commission Report, MMC-76107, pp. 133–42

Waples, K and Gales, N. J. 2002, “Evaluating and Minimising Social Stress in the Care of Captive Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops aduncus)”, Zoo Biology, Vol. 21, pp. 5-26

Samuels, A and Gifford, T 1997, “A quantitative assessment of dominance relations among bottlenose dolphins”, Marine Mammal Science, Vol. 13, pp. 70–99

[vi] McBride, AF and Hebb, DO 1948 “Behavior of the captive bottlenose dolphin”, Tursiops truncates, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 111–123

N. A. Rose, NA., Parsons, ECM and Farinato, R 2009, “The Case Against Marine Mammals in Captivity”,Humane Society of the United States and the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Wasington, DC, ebook, 4^th edition

[vii] Curtin, S. C. and Wilkes K. 2007, “Swimming with Captive Dolphins: Current debates and Post-experience dissonance”, International Journal of Tourism Research, vol. 9, pp. 131-146

[viii] Carter, N 1982, “Effects of psycho-physiological stress on captive dolphins”,International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, Vol. 3, pp. 193–198

[ix] Davis, E., Down N., Garner J et al 2004, “Stereotypical behavior: a LAREF discussion”,Lab Primate Newsl, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 3– 4