From: Louis Ng (ACRES) Sent: Wednesday, 29 June, 2011 4:17 PM To: 'Krist BOO Chee Lan' krist.boo@RWSentosa.com Cc: 'Lynn LEE Li Jun'; 'kris.koh@rwsentosa.com'; 'john.hallenbeck@rwsentosa.com'; 'robin.goh@rwsentosa.com'; 'enquiries@rwsentosa.com'; 'reservations@rwsentosa.com' Subject: RE: Answers required to address public concerns with regard to dolphins Dear Krist, Thanks for your email. ACRES has been in dialogue with RWS about our concerns with regard to your plans to house dolphins for the past 5 years. I do indeed know both Lynn and you very well and I appreciate all the discussions we have had over the years. ACRES is sincerely interested in continuing our dialogue, but it should not be only between RWS and ACRES. The 650,000 individuals and international groups who have joined us in urging you to "Please let the dolphins go" need to be involved and understand your position as well. We thank you for your reply but regret that you did not answer the questions specifically. As such, we have rephrased the same questions and hope you address the issues we have raised specifically. - 1. Does RWS sincerely and truly believe that to teach its visitors about dolphin protection, the best way is to capture and remove dolphins from their natural habitat, subject them to stressful transportation, let them watch two of their pod mates die, subject them to further stressful transportation, subject them to training and getting them used to humans, feed them a diet they are not used to, house them in an artificial environment and then keep them captive for the rest of their lives?
Yes/No. We are not asking about whether you will look after the dolphins well or how you ensure they were ethically caught- if that is even possible. - 2. Is RWS aware of the letter from Mexican Senator Jorge Ordorica (Chairman, Committee of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries), who was so dismayed at the plans of RWS that he wrote to Singapore’s National Development Minister about it? Senator Jorge wrote that Mexico's international reputation was dented as a result of its importing 28 Solomon Islands dolphins in 2003. At least 12 of the dolphins have since died. “Mexico’s experience with this single import led to our government imposing an outright ban on importation and exportation of live cetaceans for entertainment purposes and this ban is still in place,” the Mexican Senator said. He urged Singapore to consider Mexico's experience and 'the disturbing mortality' of the animals when evaluating applications for the permits to import such dolphins.
Yes/No. Does RWS agree that there was "disturbing mortality" and this goes against your statement that dolphins thrive in captivity? Does RWS think that the Mexican government was wrong to impose an outright ban on importation and exportation of live cetaceans for entertainment purposes? - 3. Is RWS aware that United Parcel Service (UPS), whom you paid to transport the first shipment of RWS dolphins from the Solomon Islands to the Philippines, said it would stop moving this kind of cargo, as the practice violated its environmental principles? If UPS can understand that this is wrong, shouldn’t RWS be able to understand as well?
Yes/No. Does RWS understand why transporting dolphins is against the environmental principles of UPS or you have not looked into this at all? - 4. Is RWS aware that Chris Porter, who sold the wild-caught dolphins to RWS, called for RWS to “review its motivation for using these animals as a tourist draw”? Porter was concerned that “RWS is using the animals primarily to make money while telling the public that its aim is to educate the public on marine conservation”.
Yes/No. Can RWS clarify why the person who sold you the dolphins would now state that “RWS is using the animals primarily to make money while telling the public that its aim is to educate the public on marine conservation”? - 5. Is RWS aware of the European Association for Aquatic Mammals Standards for Establishments Housing Bottlenose Dolphins? If RWS is aware of these guidelines, why did it not follow them?
In your reply, RWS confirmed that it will exceed the EAAM standards. Can RWS now confirm that the dolphins’ enclosures in Langkawi also exceeded the EAAM standards? Yes/No. - 6. Why did RWS house the dolphins in a rusty enclosure in Langkawi and deny this initially?
Does RWS truly believe that this statement is inaccurate and unjustified? Yes/No. In a Straits Times article dated 14 January 2011, RWS stated "Acres chose, in pictures it used for campaigning, to highlight rust on the side of a boardwalk next to the enclosures. This picture is not reflective of the facility when it was in operation." Please find attached a photo ("pen closeup high res.jpg") of the rusty enclosure when the facility was in operation (the dolphins were also inside the rusty enclosure). - 7. Was the dolphin enclosure in Langkawi really 20 metres by 20 metres as RWS stated? Does RWS realise that ACRES has photos of the enclosure during its construction?
Please answer this question, Yes/No. - 8. Since RWS is using the United States as an example, is RWS aware that in the late 1980s, facilities in the United States implemented a voluntary moratorium on collection of bottlenose dolphins from the wild, and this remains in place? Why is RWS not following this progressive and voluntary decision?
Yes/No. Is RWS not following this decision as you feel it is wrong for facilities to not want to collect dolphins from the wild? - 9. If dolphins can thrive in facilities and have also been bred successfully in facilities, why then did RWS need to acquire wild-caught dolphins? Please note that the question here is not whether catching dolphins from the wild is legal and forgetting the moral issues involved, but specifically why did RWS not acquire captive-bred dolphins?
Please answer this question. Can RWS not acquire captive-bred dolphins to start a breeding programme? Since they have been bred successfully, is RWS not confident that facilities have ensured that they have a sufficiently viable gene pool? 10. Does RWS realise that dolphins, like us, are sentient beings, and when considering whether to snatch them from the wild, it is not only about whether the dolphins are endangered, but more importantly whether it is morally right to take away their freedom? Please answer this question. Is RWS saying that it is okay to take away a wild animal’s freedom as long as the animal loves interacting with humans? 11. In your blog post, you did not answer the question you posed “Why did the MLP source its dolphins from the wild instead of from captive sources?” Did RWS purchase wild-caught dolphins because they are cheaper than captive bred ones? Yes/No. Are wild-caught dolphins cheaper to buy than captive-bred ones? RWS did look into acquiring captive-bred dolphins and should know this. 12. RWS has stated that the bottlenose dolphins are not classified as endangered nor are they threatened with extinction. Why then is it so important for RWS to breed them in captivity? Please answer this question. 13. Can RWS let the public know which airline will be transporting the dolphins to Singapore if they do come? Please answer this question. What is the harm of letting the public know which airline might be transporting the dolphins? Yours sincerely, Louis Ng (MSc) Executive Director ACRES (Animal Concerns Research and Education Society) www.acres.org.sg 91 Jalan Lekar Singapore 698917 (O): +65 6892 9821 (F): +65 6892 9721
View Complete Story >>
More Articles By Animal Concerns Research & Education Society (ACRES)
|
| 
Member Login
