'Very hard to justify putting animal in a confined pool'
'The SPCA is strongly against keeping any wild animal in captivity if it causes them distress or suffering or if they can't be kept in a manner appropriate to the normal biological and environmental requirements of their species.
In the past there was an excuse - people didn't know any better. We believed it was all right to keep an elephant in a small concrete enclosure chained at the feet or to keep him caged and performing in a circus. We believed it wasn't cruel, because the animal was being taken care of. It was fed, it was sheltered and it wasn't diseased or injured.
However, more recently, animal welfare science has discovered that animals feel pleasure, distress and pain and they need to be able to exhibit their natural behaviour.
We now know what we did was wrong. Because today we know better, we have no excuse and any justification for doing so must be overwhelmingly for the greater good.
By taking a dolphin from the wild, you are capturing a highly intelligent animal that lives in a complex social system and may swim up to 35 miles (56.3 kilometres) a day. You are removing him from his social group, putting him at high risk of injury or death through the capture, the first confinement, and then by transporting him to put him in an enclosure for the remainder of his life, where he will suffer from an extremely diminished habitat.
In captivity, he can't display his natural behavioural cycles of live feeding and rest and escape. He suffers a lifetime of continual stress. The fact that we still have a great deal to understand about these animals makes wild capture potentially even worse, both regarding the welfare of the individual and the populations.
One of the justifications put forward is the need for research, particularly into breeding. While such research will surely benefit captive dolphins, it is questionable how much it will benefit others in the wild. Have all other avenues to introduce genetic diversity been explored?
Education, especially of the young, is also cited as justification. However, there seems no published research showing a link between keeping a dolphin in captivity and improving conservation knowledge.
Young people who see dolphins in captivity come away with the impression that the dolphin is well cared for, that he looks happy, that he likes his trainer, and that the trainer really likes the dolphin.
This is indoctrination rather than education. What they are more likely to learn is that it is all right and condoned to keep wild animals in confined captivity and to have them perform for our entertainment.
Then there is the argument that keeping animals in captivity is safer for them and gives them less stress. They won't be hit by a boat, there are no predators and no fishermen and there are no pollutants. They are fed and cared for, and their lives are better, we are told.
But the fact is, they don't live longer in confinement than they do in the ocean. So it is very, very hard to justify taking an animal from the Pacific islands and putting him in a confined pool on the other side of the world. Even Mexico banned the trade when so many dolphins died after being imported from the Solomons.
This is the wrong message for Hong Kong to send to the world. Ocean Park contributes a great deal towards marine conservation. The greatest concern is that if such a reputable, credible and respected facility were to take dolphins from the wild, it will give the 'wild dolphin trade' an enormous boost and encourage other facilities, with much lower standards of husbandry, to do the same. This alone will negate any justification for conservation.'
Interview by Simon Parry
