wild places | wild happenings | wild news
make a difference for our wild places

home | links | search the site
  all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews
wild news on wildsingapore
  Straits Times Online 26 Oct 06
Marine animals in captivity don't contribute to conservation efforts
Letter from Goh Si Guim
Full letter by Goh Si Guim

Straits Times Forum 26 Oct 06
Review the plans for marine park in Sentosa's integrated resort
 Letter from Suganya Naidu

The report "Showtime for Genting and Kerzner" (ST Oct 17) is a vivid example of ironic human practices. It shows the obession of the business community to meet the bottom line.

We are constantly reminded that companies are willing to take advantage of anything to reap the big bucks, with utter disregard for social and environmental implications.

To cater to the whims and fancies of people, the proposed Quest Marine Life Park intends to hold captive nearly 700,000 marine creatures, and create channels for physical contact with them.

It claims that such interactions would help propagate the idea of conservation to the layman. This is a gross misconception.

The whole concept of "captive conservation" is a contradiction in terms.

What would otherwise be impossible in a natural setting (such as swimming with sharks) is realised in the context of the oceanarium.

It is claimed that trapping the creatures for display is the only way to educate the public.

To the horror of conservationists, wild animals are increasingly being associated with playthings.

The stress that these animals experience when taken from their natural habitats is significant and many do not survive the trip. As a consequence of this sudden change in environment, some species are unable to breed successfully in captivity.

The physical degradation of the polar bears in the Singapore Zoo clearly illustrates the case.

When captive breeding fails, so do the progeny and all the hopes of protecting these remarkable creatures.

Therefore, it is necessary to re-evaluate the rationale for the marine park.

Is it merely another economic opportunity to maximise profits or is it a genuine effort in marine wildlife conservation?

If it is the latter, is a man-made glass tank the way to do it?

Straits Times Online 26 Oct 06
Marine animals in captivity don't contribute to conservation efforts
Letter from Goh Si Guim

I refer to the two integrated resort proposals by Genting and Kerzner and the letter "Nature groups against oceanarium at Sentosa" (ST, Oct 21).

Both teams propose to have huge aquariums where large sea animals are kept in captivity for various reasons.

Though some of the purposes are laudable, it is inhumane to confine these wild animals in a small body of water.

There is no lack of advanced marine and oceonographic research institutions engaged in studies in this area. Duplicating their efforts does not make sense. Furthermore, the research should be carried out in the animals' natural habitats.

In Sentosa's case, they will be kept there for shows to generate revenue rather than contribute to conservation efforts.

Alternatively, money generated from the resorts could be used to tackle the annual haze problem. The haze is likely to affect the operations of the integrated resorts. It would turn visitors away when there's a haze problem caused by Indonesia's burning forests in the dry months. This will adversely affect the resorts' operations and lead to losses.

The money made from the resorts can be used to help Indonesian farmers move away from shifting cultivation.

Full letter by Goh Si Guim

I refer to the two IR proposals by Genting and Kerzner's over the last several days and the letter to ST Forum (Nature groups against oceanarium at Sentosa,Sat, 21 October 2006).

Both teams proposed to have huge aquariums where large ocean-going animals are placed in captivity for various reasons. Though some of the stated purposes are laudable, it is inhumane to confine these free-ranging animals in a small body of water.

There are no lack of advanced and proper marine and oceonagraphic research institutions engaged in studies in this area. Duplicating these efforts does not make any sense. Furthermore, these research should be carried out in the animals' natural habitats. They are more revenue-generating shows rather that components that contribute to conservation efforts.

Alternatively, money generated could be better used to help tackle the annual haze problem. The haze is set to affect the operation of the IRs in Singapore. It would prompt visitors instead to visit other resorts for several months of the year for health reasons. The projected visitor numbers would not be met and revenue losses can result.

The money could be used to help shifting cultivators in finding ways to make such practices unnecessary. Creating nation-wide compositing and biogas industries in those areas are some ways. Plant wastes treated this way would not generate smog and the by-products could be used to enrich the soil.
links
Related articles on Sentosa IR
about the site | email ria
  News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.
 

website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com