Cheguei pelas 1600 ao Bar do Bruno, na Praia do Baleal Campismo, onde não estava ninguém para além do Bruno Bairros, Coordenador da acção e proprietário do Baleal Surfcamp.
O Tourita que tinha ido comigo não lhe apelava muito a ideia de andar de rabo para o ar a limpar a praia e fugiu assim que viu que a iniciativa parecia ter pouca adesão.
Estavam presentes apenas alguns clientes do Bruno e no total éramos creio que uns 4 ou 5. Mas lá pelas 16 e qualquer coisa chegou o Telmo Vital com o pessoal que estava a ficar no Maximum Surfcamp.
Juntaram-se a nós também Luis Silva, Marcos Bairros, João, Rainer Gersch, e outros; num total de umas 30 pessoas, aproximadamente.
No total retirámos do areal e das zonas circundantes às dunas todo o tipo de plástico, garrafas de vidro, cordas de nylon, redes de pesca, bocados de foam de prancha, botas etc. um total de 5 metros cúbicos.
Alguns daqueles detritos eram sem dúvida o resultado da falta de consciência e responsabilidade cívica dos utentes da praia.
Isto apenas de uma pequena porção da praia, se pensarmos a um nível mais abrangente, gerar-nos certamente um grande sentimento de preocupação…
No final de contas foi um sucesso a Ocean Initiatives da Surfrider Foundationlevada a cabo por cidadãos livres e conscientes das nefastas consequências que o lixo nas zonas costeiras pode ter.
Assinámos no fim uma petição que será juntada às outras assinaturas recolhidas pela Surfrider Foundation, para ser apresentada à UE quando atinja as 10.000 assinaturas, para que os nossos representantes em Bruxelas rectifiquem a actual classificação do lixo, que ainda não é considerada um meio de poluição!
No próximo dia 20 de Março 2010 dá-se a iniciativa Limpar Portugal. Na cidade de Peniche vamos limpar os sistemas dunares da zona do Baleal.
Irá ser dada uma breve explicação sobre os diferentes tipos de lixo que encontramos nas dunas e os seus malificios tanto para o ambiente como para os organismos marinhos.
Anualmente, o lixo mata centenas de animais marinhos, um flagelo difícil de combater e controlar. É nesta base que vamos alertar, educar e promover uma maior consciência ambiental na nossa comunidade surfista e sociedade cívil.
É dever e responsabilidade de todos ajudar neste ambicioso projecto. O maior projecto ambiental de voluntariado de todos os tempos.
Contamos com todos dia 20 de Março pelas 16:00 junto ao Parque de Campismo do Baleal.
Durante o mês de Fevereiro conduzi uma investigação sobre o comércio de vida selvagem através da Internet em Portugal, o chamado e-commerce.
O tráfico internacional de animais selvagens é estimado em vários bilhões de Euros anualmente – um mercado negro que rivaliza a dimensão do comércio internacional de drogas e armas. Anualmente, milhares de elefantes em África e na Ásia são ilegalmente abatidos para satisfazer a crescente procura de artigos em marfim.
A Convenção sobre o Comércio Internacional das Espécies de Fauna e Flora Selvagens Ameaçadas de Extinção (CITES) tem três níveis de protecção para as espécies ameaçadas[1].
O maior nível de protecção é dado às mais de 800 espécies incluídas no Apêndice I, designadas como estando em perigo de extinção[2]. Com muito poucas excepções, o comércio de espécies do anexo I é proibida. Este apêndice inclui as espécies altamente vulneráveis tais como: elefantes, tigres, gorilas e tartarugas marinhas, juntamente com um grande número de outros felinos, papagaios, periquitos, catatuas e araras.
Espécies inscritas no Apêndice II da CITES exigem uma certa regulamentação no âmbito da sua comercialização, mas não ao ponto de uma expressa interdição. Embora o comércio possa ser admitido para espécies do Apêndice II, todo o comércio internacional ou de transferência do animal ou seus derivados exige uma licença de exportação emitida pelas autoridades do país exportador, e em alguns casos, uma licença de importação emitida pelo país onde o produto de origem animal será recebido. Em teoria, estas restrições sobre o comércio de espécies do Apêndice II são destinadas a regular o comércio, a fim de assegurar que essas espécies não serão exploradas ao ponto de requererem protecção sob o Apêndice I.
Espécies do Apêndice III, apesar de não enfrentarem ameaça de extinção, são indicadas por cada país que deseje auxílio para proteger determinadas espécies localizadas dentro das suas fronteiras[3].
A expansão da Internet e o seu uso no nosso quotidiano revolucionou o modo como trocamos ideias, informações e mercadorias. Este sucesso é em grande parte devido à capacidade deste meio para facilitar comunicações e novas relações comerciais e sociais ao redor do globo. Não admira que esta poderosa tecnologia se tenha difundido e tornado a maior “montra de loja” do mundo. Algumas das características desta loja virtual – sempre aberta, não regulamentada e anónima – também a fez um canal propício para o comércio ilegal de animais selvagens, um comércio que segundo estimativas oficiais anualmente excede os 15 bilhões de Euros.
O rápido aumento do uso global da Internet, os diversos interesses e actividades dos seus usuários, e a introdução de novas tecnologias e aplicações são apenas três dos desenvolvimentos que desafiam a capacidade de aplicação da lei nacional e internacional para acompanhar as acções e inovações dos criminosos que nela operam e se refugiam.
Actualmente, a generalidade das leis nacionais destinadas a regular o comércio dos animais selvagens a níveis ecologicamente sustentáveis estão pouco desenvolvidas, e são ineficazes para lidar com a natureza do comércio na Internet. Mesmo onde as leis existem, a aplicação é frequentemente inadequada ou, simplesmente não é focada no tráfico de animais selvagens.Simultaneamente, a Internet proporciona uma plataforma sem precedentes para a crescente actividade de comércio ilegal de animais ameaçados de extinção, vivos e mortos. Este novo mercado global distância o consumidor do rasto de sangue que serpenteia através da internet com origem nos locais selvagens que mais apreciamos.
Desde 2004, o IFAW tem vindo a investigar o comércio de vida selvagem na Internet. Esses estudos revelaram um elevado número de trocas diárias de produtos de animais selvagens. Em 2004, o IFAW descobriu um alarmante e vigoroso comércio de marfim na internet no Reino Unido. Em 2007 num relatório de acompanhamento do IFAW, focado especificamente sobre o comércio de marfim no eBay, encontrou 2,275 artigos em marfim à venda em oito websites nacionais da eBay Inc. numa única semana. Como resultado deste estudo e consultas com o IFAW, a eBay Inc. anunciou, a Junho de 2007, uma proibição global do comércio transfronteiriço de produtos em marfim para todos os seus websites nacionais.
Em 2008, o IFAW empreendeu a maior investigação sobre o comércio de espécies selvagens na internet jamais impulsionada pela organização. Os resultados da investigação foram publicados num relatório intitulado Killing with Keystrokes: An Investigation of the Illegal Wildlife Trade on the World Wide Web, e disponível em www.ifaw.org. O propósito desta investigação foi estimar o volume e âmbito geográfico do comércio global de vida selvagem na internet, identificar os principais mercados de comércio de espécies selvagens, determinar as espécies mais afectadas, e identificar as mais importantes questões e tendências relacionadas ao comércio online de espécies nos Apêndices da CITES[4].
É neste contexto que o presente relatório foi produzido, tendo como objectivo aprofundar a investigação feita pelo IFAW em 2008, com uma actualização sobre este assunto no contexto e âmbito Português. Pouco se sabe sobre a dimensão e gravidade do comércio de vida selvagem na Internet Portuguesa. Este relatório é a primeira tentativa de descobrir e avaliar a dimensão em Portugal do e-commerce de espécies ameaçadas da fauna e flora.
Apesar do emaranhado de leis e políticas destinadas a resolver o problema do comércio de espécies selvagens não regulamentada na Internet, a vastidão e adaptabilidade da World Wide Web, o anonimato concedido a comerciantes e compradores, a falta de consciência pública sobre a regulamentação e aplicação inadequada das legislações nacionais existentes, continuam a ameaçar todos os animais selvagens ao redor do globo. Esta investigação visa fornecer informações ao Governo Português, aos funcionários responsáveis pela aplicação e às plataformas de Internet, a fim de lhes dar um maior conhecimento e compreensão da situação, e sugerir métodos para combater o comércio ilegal de animais selvagens.
Sobre o IFAW (Fundo Internacional para a Protecção dos Animais e o seu Habitat) Como uma das organizações líder mundial em bem-estar animal, o IFAW tem representação em 16 países e realiza trabalho de protecção de animais em mais de 40. O IFAW trabalha desde a sua sede mundial nos Estados Unidos, e focaliza as suas campanhas na melhoria do bem-estar de animais selvagens e domésticos, reduzindo a exploração comercial, protegendo habitats, e prestando auxílio a animais em dificuldade. O IFAW trabalha tanto no terreno como nos corredores governamentais, numa tentativa para proteger animais selvagens e domésticos. Através da motivação do público em geral, procura prevenir a crueldade para com os animais e promover o seu bem-estar fomentando politicas de conservação que aumentem o conforto tanto de animais como de pessoas. Para mais informação, visite www.ifaw.org
During February I conducted an Investigation on the Wildlife trade in Portugal via Internet, the so called, e-commerce.
International trafficking in wildlife is estimated to reach well into the billions of Euros annually – a black market rivaling the size of the international trade in illegal drugs and weapons. Every year thousands of elephants are illegally slaughtered in Africa and Asia to meet a growing demand for ivory products.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has three levels of protection for threatened species[1].
The highest level of protection is afforded to the more than 800 Appendix I species designated as being in immediate danger of extinction[2]. With very few exceptions, commercial trade in Appendix I species is banned. These species include the highly vulnerable species like elephant, tiger, gorilla and marine turtle, along with a large number of additional wild cats, parrots, parakeets, cockatoos and macaws.
Species listed on CITES Appendix II are recognized to require protection from trade, but not to the point of a ban. While trade may be allowed in Appendix II species, any international trade or transfer of such an animal or its derivative products requires an export permit issued by the authorities of the nation where the animal product is located and in some instances an import permit issued by the country where the animal product will be received. In theory, these restrictions on trade in Appendix II species are designed to regulate trade in order to ensure that these species are not exploited to the point where they require Appendix I protections.
Appendix III species, while not facing specific global threats, are listed by individual countries wishing to enlist assistance in protecting species located within the borders of their countries[3].
The rise of the Internet has revolutionized the way we exchange ideas, information and merchandise. This success is largely due to its ability to facilitate communications and new commercial and social connections around the globe. No wonder this pervasive and powerful technology has become the world’s largest “shop window.” Some of the characteristics of this virtual store – always open, unregulated and anonymous – have also made it a conduit for the illicit trade in wildlife, a trade that officials estimate may be worth in excess of US$20 billion annually.
The rapid rise in global Internet usership, the diverse interests and activities of Internet users and the introduction of new technologies and applications are just three of the developments that challenge the ability of national and international law enforcement to keep up with the innovations of Internet-savvy criminals.
Currently, national laws aimed at regulating wildlife trade to ecologically sustainable levels are poorly developed and insufficient to deal with the nature of Internet trade. Even where laws exist, enforcement is often inadequate or simply not focused on trafficking in wildlife. Meanwhile, the Internet provides an unprecedented platform for a burgeoning, undocumented trade in endangered animals, alive and dead. This new global marketplace distances the consumer from the trail of bloodshed that winds through the World Wide Web back to our most cherished wild places.
Since 2004, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has investigated the Internet wildlife trade. These studies have revealed high numbers of wildlife products exchanged on a daily basis. In 2004, IFAW uncovered a brisk ivory trade on the internet in the United Kingdom. In a 2007 follow-up report, IFAW focused specifically on the ivory trade on eBay, and found 2.275 ivory items for sale on eight national eBay websites in a single week. As a result of this study and ongoing consultations with IFAW, eBay Inc. announced a global ban on cross-border trade in ivory products in June 2007 for all eBay national sites.
In 2008, IFAW undertook the largest investigation into the wildlife trade on the Internet the organization has ever attempted. The results of the investigation were published in a report entitled Killing with Keystrokes: An Investigation of the Illegal Wildlife Trade on the World Wide Web (KWK), and available at www.ifaw.org. The purposes of this investigation were to understand the volume and geographic scope of the global Internet wildlife trade, to identify key Internet wildlife trade markets, to determine the species most affected by the trade, and to identify significant issues and trends related to the online trade in the CITES-listed species.[4]
This report is aimed at furthering the 2008 investigation by providing an update from Portugal on this matter. Little is known about the dimension and seriousness of the wildlife trade on the Portuguese World Wide Web. This report is the first attempt to find out how large is the E-Commerce on in endangered species of fauna and flora is in Portugal.
In spite of the patchwork of laws and policies designed to address the problem of unregulated wildlife trade on the Internet, the vastness and adaptability of the World Wide Web (WWW), the anonymity afforded to traders, a lack of public awareness about regulations, and inadequate enforcement of existing national laws all continue to threaten wildlife around the globe. This investigation is aimed at providing information to the Portuguese Government, enforcement officials and Internet platforms in order to give them greater understanding of the situation, suggest methods in which to counter illegal wildlife trade, and aid further enforcement.
About IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) As one of the world’s leading animal welfare organization, IFAW has representation in 16 countries and carries out its animal welfare work in more than 40. IFAW works from its global headquarters in the United States and focuses its campaigns on improving the welfare of wild and domestic animals by reducing the commercial exploitation of animals, protecting wildlife habitats, and assisting animals in distress. IFAW works both on the ground and in the halls of government to safeguard wild and domestic animals and seeks to motivate the public to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote animal welfare and conservation policies that advance the well-being of both animals and people. For more information, visit www.ifaw.org.
Sometime ago I saw a documentary on Chris Porter and his Endeavour to export wild dolphins from the Solomon Islands to Dubai. The piece ended at the time when the dolphins had arrived to Dubai but the Hotel Atlantis (where the dolphins were to live from then on) fail to display them to the public for a long period, leading activists to believe that the animals were dead (or most of them).
On my post “The [bloody] Cove”, I did mention this, but I was then corrected by Jorge Mateus, that the dolphins are alive. He also advised that I should be careful with what I post online, without due verification of the facts, and that the fact “call myself” a scientist bears a responsibility to have all facts correct, especially when I point out some flaws on other’s work.
I took that paragraph from the post straight away, to avoid leaving it floating on the web, with untrue information.
He is very right about this, and I will make sure I won’t repeat it, and I do thank him for his constructive critique.
Nevertheless I would like to take the case of Solomon Island dolphins, since I found some time to take his advice and get informed; and also about this “dolphinariums” business as a whole (again). And with it restore the truth on the subject.
———————————
Before I get onto the Solomon case I would like to express my high spirits and cheer for The Cove winning the Oscar for Best Documentary!
It is also screening in Portugal. You can watch it at
Lisboa
UCI Cinemas – El Corte Inglés
Cinema City Classic Alvalade
Setúbal
Zon Lusomundo Almada Forum
Porto – Vila Nova de Gaia UCI Arrábida 20
However, screenings in Japan don’t go as smooth…The following text is from Ric O’Barry:
My only question is: what do they have to hide?
“(…) But there are threats on the horizon. Officials in Japan are threatening repercussions against university and community groups that dare to show The Cove. Dolphin-killing fishermen’s unions are threatening lawsuits against theaters that show the film. There are even some signs that I could face arrest in Japan, even though I’ve broken no laws whatsoever.
We wont give in to this pressure. Instead, I am making plans to spend months in Japan with our Save Japan Dolphins Team. I want to be wherever we can find an audience. Our message will particularly resonate with young people, to whom we need to reach out with the dangers of mercury-contaminated dolphin meat and the slaughter of dolphins they love as much as we do.”
———————————
But back to the Solomon dolphins’ case; just because they are alive, and I was wrong by saying they died during transport, doesn’t make it (the export of wild dolphins and the dolphinarium industry) more righteous in any way!
When I started to read more about the Solomon Islands dolphins, Chris Porter and the Solomon Islands Marine Mammal Education Centre and Exporters Limited (MMECEL), Directed by Robert Satu, found that the first outcry from the international community related to the shipping of wild dolphin from this small pacific islands were heard in 2003, when a shipping to Mexico was made.
Soon after 2003 shipments the government banned the export of wild dolphins, due to the international outcry. But Satu took it to court and won. Also the government – which changed since the shipments to Mexico – gave its blessing and a high-level delegation was at Dubai to mark the dolphins’ arrival.
What stricken me most about all this is 2 basic elements:
1) Both Dubai and the Solomon Islands are part of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). So, how this exportation did happen?
2) The scientific grounds and the welfare of the animals.
All international forums have their flaws and CITES is no different.
The order Cetacea (that bear all whales and dolphins) is found on the Appendix II of CITES (and many other species of toothed and baleen Cetaceans are also included on Appendix I).
The highest level of protection is afforded to the more than 800 Appendix I species designated as being in immediate danger of extinction[1]. With very few exceptions, commercial trade in Appendix I species is banned. These species include the highly vulnerable species like whale, elephant, tiger, gorilla and marine turtle, along with a large number of additional wild cats, parrots, parakeets, cockatoos and macaws.
Species listed on CITES Appendix II are recognized to require protection from trade, but not to the point of a ban. While trade may be allowed in Appendix II species, any international trade or transfer of such an animal or its derivative products requires an export permit issued by the authorities of the nation where the animal product is located and in some instances an import permit issued by the country where the animal product will be received. In theory, these restrictions on trade in Appendix II species are designed to regulate trade in order to ensure that these species are not exploited to the point where they require Appendix I protections.
William Rossiter from Cetacean Society International (CSI) described the loophole used by Chris Carter on CSI’s Whales Alive! - Vol. XVI No. 3 – July 2007.
“(…) Porter’s plan relies on the CITES “non-determination finding” (NDF) that must accompany the export. The purpose of an NDF is to certify that the international trade in a CITES-listed species will not be detrimental to the population, backed up by credible data on the abundance and distribution of the listed plant or animal. No adequate data is known to exist for the Solomon Islands dolphins, according to many scientists CSI questioned. In late June Porter, finally admitting what everyone knows, hired a U.S. scientist to get some data, albeit a little late. Porter’s MEL [Marine Export Ltd] partners include Wildlife International Network Inc. (WIN), including Robin Friday, Mark Simmons, and Ted N. Turner, although Turner may have left. In Panama WIN calls itself “Ocean Embassy”, where their extremely controversial permit to capture 80 local dolphins for captive display and probable sale continues to fuel such a public fury that it might be on hold when you read this.
The CITES Secretariat cannot reject an NDF, but can recommend that the importing nation question or reject the exporter’s NDF. The dolphins now appear to be aimed at Dubai, which may follow the CITES expected recommendation and reject the import. Mexico did not follow CITES’ recommendation to question the data in 2003, embarrassing the nation with the results. The Solomon Islands were not a member of CITES in 2003, but joined in late June. (…)” [2]
Also, as explained by the Species Survival Network and WWF International:
“(…)There is a significant lack of scientific information on the stocks of T. aduncus (or any other dolphin species) in Solomon Islands waters, as confirmed by the chair of the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group (CSG) in letters submitted to the CITES Secretariat and Solomon Islands government in June 2007 (IUCN CSG 2007a, b). The Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission also discussed the 2003 live captures of bottlenose dolphins in Solomon Islands, noting that “[n]o estimates of abundance, population structure or vital rates are available” and re-iterating its “recommendation that any live captures should be proceeded by a full assessment of status” (IWC Scientific Committee 2004). Consequently, these past and potential future exports represent a failure in the implementation of CITES Article IV, which requires science-based non-detriment findings before export of Appendix II species is allowed.(…)” [3]
Despite all the diligences made to CITES and the scientific indetermination surrounding the issue, Solomon Islands officially permit 100 dolphins to be exported per year. Rossiter explained the capture method used by the people of the Solomon’s in the CSI Whales Alive! - Vol. XVII No. 1 – January 2008, he described that in order to reach that quota, local fishermen use primitive methods that injure or kill hundreds of dolphins, with many social units being destroyed. The selected survivors are then transported long distances in open boats to a captivity facility. But even there, they are far from save, being further culled by illness, death, or just being released in waters too far from their home waters to survive. “From the moment of capture all these dolphins are as good as dead as far as the survival of their populations in concerned.”[3]
They might also argue that isn’t necessary to use the precautionary approach since there are “plenty” dolphin in the Solomon’s, so they can be killed by the hundreds.
In Iki, Japan, dolphins used to be killed by the thousands, and they were in fact streaming by the coast, now a day that abundance is gone, most due to the captivity trade, that is so lucrative. But now they go buy them in Taiji, to furnish their dolphinariums. [5]
Solomon Islanders, say they know it better, and that catches are sustainable; while the world’s best scientists confirm that no one knows how many Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins live in Solomon Island waters, or what the local populations are like. They argue that “local knowledge” gives them the basis to estimate an adequate quota for exportation. Rossiter reasons further, “In truth, they do not care; the species is considered a pest in many areas, and has almost none of the value that spinner, spotted and other cetaceans have as meat, and for teeth valued for bridal dowries.”
According to the Solomon’s Fisheries Minister Nollen Leni, each dolphin on the Dubai market goes for US$200,000 (around 147,000€) revealing the value of the country’s “new million dollar” industry. If you multiply this unit value for the 100 dolphins they are allowed to sell per year. [6]
And quoting Robert Satu, the front man from MMECEL: “It’s big – bigger than gold or logging” [7]
Rossiter puts it well when he reflects about the social reality of the Solomon Islands:
“Who can blame them? We are not wasting your time or our space with details of how the Solomon Islands dolphin market got where it is today, much less the government turnovers and intrigue, but it has been a sad, fascinating experience for us to study the struggles of a society plagued by social violence and unrest, three government upheavals since 2003, and the corrupting influence of outsiders with promises of lots of money for a locally worthless animal. Why should they care if their new market threatens the core of CITES?
The raw power of money both separates and links Dubai and Solomon Islands. Solomon Islands is resource-rich and money-poor, while Dubai is so oil-rich the nation’s explosive development to date proves that anything is possible if the cost is irrelevant. Both nations are equally unfazed by international concerns and equally efficient at keeping prying eyes away from their dolphins. Little did we know that the Solomon Islands_Dubai trade had been planned since 2004! We suspect shipments to Dubai and China are due, but have no clue when or where the dolphins will end up.”
The chorus of disapproval and examples detailing how ineffective CITES was on this matter goes forever. The main reason why CITES didn’t had any effect on this issue is simple. Solomon Islands and Dubai do not care about science; they care about profit and luxury!
They also don’t care about the dolphin’s welfare either, and even that it is true that some of the dolphins captured and maintained in pens for exportation in the Solomon’s reached Dubai, many die still in the Solomon’s.
An independent observer described the facility where the dolphins are kept: “Dolphins are kept in shallow pens so close to the sea that it’s hard to understand why they don’t try to escape by jumping the slim barrier. But they don’t and instead lie traumatized, hungry and limp. Their fate is shocking. Many die of starvation and shock. Others have been transported to Honiara, kept in holding pens for a few days, packed into open trucks travelling to the airport and put on planes (…)” [8]
Even days prior to the export to Dubai at least 3 dolphins were found dead near a holding pen. And other sources say that at least 30 other animals are buried in the vicinity. [2] [6]
It is hard to tell more precisely the amount of dolphins that die in those pens because if anyone tries to get close to them they are “attacked by the thugs who work for Chris Porter” [8]
That is how transparent they are on their work!
However, I must say it gives me a grim of irony every time I read the work education, related to any dolphin show, or in the case of the Solomon Islands, that same word attached to the export company name. It might be entertaining, it might be amusing, but it is not educational. There is nothing education about a dolphin doing tricks, over loud music in confinement and just because the trainer (and the audience) wants it too.
I got some tourists in the Canaries where I did some studies on dolphin-whale watching boat interactions who were very disappointed because they were expecting the dolphins to jump, do acrobatics, come to the boat to touch their hands with their flippers, and kiss them, because that is what they see on the dolphin shows! My reply was always the same, “here you see them for what they are, this is not a dolphin show” and I would go further and explain them why they shouldn’t go to a dolphinarium ever again…
And that same grim of irony expands they people tell me that, “dolphinariums in Europe and the U.S. are very different from the ones in Mexico and other developing countries”. To those I would encourage them to read an excellent piece by Naomi Rose, who I had the pleasure of meeting in Limerich back in 2004 during the IFAW forum on sustainability. It is titled The Solomon Islands Dolphins: The Myth of “Good” Marine Parks. [Read it here]
Back in 2002 even Portugal wanted to import 10 live wild dolphins to Zoomarine and the Lisbon Zoo from Guinea-Bissau. Interesting was the fact that Cuba went ahead and offered the same dolphins, before the activist against captivity could even react to the Guinea-Bissau case! It is a lot of money and many want a slice of that pie. [9] [10] [11] National Authorities didn’t allow the importation.
Bottom line is: Dolphins do not belong in captivity and we have dramatic examples of this that come to the media time after time. The most recent being Tillikum, an Orca from SeaWorld that killed its trainer Dawn Brancheau; this same Dolphin – orcas are dolphins, not whales – was involved in the deaths of 2 other people, the first death when Tillikum was property of Sealand, and other 2 after he was sold to SeaWorld. [12]
Bruce Bott, a diver who has studied whales for 40 years and recently completed a book about whale-human interactions, was briefly employed at Sealand and said the facility bears some responsibility.
Bott, who worked with the whales, but left before Tillikum arrived, said food withdrawal was regularly used when whales would not obey instructions.[13]
Not to mention the medication administrated to the dolphins trying to relieve them from the stress they endure due to confinement, that also lead to ulcers and other conditions.
However, there isn’t any record of an Orca killing any human in the wild, so you can take your own conclusions. Mine are the same of Louie Psihoyos “ the real killer is SeaWorld. By stressing this creatures in small tanks and forcing them do stupid tricks for spectacles of dominance they are committing crimes against humanity and nature”
Ric O’barry also commented saying that: “I trained “Hugo” the first killer whale in captivity east of the Mississippi – back in 1968. I knew then that this was a very bad idea and I walked away from his tank at the Miami Seaquarium. I went public with my opinion but the bastards would not listen. They were blinded by the money!“
I will close this post with a final quote by Jacques Cousteau:
“There is about as much educational benefit to be gained in studying dolphins in captivity as there would be studying mankind by only observing prisoners held in solitary confinement.”
Here’s a video with some good comments on dolphin captivity.
O Complexo Desportivo do Casal Vistoso irá receber a maior prova de Jiu-Jitsu no velho continente nos próximos dias 28, 29, 30 e 31 de Janeiro de 2010.
Enviaram-me esta num e-mail, achei por bem partilhar, a lista no mínimo interessante!
—————-
Boa! Por uma destas é que eu não esperava. Por este andar… dentro e pouco nenhum malfeitor escapa à justiça. Assim mesmo é que é, pois então!
A justiça portuguesa está de parabéns!
Depois de anos e anos a batalhar eis que surgem os primeiros resultados.
Desde a morte de Francisco Sá Carneiro e do eterno mistério que a rodeia,
Ao desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann,
Ao caso Casa Pia
Do caso Portucale
Operação Furacão
Da compra dos submarinos
Às escutas ao primeiro-ministro
Do caso da Universidade Independente
Ao caso da Universidade Moderna
Do Futebol Clube do Porto
O Apito Dourado
Ao Sport Lisboa Benfica
Da corrupção dos árbitros
À corrupção dos autarcas
De Fátima Felgueiras
A Isaltino Morais
Da Braga parques
Ao grande empresário Bibi
Das queixas tardias de Catalina Pestana
Às de João Cravinho
As operações imobiliárias da Obriverca
As alterações dos PDMs para beneficiar construtores.
As acusações feitas por Marinho Pinto bastonário da Ordem dos
Advogados e que o MP prometeu investigar.
Dos doentes infectados por acidente e negligência com o vírus da sida?
Do miúdo electrocutado no semáforo
Do outro afogado num parque aquático?
Das crianças assassinadas na Madeira
Do mistério dos crimes imputados ao padre Frederico?
Do autarca alentejano queimado no seu carro e cuja cabeça foi roubada
do Instituto de Medicina Legal?
A miúda desaparecida em Figueira?
Todas as crianças desaparecida antes delas, quem as procurou?
As famosas fotografias de Teresa Costa Macedo? Aquelas em que ela reconheceu imensa gente ‘importante’, jogadores de futebol, milionários, políticos, onde estão?
Os crimes de evasão fiscal de Artur Albarran
Os negócios escuros do grupo Carlyle do senhor Carlucci em Portugal,
onde é que isso pára?
O mesmo grupo Carlyle onde labora o ex-ministro Martins da Cruz, apeado por causa de um pequeno crime sem importância, o da cunha para a sua filha. A distribuição aos amigos das casas da Câmara de Lisboa
Pois é… a justiça portuguesa está de Parabéns!
Depois de anos e anos a batalhar eis que surgem os primeiros resultados.
Prenderam um jovem que fez um download de música …
YEAAAAAAAAH!… VIVA!!!!
Primeiro português condenado à prisão por pirataria musical na Internet!… O Indivíduo poderá passar entre 60 a 90 dias atrás das grades por ter feito o download e partilhado música ilegalmente com outros utilizadores!…
Confirmam-se as declarações do Bastonário dos Advogados:
‘O Ministério Público é muito forte com os fracos e muito fraco com os fortes’, afirmou. ‘Existe em Portugal uma criminalidade muito importante, do mais nocivo para o Estado e para a sociedade, e andam por aí alguns impunemente a exibir os benefícios e os lucros dessa criminalidade, sem haver para lhes tocar. Alguns até ocupam cargos relevantes no aparelho de Estado português, ostensivamente’, afirmou Marinho Pinto, citado pelos jornais portugueses. Segundo afirmou, ‘o fenómeno da corrupção é um dos cenários que mais ameaça a saúde do Estado de direito em Portugal’.
[E podemos já juntar mais uns escândalos de BPN e BPP's ... vergonhoso, e os verdadeiros culpados? Todos nós!]
This was an unexpected invitation. To give a lecture at my former High School on my work about cetaceans. The title of the venue was “A escola convida” (School Invitational). For sure that I was very flattered and honoured by such call. Some of my former teachers were present which gave a nice touch to the occasion. The presentation focused 5 distinct species but a special focus on the current trends of the whaling issue and how to circunvent them.
Credits were given to Global Ocean and its support of my work since South America, then the Caribbean and lately Africa.
In the end many question were made but this time I knew more about a topic on discussion then them, I Guess this is the evolution ans specialization of science. I was also given a gift as a sign of gratitude, very nice!
Definition of Corruption:
- corruptness: lack of integrity or honesty (especially susceptibility to bribery); use of a position of trust for dishonest gain
- putrescence: in a state of progressive putrefaction
- decay of matter (as by rot or oxidation)
- moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles; “the luxury and corruption among the upper classes”; “moral degeneracy followed intellectual degeneration”; “its brothels, its opium parlors, its depravity”; “Rome had fallen into moral putrefaction”
- destroying someone’s (or some group’s) honesty or loyalty; undermining moral integrity; “corruption of a minor”; “the big city’s subversion of rural innocence”
- inducement (as of a public official) by improper means (as bribery) to violate duty (as by commiting a felony); “he was held on charges of corruption and racketeering”
Transparency International released (some time ago) the report on their project – Corruption Perceptions Index 2007: Persistent corruption in low-income countries requires global action
It has 179 countries with 1 being the less corrupted.
On the top 10 of less corrupted countries we have: Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada and Norway.
The ten more corrupted are: Somalia, Myanmar, Iraq Haiti, Uzbekistan, Tonga, Sudan, Chad, Afghanistan and Laos.
Portugal is on the number 29, Uruguay on the 25 and Argentina on the 105th position.
Sao tome and Principe the country I’m work on at the moment is on 118.
Yesterday (9th May) we were at the Japanese Embassy demanding the withdrawal of the proposal it has to host the 2009 IWC meeting.
Things looked a bit grim to start with; I locked myself out of my car, so I had to highjack my own vehicle, got lost in Lisbon, got stuck in the traffic but managed to arrive at the venue in time.
There were 13 people there, posters and banners in hand, headed in the embassy and asked to speak with someone from the Japanese Embassy. After having to present ID and so on to the police force appointed to “take care” of us, we ere received by 2 Japanese delegates, delivered our message for them to convey to Tokyo: please withdraw your proposal, we would appreciate it!
They asked us to make an appointment next time in order to have the appropriate person to discuss the subject with us, I said yes. But I’m still wondering if they want us to make an prior arrangement to be sure next time we wouldn’t get in the building even or not … (see video below)
