Commentary - Give Flipper a break
published: Sunday | September 28, 2003

Max E. Lambie, Contributor

DIANA MCCAULEY of the Jamaica Environ-mental Trust has made it clear, that she disapproves of the dolphins kept in captivity over at Ocho Rios' Dolphin Cove and the matter has generated some debate with us both participating in a local radio programme on the matter.

Except for the fact that our competitors are busily installing additional dolphin attractions I would let the issue lie. But in the particular case of attractions in Ocho Rios, I am perplexed that any other institution other than the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) should take an interest in what happens at Dolphin Cove. After all, the site is a part of the Designated Area Order of 1968 which by Article 4.(4) of the Urban Development Corporation Act (1968) gives them the sole authority to monitor and preserve the marine shoreline and environment under its jurisdiction.

CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY

In fact, I am further perplexed how it is that the enabling legislation that established the National Environmental and Planning Agency (NEAP) can supersede the UDC Act. In Cuba and Cancun, Mexico, such conflict of authority would not happen .

But regardless, I find it necessary to counter and clarify statements made by Ms. McCaulay. For one, she says that literature supporting her charge that captivity is harmful and inhumane to dolphins kept in pens "is readily available". That is not so. I have contacted the four premier institutions that monitor the northern Caribbean and none have such information. They are: the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute of Massachusetts, the Script Institute of San Diego, California and the Marine Studies Institute of the University of Florida and the Agencie de Medio Ambiente of Cuba. In addition, there is the 24-member Association of Island Marine Laboratories (ASIMLC) headquartered in Puerto Rico which publishes regular newsletters. They have never held the view that dolphins such as those penned at Dolphin Cove do the mammals harm and are environmentally unsound.

Moreover, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) enacted by the U.S. Congress has a specific provision that authorises the "holding of marine animals in captivity for the purpose of public display". In addition, since the passage of the MMPA the U.S. federal government requires the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor marine mammals in marine parks. True, there is a fringe cult calling themselves the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) that is against the use of marine animals in attractions. This seems to be the source of Ms. McCaulay's theses. But in the U.S., HSUS's research is no match for that by the 1,100-member public-display Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums (AMMPA) that develops protective procedures for the use of dolphins in attractions. They also operate captive-breeding programmes that now supplies 71 per cent of the dolphins used in attractions. Which brings up another point. Cuba is one of the few areas that has an oversupply of dolphins, so much so that it plays havoc with their fishstock which unlike Jamaica, supplies 60 per cent of its meat.

This marine haven on its south coast is facilitated by having a deep 20-mile continental shelf that yields the most verdant fishlife in the Caribbean. In contrast, the narrow shelf at Galena Point is only half a mile deep. Ms. McCaulay further says that I said that "very little is known about Caribbean [fish] "populations". I never said that! In fact, I said just the opposite. I come from three generations of "fishermen and boaters" in the St. Ann's Bay area, (my late father was the first Chairman of the Beach Control Authority). I said in my article that I know from my own research that there was a pod of 120 dolphins off the Pedro banks and none on the north coast.

She says that "Cuba and Jamaica in all likelihood" share a dolphin stock. This is a speculative statement . But on the radio programme I refuted this inference by stating that none of the boat operators that ply the Port Antonio to Santiago route has ever seen a migratory dolphin path between the two countries. In fact, my intimate knowledge of the oceanography of the Cayman Trench between here and Cuba makes it almost impossible for even the 60-miles-a-day swimming dolphins to cross this treacherous channel. Very few sea life lives or crosses this channel. The reason? The trench is 21,000 feet deep (the second deepest in the world) and drops precipitously to that depth only one mile out of shoreline. It makes the U.S.'s famed Grand Canyon seems like a road, 0 ditch. There are no reefs for feeding fish and none in the 130-mile channel and even at its narrowest point the current will not allow a dolphin to cross back and forth between Cuba and Jamaica. Moreover, the water temperature is the hottest in the world as it is fed by underwater hot gases from the fault and that kills the dolphins.

Finally, Ms. McFarlane states that dolphin mortality increases six-fold during capture and transportation. Who knows how dolphins fare in the wild? Not the Oceanographic vessels of the Woods Hole and Script Institute who are the ones that gave me the data which allowed me to partially refute the charge made by the former U.S. Ambassador that our beaches are polluted.

These vessels often can be seen anchored offshore in Ocho Rios and visit often. The Cuban Aquariums that raise dolphins have offered to have Ms. MacCaulay visit their institutions so that she can observe how dolphins are handled which is in variance with her assertions of "increased mortality" and "manhandling".