Animal Friends Jogja (AFJ) and the Society for Animal Care express their OBJECTION and URGE the CANCELLATION of the plan to build a dolphinarium, a facility for dolphins that are now highly protected. Simultaneously, AFJ held a demonstration in front of the UGM roundabout on Monday (6/06) yesterday.
DZ. Angelina Pane, who is in charge of leading the movement, emphasizes that findings from behavioral studies show that dolphin shows, health therapy facilities with the help of dolphins, and other forms of confinement are psychologically harmful to dolphins and provide misleading information about their intellectual capacity.
The idea of a dolphinarium itself originated from Drh. Yuda Heru Febrianto, MP., Ph.D., the chair of the physiological department at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine UGM, and he has worked for PT WS. “He has a very close connection with PT WS, which also owns a dolphin circus,” says Angelina.
The AFJ has tried to engage in dialogue with UGM, whether with the dean or the rector. “We went directly to UGM a few days ago, and we have also sent letters, both through email and print, but there has been no response until now, even though the plan to build the dolphinarium has been in place since April 2011,” Angelina revealed.
Research to obtain valid data regarding dolphins should be conducted in their natural habitat, using methods that prioritize the rights of animals and ethical treatment towards the animals involved.
“With this action, we declare that research on wild animals, especially dolphins, should be conducted in their natural habitat. Research conducted should pay attention to the welfare, protection, and conservation of the animals,” she concluded.
The objection raised by AFJ and the Society for Animal Care regarding the construction of a dolphinarium is based on valid concerns regarding the welfare and conservation of dolphins. Dolphins are highly intelligent and social creatures that thrive in their natural habitat. Placing them in captivity for the purpose of entertainment and therapy raises ethical questions and poses risks to their physical and psychological well-being.
Studies have consistently shown that dolphins in captivity experience stress and suffer from various health issues. Confinement in small tanks limits their ability to swim and engage in natural behaviors, leading to physical and mental deterioration. Moreover, the training techniques used in dolphinariums often involve coercion and deprivation, which further compromise the well-being of these intelligent creatures.
The argument put forward by the proponents of the dolphinarium, including Drh. Yuda Heru Febrianto, implies that such a facility would contribute to scientific research and education. However, it is important to note that research on dolphins can be conducted in their natural habitat, where they can exhibit their natural behaviors and live in an environment that promotes their well-being.
Several countries and jurisdictions have recognized the ethical concerns surrounding the captivity of dolphins and have taken steps to ban or restrict dolphinariums. For example, India implemented a nationwide ban on the importation of dolphins for public display in 2013. Similarly, several states in the United States, including California and New York, have prohibited the captivity of dolphins for entertainment purposes.
The concerns raised by AFJ and the Society for Animal Care are not unfounded. The welfare and conservation of dolphins should be prioritized over entertainment and commercial interests. It is crucial for UGM to reconsider its plans for the construction of the dolphinarium and instead support research and initiatives that promote the well-being and protection of dolphins in their natural environment.
Furthermore, it is essential for UGM to engage in meaningful dialogue with AFJ and other concerned organizations. Ignoring their objections and failing to respond to their letters and demonstrations undermines the principles of transparency and accountability that should guide decision-making processes.
UGM, as an esteemed educational institution, has a responsibility to uphold ethical standards and promote the welfare of animals. By canceling the plan for the dolphinarium and actively supporting research and conservation efforts, UGM can demonstrate its commitment to environmental sustainability and the well-being of all living beings.
In conclusion, the objection raised by AFJ and the Society for Animal Care regarding the construction of a dolphinarium is based on valid concerns for the welfare and conservation of dolphins. It is crucial for UGM to reconsider its plans and prioritize the well-being of dolphins over entertainment and commercial interests. By supporting research and initiatives that promote the welfare of dolphins in their natural habitat, UGM can uphold its ethical responsibilities and contribute to the protection of these intelligent and social creatures.
