Letters & Opinion

Support Theory for Dolphin Park

AS the dolphin saga continues, some of us who remain neutral can probably offer a more balanced outlook. My immediate response to those against the project, can you provide the real reasons surrounding the project bearing in mind that the following scenarios exist.

  1. St Lucia has and continues to offer support to Japan in respect to the whaling industry.
  2. St. Lucians continue to eat our porpoises
  3. The dolphins for the proposed park were both born and raised in captivity
  4. It has been proven that dolphins existing in captivity if released into the wild will not survive based on their protected upbringing.
  5. Government presently provides an annual subvention of EC$750,000.00 from tax payer’s funds to support Pigeon Island. On the other hand, if EC$2 million annually can be earned from the investors of the Dolphin park and paid to the Trust, this would reduce the financial responsibility on an overburdened administration.
  6. There is a market for visitors who prefer dolphin parks verses whale watchers.
  7. Both markets co-exist in several countries, so why can’t the concept co-exist at home?
  8. A dolphin park is simply another attraction available to our visitors.
  9. Along with the facility, there are a number of subsidiary support systems which young St. Lucians can be trained for (specialists in the field of medical and pharmaceutical enhancement, training of our youth in caring for various species involved in the park as it will be more than Dolphins within the compound.)
  10. We live in a global village and we cannot allow ourselves to remain in isolation.
  11. The wishes of 200 persons at a National Trust should not take precedence over a population of 170,000. Emotions are one thing, reality is another.
  12. It should be recalled that twenty-five (25) years ago, the Trust argued vehemently against the use of Pigeon Island for the Jazz festival. Pigeon Island became a new landmark as a result. (CHANGE IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY).
  13. With these facts on hand, St. Lucians can now judge for themselves the pros and cons of a Dolphin park.

– C. Deterville


  1. Can you please tell me where there is porpoise for sale to eat in St. Lucia? I have never seen it. I would never eat it I just want to know where is this porpoise for sale? The wishes of 200 St. Lucians? Are you sleeping? Have you not seen the petitions and comments of St. Lucians? Have you seen the travel industry people who will not suggest St. Lucia as a destination? Dolphins should not be held captive…period. Now, go back to sleep.

  2. HAIL THE I RASTAFARI…When the people and leaders lack genuine spiritual morality, it breeds distorted vision, thus resulting in economic dependency. Now that modern materially-advantaged countries are increasingly recognizing the abuse of animals at such recreational companies, they are enacting laws to protect the animals. Conversely, less developed countries, because of so many historical scars, are desperate to provide for their citizens; resulting in questionable business endeavors such as the dolphin park. My suggestion is that for a period of time the government should simultaneously allow the dolphin park, while more than ever develop and encourage spirituality, together with innovative and creative sciences. Remember, it’s because of the lack of righteousness a people and country eventually perish…

    1. Now that the multiple posts of Son-of-Man are gone, I thought the Rastas disappeared from these comments.
      Less developed countries must provide for their citizens? How about the citizens stopping to multiply like rats in the first place?

  3. You say pros and cons but your argument is completely one-sided.

    The reason many of our EXISTING tourists come to St. Lucia is because we are NOT like the other places that have high rises and dolphin jails. We are unique.
    SO you risk pissing off our current market to trying and capture a piece of another market that is already in decline.
    86% of British tourists say that they WILL NOT visit a facility with captive dolphins as per the Daily Mail TODAY.


  4. There is nothing ” neutral” about this piece. The wishes of the 200 or so people in attendance at the NT meeting are just the tip of an iceberg of protest, as evidenced by the thousands who have signed the petitions against the proposal for a so-called dolphin park/ dolphinarium. The notion that because some people may or may not eat dolphin meat, somehow negates the outrage felt by thousands of St. Lucians over this proposal, is spurious at best. The global village in which we live is increasingly aware of the detriments keeping sentient beings in captivity simply for the amusement of bored humans, which begs the question as to why St. Lucia would wish to use this retrograde step to appeal to an ever decreasing market. Of the possible 60 jobs touted as an outcome of this proposed park – has anyone bothered to ascertain just how many of them would be held by St. Lucians anyway? To try to equate the seasonal or occasional use of the Park for revenue generating activity – which leaves the site fundamentally unharmed – with a proposal which would perms toy scar the site and threaten the already non-invasive commercial activity held there, is an argument of false equivalence and therefore misleading. Arguing that any dolphins to be used in the proposed park which have been born and raised in captivity, leaving them unable to survive in the wild, is actually an argument against the continued practice of keeping these a Imals in captivity. To say that, because there is a market for this ” attraction” it should be given a green light, is facile. In some parts of the world there is a” market” for sex tourism involving children – should St. Lucia explore this avenue also? Finally, St. Lucia may continue to ” support” Japan in respect of Japan’s stance towards whaling – making St. Lucia wrong in that regard also.
    There is no place for this dolphin park in St. Lucia. Not on Pigeon Island; not anywhere, and when our Prime Minister’s primary argument in defense of this flawed proposal involves hurling insults at those who oppose it, it suggests he may not be on firm ground.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.