This letter was written before GPUSA and its allies succeeded in passing a somewhat-amended "dolphin death act" in 1997, but it is a good primer on where GPUSA was coming from during this period. Of course, in this text Phillips is referring to GPUSA when he uses the work "Greenpeace", and notes that Greenpeace Foundation is a member of his coalition. TO: Members of the Environmental Community FROM: David Phillips, International Marine Mammal Project, Earth Island Institute RE: Greenpeace and the Tuna/Dolphin Issue DATE: December 10, 1996 We do not relish the fact that we felt compelled to counter what we viewed as Greenpeace's dangerous support for the "Dolphin Death Act" (H.R.2823 and S.1420) while the legislation was being considered this year by the U.S. Congress. It was very difficult for us to expose this policy schism within the environmental community. However, in the end, our allegiance to the issue of dolphin protection and our commitment to the progress that has been made to date in reducing dolphin deaths took precedence over our concern for inter-organizational harmony. Recently, Greenpeace took out an ad in the Nation magazine and sent out a fundraising mailing to its members, concerning its support for the Dolphin Death Act, which was blocked in the final days of the l04th Congress. While claiming to "set the record straight", the Greenpeace ad and letter instead have just the opposite effect. The following examination of Greenpeace's arguments demonstrates, we believe, the weaknesses in their failed tuna/dolphin policy: Greenpeace's claim that they support "strengthening" the criteria for the "dolphin-safe" label is untrue. In fact, Greenpeace supported legislation that would so severely weaken the dolphin-safe label as to make it worthless. Greenpeace favored a definition of "dolphin-safe" that would have allowed speedboats and helicopters to chase down and encircle millions of dolphins in mile-long nets, where they are trapped, stressed, injured, and in many cases killed. Mothers are separated from their young. Under Greenpeace's legislation, unless an on-board observer can confirm that a dolphin was killed, the entire load of tuna would have been certified "dolphin-safe." Under the current federal definition, if a vessel uses this inherently dangerous fishing method at any time during its entire trip -- a method that has been responsible for the killing of more than 7 million dolphins since its invention in the late 1950's -- then the tuna cannot be labeled as "dolphin-safe." Nowhere does Greenpeace ever reveal that they now support the traumatic encirclement of dolphins, or why they have changed position. There are numerous threats to dolphins posed by the encirclement technique. Studies by National Marine Fisheries Service personnel have demonstrated serious physiological damage to dolphins from capture stress. Injured dolphins that still show any signs of life are not considered "dead" by observers. Sea conditions, low light levels, skipper interference, and numerous other problems prevent observers from being able to accurately determine whether dolphins are killed. Thankfully, consumers have spoken out and let it be known that they don't want to buy tuna caught by these horrendous methods. Greenpeace's claim that it supports a stronger label is not supported by the facts. Greenpeace's allegations about Earth Island Institute finances are unfounded. Greenpeace's claim that StarKist, Bumblebee and other tuna giants who control the US market pay EII hundreds of thousand of dollars each year is simply false. Greenpeace's proposed policy to "sav(e) more dolphins" will result in the deaths of more dolphins. In 1995, 3,274 dolphins were observed killed in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean tuna fishery, and the estimate is that the 1996 kill will be less than 3,000. Greenpeace's position is that all current tuna import embargoes should be lifted, that the weaker dolphin-safe label be allowed, and that the level of allowable observed dolphin kill be set at 5,000. There are no provisions in the legislation that Greenpeace supported to require reduction of dolphin mortality levels below 5,000 in perpetuity. If the Dolphin Death Act had passed, the economic incentive provided by the opening of the lucrative US tuna markets would have dramatically increased the number of vessels setting nets on dolphins. Two thousand or more additional dolphins would be killed, before reaching Greenpeace's acceptable limit. This would not save more dolphins. Greenpeace claims they have not reversed their position on the tuna/dolphin issue. This is untrue. There can be no dispute that Greenpeace has reversed its position. "The practice of encircling dolphins and consequently killing millions has been occurring for over thirty years. Attempts to fine tune technology and/or reduce mortality has involved numerous, extensive and costly hearings, legislation and litigation....These mortality estimates do not count animals that may die because of crushed bones, flipper or rostrum loss or other mortal injuries. Nor do they take into effect deaths which may occur due to separation from mothers, other pod members or due to stress. The problem is that as long as dolphins are chased and encircled as a means to catch tuna fish, there will be dolphins dying from the practice. We recognize that much of the reported mortality is not due to inept or insensitive skippers. Instead, it is due to an inherently flawed fishing practice." -- Greenpeace Testimony to US Congress; April 3, 1990 Yet now, Greenpeace fully condones the practice of setting nets on dolphins, refusing to acknowledge the injury and death inherent in the practice. We believe that this represents a reversal. Greenpeace's assertion that the Dolphin Death Act was killed because of a campaign of "distortion" is untrue. In fact, the Dolphin Death Act was killed because of strong opposition by a coalition of environmental organizations and environmental members of Congress. Look at the roster of organizations opposing the bill Greenpeace supported: Sierra Club, The Humane Society of the U.S., American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, International Wildlife Coalition, American Oceans Campaign, EarthTrust, Friends of the Earth, Cetacean Society International, Public Citizen, Massachusetts Audubon Society, Greenpeace Foundation, Animal Protection Institute, Earth Island Institute, Friends of Animals, Fund for Animals, In Defense of Animals, and 50 additional organizations. Jacques-Yves Cousteau, Jean-Michel Cousteau, and Dr. Roger Payne are among the many scientists who opposed Greenpeace's bill. The bill was also opposed by virtually every key Congressmember involved in devising the original dolphin protection legislation that has been so successful, including Sens. Barbara Boxer and Joseph Biden, and Reps. Gerry Studds and George Miller. Alexander Cockburn's statement in The Nation regarding Greenpeace's support for the bill is particularly revealing: "A quick answer to [Greenpeace Executive Director] Dudley's absurd claim that her bill was progressive. Look who was fighting for it! Those eternal allies of the rape-and-pillage crowd -- Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative Don Young of Alaska. Who led the fight against the bill? Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Represenatives Gerry Studds of Massachusetts and George Miller of California. Enough said." It wasn't "distortions" that killed the bill; it was opposition from a huge group of organizations and members of Congress who believed that Greenpeace's dolphin position was dead wrong. Greenpeace falsely claims that EII only cares about encirclement of dolphins by the US fleet. Wrong. Earth Island Institute and other members of our coalition have maintained a consistent position against the encirclement of dolphins by all nations. Beginning in 1988, EII went to court six separate times, winning a string of landmark legal victories requiring the US government to impose embargoes against foreign fleets using the encirclement technique. No organization has been more clear in its opposition to the use of the encirclement technique by all fleets, US and foreign. EII fought hard and successfully to ensure that the dolphin-safe label bans tuna caught by open-ocean driftnets, and EII spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year around the world to maintain independent monitors in canneries to uphold the dolphin-safe standard. Further, Earth Island Institute has taken significant steps to assist foreign fishermen in developing markets for tuna caught by methods that do not chase, encircle, injure, and kill dolphins. Earth Island works with truly dolphin-safe fishing fleets in Mexico to help them find markets for their tuna in Europe and to confirm that the proper certifications are in place for this to be properly considered "dolphin-safe." More than one-third of the vessels in the foreign purse-seine fleet are now making dolphin safe trips as a result of efforts by Earth Island Institute to close the markets for dolphin-death tuna. Greenpeace continues to call the Panama Declaration a "binding agreement". It is not. The Panama Declaration merely calls for negotiations to begin to set up a "binding" agreement among the nations. Such negotiations have never been undertaken, because they were predicated on the US first dropping all its embargoes against the import of dolphin-deadly tuna, caught by methods known to kill thousands of dolphins annually. The U.S. State Department has, itself, conceded that the Panama Declaration is not legally binding, nor an international treaty obligation. We at Earth Island Institute continue to believe that the Dolphin Death Act is a severe threat to dolphin protection, and should be strenuously opposed. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding Greenpeace's claims or other aspects of the legislation. Note from GPF: GPUSA and its allies succeeded in passing a slightly-amended version of the "Dolphin Death Act" in late 1997. The USA's oldest and original Greenpeace, proudly unaffiliated with Greenpeace USA