 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
GreenpeaceUSA has continued its spate of bogus statements in support of the dolphin death act. Since we originally founded that corporation and got it into the dolphin issue years ago, we feel responsible to point out, as a public service, the lies, errors, and omissions in it's current press releases. As it turns out, this is a big job, because its statements on this subject bear almost no relation to reality at this point. The latest GreenpeaceUSA press release is shown in red below, with the refutation in black. Many media and individuals are taking releases like this one at face value because they are issued under the respected "Greenpeace" name. You may imagine the distress this causes those of us who actually created the original Greenpeace dolphin campaign. This rebuttal was written by Don White. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE This decision reflects no success at all, except the success of Mexico, Al Gore, and GreenpeaceUSA in gutting formerly-strong U.S. dolphin-safe law. The decision by the Secretary of Commerce was made exclusively due to the *absence of proof* that chasing and setting nets around dolphins to catch tuna is what is preventing their recovery. There is no disputing the fact that this practice is what decimated their numbers in the first place; there's just "insufficient proof" that continuing to set these nets on them is what is causing their failure to rebound to pre-exploitation levels. Inasmuch as there is no way to obtain such proof with existing or proposed research, don't expect the government to change its tune anytime soon. Why aren't the dolphin populations recovering? Apparently the U.S., Mexico, and GreenpeaceUSA would like us to believe that "unknown factors" may be causing it. This, despite the fact that the only factor ever documented to have affected dolphin populations in the ETP is chasing and setting nets around them. Secretary of Commerce William Daley and GreenpeaceUSA are ignoring the extensive study conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) which documents beyond a doubt that dolphin populations are "failing to recover" and that the primary reason is the chasing and netting of dolphins by the tuna fishery. By ignoring science and common sense, GreenpeaceUSA is putting international politics above environmental law, setting a dangerous precedent for other environmental laws and condemning hundreds of thousands of dolphins to death in the nets, all labeled with a bogus "dolphin safe" label. Citing a more than 90 percent reduction in dolphin deaths in this fishery since the agreement took effect in 1992, Greenpeace's Gerald Leape said it is appropriate for the US to now modify the definition of "dolphin-safe." The reductions in dolphin kill were exclusively obtained by the formerly strong U.S. dolphin-safe laws. Simply put, this froze the dolphin-killers out of the most lucrative tuna market and gave them a choice of fishing dolphin-safe or selling their catch at a cheaper price. This saved a huge number of dolphins. GreenpeaceUSA lobbied successfully to gut these laws. The numbers quoted by Leape are apparently data from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). The IATTC, during the recent review by the Secretary of Commerce, stated that its own data on dolphin populations should not be considered since it was unreliable, an extraordinary admission for the group which is being given authority over the entire dolphin-kill issue. IATTC data on dolphin kills may indeed be expected to be unreliable: Mexico, the main nation in the fishery, is not even a member! The claimed "kill reductions" are more an artifact of a loose procedure for counting dead dolphins than any change in fishing methodology by these nations, because there HAS BEEN NO change in fishing methodology. None. Let's remember that until GreenpeaceUSA and its allies opened the U.S. market to dolphin-deadly tuna in 1997, these nations' tuna products were embargoed by law since they advocated dolphin-deadly fishing practices. In fact, the new International Agreement does specify that sea turtles (only) be released alive, an original proposal from the Dolphin Safe/Fair Trade Campaign, which GreenpeaceUSA originally opposed in Congress as a matter of record. Aside from this, there has been no effort expended to modify gear to reduce bycatch, nor any data produced by anyone showing a bycatch reduction in this fishery. GreenpeaceUSA's statement is an oblique reference to its theory that increasing sets "on dolphins" will reduce bycatch of other species. This is boneheaded logic at best, and cynical "spin" at worst. While "log" sets - setting nets on floating objects instead of dolphins - do have higher bycatch than other sets, the enormous reduction in bycatch in this fishery over the last 10 years was directly a result of the dolphin-safe standards that GreenpeaceUSA and its allies have now struck down. The facts? The dolphin-safe standard caused all U.S. vessels fishing "on dolphins" in the ETP to move to the western pacific to supply "dolphin safe" product, drastically lessening the number of both "dolphin sets" and "log sets" and saving these other species along with the dolphins. By fraudulently re-defining the "dolphin safe" term to allow dolphin-killing boats in the ETP to market their product in the USA, GreenpeaceUSA and its allies have encouraged the fleet to return to the ETP. This will not only mean more dolphin deaths, but more bycatch. Fishermen fish opportunistically in the ETP, and do not pass up log sets to seek dolphin herds, so even increasing dolphin sets will not reduce bycatch. Indeed, Mexico and other ETP fishing nations have plans to substantially increase their tuna fleets in the ETP, and more fishing boats inevitably mean more dolphin and "log" sets. And regardless of boat number, under the "New Agreement" touted by GreenpeaceUSA, once the "dolphin safe" vessels reach their "dolphin kill quota" each year, they will switch to "log" sets. So the "net result" of this new policy will be more boats in the ETP, more dolphin sets, and more log sets. All bycatch - dolphins, turtles, sharks, billfish, etc - may be expected to rise once the fishing effort intensifies in the area. The reductions in dolphin deaths, with an eventual goal of zero dolphin deaths per year, was one goal of the International Dolphin Conservation Program created by the 12 nations in November 1997. The U.S. was the first to ratify the agreement on January 21, 1998. On March 7, 1999, the agreement entered into force with its fourth ratification. This agreement didn't even EXIST until March of '99, so how can GreenpeaceUSA claim that it was responsible for fishery improvements since 1992? More importantly, GreenpeaceUSA itself acknowledged in its press release after the drafting of the international dolphin agreement that the agreement does >NOT< reduce dolphin deaths and that GreenpeaceUSA was disappointed that it did not include measures to reduce dolphin deaths. The new agreement has no enforcement powers -- it was amended by Mexico to specifically preclude enforcement by signatory countries "in keeping with national laws". Thus, even by the lights of its own previous press releases, this latest release deceptively glosses over a bad situation. Among the precedents set by this agreement, nations fishing for tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific agreed to: This is a lie. The dolphin kill prior to this was 2500, not 6500, so 5000 kills was an immediate RISE in the kill quota. This doubled the actual reported level of kill. In addition, the agreement does nothing to reduce deaths of dolphins that are un-reported, but have been documented by the NMFS study as responsible for the lack of recovery of the dolphin populations despite the low kill rate 'reported'. It is also a lie that continual reductions in kill are mandated: on the contrary, based on the agreement's wording the kill quota of 5000 will not go down and may be expected to rise. Finding still a third lie in this short excerpt, it is untrue that there is any real goal of a zero kill. Under this new regime, any vessels which have NOT admitted reaching their "dolphin kill quota" by halfway through the fishing season can transfer their "kill credits" to boats which have reached their kill limits. This assures that the 5000 kill quota will be reached each year. Does this sound like a fishery with a zero mortality goal? § significantly reduce kills of specific dolphin species that are most frequently targeted by those who encircle dolphins; Such an agreement means nothing. The IATTC has been unable thus far to even agree on how this reduced quota will be allocated, so there is no effective species by species quota in force. The IATTC has exacted such agreements before to no effect. Tunaboats in the ETP set on whatever dolphins they see, period. Species often swim together, and the morphological differences between these species is impossible to ascertain from a tunaboat's helicopter. The reason these dolphin species are most frequently targeted is that they are the most likely to have tuna swimming below them, which are visible from the helicopter. To believe that captains in this highly competitive business will pass them by to instead go looking for species with fewer tuna under them is unrealistic to the point of fantasy. § implement a bycatch reduction program for sharks, billfish, sea turtles and juvenile tuna; This is a lie, except in the limited sense that individual vessels will now be allowed to do more dolphin sets and will thus POSSIBLY do fewer "log" sets. Since the number of vessels in the fishery is not limited, the gross bycatch will be expected to increase with vessels returning to the ETP to set on dolphins and with huge fleet expansion plans by Mexico and other tuna-fishing nations. Under GreenpeaceUSA's new version of "dolphin safe", boats will be able to fish "dolphin deadly" in one set, "dolphin safe" in the next, and set on "logs" once they have reached their dolphin-kill quota. All this tuna gets mixed together on the same boat, impossible to track. So not only is there no "bycatch reduction program", bycatch may be expected to rise. Moreover, any rational biologist assessing the impact of bycatch is concerned with the impact on the species with the lowest reproductive potential. In this case, that species is the dolphins, and yet GreenpeaceUSA has endorsed shifting bycatch biomass grossly toward more dolphins. § set sustainable catch quotas for tuna and require the closure of the fishery if limits are reached; This is a red herring. The new agreement is for dolphins, not tuna catch! The sustainability of the tuna catch has not been in question. Both skipjack and yellowfin tuna populations in the ETP are healthy and rebound well; this in contrast to the dolphins, who have not regained their former populations in 30 years. § require 100% observer coverage to verify compliance with all aspects of the program. ETP tuna boats have had 100% observer coverage for years! The new IATTC observer program is a bad joke. These observers have no enforcement role, and are subject to harassment, coercion and bribery to the point where their data will be meaningless. Nations such as Mexico get to hire their own observers. Not only is Mexico not a member of the IATTC, but it has inserted language into the "agreement" which prevent its citizens from being penalized under the "agreement" if they are caught violating it. Ay Chihuahua! "The Commerce Department's first year's study indicates that the marine ecosystem as a whole, and dolphins in particular, are faring better now than they were prior to this international fishing agreement," Leape said. "Greenpeace believes the US should encourage the nations fishing in the Eastern Tropical Pacific to stick with this program and keep moving toward a goal of zero dolphin deaths." This is utter BS. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has concluded that there is no recovery of the depleted dolphin species in the ETP, and furthermore some of the target species of dolphins are still in decline, according to available evidence. GreenpeaceUSA is lying. The Secretary of Commerce disregarded his own government's study conclusions. He also disregarded the more-complete data of the IATTC which showed even less recovery by the dolphins. For GreenpeaceUSA and the Secretary to conclude on one hand that this data is unusable, and alternately that it shows an improvement, is hypocrisy. However, Leape added that Greenpeace would hold the Administration accountable for completing the mandated three-year survey on the health of three key dolphin species, and for upholding its commitment to revisit today's decision if dolphins are not recovering. Oh please. GreenpeaceUSA has already sided with the adminstration as it reversed the "precautionary principle" and in effect laid the "burden of proof" on the dolphins and not the dolphin-killers. This dangerous precedent - that "no news is good news" - means that these dolphins' survival is now in doubt. If GreenpeaceUSA applied this same standard to its whaling campaign, it would require marine scientists to assume that continuing to harpoon depleted whale populations did not pose a significant problem for their recovery, despite the fact that harpooning is what depleted them in the first place. Abandoning the "precautionary principle" in this way would place GPUSA in the camp of the world's most rabid outlaw whalers. Yet they have done exactly this with the ETP dolphin kill issue, hiding behind euphemisms and lies. Indeed, GreenpeaceUSA's endorsed kill of 5000 dolphins per year amounts to more cetacean kills than all whales killed by the world's whalers. What's wrong with this picture? And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, why would Leape note that the government should "revisit this decision" if dolphins are not recovering? Is this not a tacit admission by GreenpeaceUSA of the truth - that this is NOT a dolphin-saving program? If Leape and GreenpeaceUSA believe that this program will save dolphins, why should it be reconsidered three years from now when dolphin numbers plummet further? In summary, then, GreenpeaceUSA: Has ignored scientific data supplied by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service that the dolphin populations are not recovering; Has ignored the 85 other environmental and animal welfare organizations that opposed this action by the Commerce Secretary; Has ignored the welfare of U.S. consumers by giving them a fraudulent "dolphin safe" label that in fact means that dolphins are harassed, netted, and even killed (but not reported); and Has ignored the three largest tuna companies in the world -- Starkist, BumbleBee, and Chicken of the Sea -- who have pledged to maintain their standards of truly "dolphin safe' tuna by not buying or selling any tuna caught by chasing and netting dolphins. It's unpleasant, but let's face it: GreenpeaceUSA has far lower 'dolphin safe' standards than these tuna firms, and is willing to lie profusely to sell a fraudulent standard to the public. 
|
The USA's oldest and original Greenpeace, proudly unaffiliated with Greenpeace USA