We at Greenpeace Foundation (a U.S. organization) have been conducting high-profile campaigns on behalf of marine mammals since 1976, many of which have received international attention. Most people, if they think of it at all, think of the word "Greenpeace" associated with saving marine mammals, and automatically assume that anything endorsed by a "Greenpeace" group is in the best interests of these species. Thus, it was something of a shock for those who saw a series of expose ads run by pro-dolphin organizations, including a full-page Los Angeles Times ad dated April 16, 1997, which showed GPUSA Executive Director Barbara Dudley featured prominently with the principle congressional backers of the "dolphin death bills" then in congress. This well-written ad (which also ran in other papers) asked the very pertinent question of why GPUSA was aligning itself with the most anti-environment members of Congress to gut the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. (which they subsequently succeeded in doing) Why Indeed. The Marine Mammal Protection Act and its associated dolphin-protection legislation were some of the most effect environmental protection laws in history. Using the leverage of the U.S. marketplace, the annual dolphin kills were cut from hundreds of thousands per year to a small fraction of that number. The high standards set by these laws cut the U.S. dolphin kill to zero and the non-US kill to about 3000 dolphins per year. But the Dolphin-safe victory was also a victory of U.S. law over Central American dolphin-killers, and as such was apparently opposed on principle by GPUSA. Moreover, GPUSA and its affiliates were apparently more than willing to sacrifice the dolphins for issues they considered more pressing. In a 1995 interview with Wild Forest Review, GPUSA Director Dudley reportedly said "Concentrating on the whale and dolphin is counter-productive.... Dictating the fishing practices of third-world countries makes it difficult for us to negotiate with them on how they dump their waste". In a quote from Dudley published in the LA Times (Alexander Cockburn, "Big Greens Double-Dealing Dooms Dolphins", 7/25/96), she said of the issue, "The current dolphin-safe tuna laws represent a kind of green protectionism. We need to give third world nations economic incentives to protect the oceans". In fact, to undo this "green protectionism", GPUSA and its unsavory allies spent the next year gutting the U.S. dolphin-protection laws, striking down the strong economic incentives which had driven down the dolphin kills in the "third world" and everywhere else. In reality, the "net effect" of their program was to curry favor with the Clinton/Gore administration and their own Latin American offices by striking down the U.S. embargoes and letting dolphin-deadly tuna flow into the U.S. market. It was about fraudulently re-defining the term "dolphin safe" and embracing, as an organization, the deadly practice of chasing and setting nets around dolphins. This wasn't simply a disagreement in conservation strategy between Greenpeace Foundation and GPUSA. That can, and does, occur in the movement between honorable groups. Rather, this was a campaign of lies, distortion, and dubious motives which aligned GPUSA with anti-environment legislators against virtually every conservation organization which had done any significant work on the issue. GPUSA created long "position papers" claiming that its work was really a dolphin-saving measure. To those of us acquainted with the real issues, this was some of the most disgusting doublespeak ever created around an environmental issue, eclipsing even some of the rhetoric of the infamous Japan Whaling Association. Those looking for an unbiased arbiter of the truth needed look no farther than the late oceanographer and dolphin advocate Jacques Cousteau, whose last request to the U.S. congress was to oppose the GPUSA-backed legislation. However, at this point we needn't wonder at the strong feelings of Captain Cousteau, or the 85 organizations of the Dolphin Safe/Fair Trade Campaign which opposed the GPUSA-backed bills, for it's now a year later and we may examine the actual RESULTS of the GPUSA dolphin sellout. The facts are clear: the dolphins lost when GPUSA won. The USA's oldest and original Greenpeace, proudly unaffiliated with Greenpeace USA