From: Merritt Clifton,  editor,  ANIMAL PEOPLE. <anmlpepl@whidbey.com>
To: <gsa@optonline.net>
Date: Saturday, August 11, 2001 3:08 PM
Subject: Guest column

 From ANIMAL PEOPLE,  December 1993:

Guest column:
Attacks on Sea Shepherd are unfair
by Captain Paul Watson

	Much criticism of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has 
come recently from elements in the animal rights movement who accuse 
us of selling out the effort to free captive dolphins.
	I would like to set the record straight and clear up any 
misunderstanding concerning the objectives of Sea Shepherd.  I 
founded Sea Shepherd in 1977 specifically to pursue the 
investigation,  documentation and enforcement of laws against 
activities that threaten the survival of wild marine life.  Sea 
Shepherd is an ecological organization.  Our mandate is the 
conservation of endangered marine species and ecosystems.  We are not 
an animal rights or animal welfare society.  We cooperate with both 
animal rights and animal welfare groups,  and conservation and 
environmental organizations.  Our roots lie in both the environmental 
movement (Greenpeace) and the animal rights movement (Fund for 
Animals,  whose founder,  Cleveland Amory,  enabled us to obtain both 
our first ship and credibility).  Former members of our volunteer 
crew are prominent in both the conservation and animal rights 
movements.
	There can be no argument that Sea Shepherd activities have 
saved the lives of a great many animals and that our contribution 
toward ending whaling,  sealing,  and the killing of dolphins is not 
insignificant.  However,  our contributions seem to be forgotten or 
dismissed by those who object that we champion species and habitat 
survival,  not animal rights,  as our reason for being.  We have been 
criticized for not actively opposing the practice of displaying 
captive dolphins.  This is unfair.  Sea Shepherd does not criticize 
other groups for not doing the specific work that we do in the field. 
The criticism we are taking now is the equivalent of Sea Shepherd 
criticizing The Dolphin Project for not sinking whaling ships.
	I am very much aware that some individuals whose agenda is 
primarily animal rights have used the Sea Shepherd name in the past 
to oppose marine aquariums and captive dolphin programs. 
Unfortunately,  those activities seriously jeopardized our ability to 
directly intervene to protect wildlife in the world's oceans.
	Sea Shepherd activities require very delicate strategies.  We 
walk a fine line between legal and illegal.  To date,  we have 
avoided criminal convictions.  The one exception was when Ben White 
was arrested in Florida for attempting to rescue captive dolphins. 
The attempt failed.  Sea Shepherd was hit with an $8,000 legal bill 
and we narrowly avoided a civil suit.  White acted in Sea Shepherd's 
name without the know-ledge of the Sea Shepherd board.  He was quite 
aware of the Sea Shepherd policy that prohibits any illegal action 
within U.S. territorial waters.  We operate internationally,  and we 
need the sanctuary of the U.S. to be effective.  White's actions 
threatened the security of Sea Shepherd.
	It has been claimed that White resigned from Sea Shepherd in 
protest of our position concerning the dolphins kept by the Mirage 
Hotel,  in Las Vegas.  In fact,  he resigned because the Sea Shepherd 
board would not fund further attempts to free dolphins from U.S. 
facilities.  We did fund attempts to free dolphins in Mexico and the 
Bahamas,  but deliberate lawbreaking and property damage in the U.S. 
could have jeopardized our ships and our ability to campaign 
internationally.  It was our position that opposition to captivity 
programs in the U.S. should utilize the U.S. laws dealing with marine 
mammals,  which despite their faults are the most progressive in the 
world.
	A serious look at the registered objectives of Sea Shepherd 
will reveal that marine mammal captivity issues have never been 
central to our purpose.  We have never publicly criticized groups or 
individuals that champion captive marine and zoo animals; in fact, 
Sea Shepherd officially opposes captivity in principle.  However,  we 
have supported and continue to support the improvement of facilities 
for marine mammals who are captive.  We supported the enlargement of 
pool facilities at the Vancouver Aquarium,  and we support the 
program at the Mirage Hotel,  as well as programs at other facilities 
that rescue dolphins from inferior sites and do not profit from or 
participate in captures from the wild.  We oppose the policies and 
practices of the Shedd Aquarium,  primarily because they do capture 
marine mammals from the wild.  We helped the Save the Beluga Fund to 
intervene in the capture of beluga whales in Hudson's Bay in 1992. 
That protest led directly to the current Canadian ban on beluga 
captures.
	We are now criticized for accepting a contribution from Steve 
Wynn,  who keeps captive dolphins at the Mirage Hotel.  The fact is 
that Wynn volunteered to support our high seas campaigns to stop 
driftnetting back in 1989--with no strings attached.  White went to 
meet Wynn on our behalf and without authorization informed him that 
his support would be accepted only if he discontinued his captive 
dolphin program.  White acted solely on his own beliefs,  and did not 
secure the permission of the Sea Shepherd board in demanding 
conditions from a Sea Shepherd member and backer.
	Following this development,  I investigated the Mirage and 
found that the dolphins kept there had been rescued from inferior 
facilities.  They now receive better care and attention.  Wynn gave 
me his assurance that the Mirage would never consider capturing 
dolphins from the wild.  He also assured me that he would return his 
dolphins to the wild if a program for so doing could be presented to 
him.
	Sea Shepherd holds the position that we cannot support a 
captive dolphin release program until such a program can be 
demonstrated to ensure the continued welfare of the released animals. 
We have not yet seen such a program.  The recent release of Pacific 
dolphins in the Caribbean in the British "Deep Blue" project was 
ecologically irresponsible in our opinion.  I have not yet been 
informed of the results of  Ric O'Barry's dolphin release program, 
nor have I been shown any data as to the consequences of his initial 
release.  I am certainly open-minded enough to change my views if 
O'Barry's program succeeds.

Money isn't the issue

	Unfortunately,  the only feedback I have received from 
O'Barry is that I am a "sellout" to the Mirage and Steve Wynn. 
People are entitled to their opinions,  but we have been offered 
contributions from Sea World and from Six Flags Magic Mountain,  and 
have turned them down.  If money was our only motive,  the offers 
from the two larger corporations were certainly more lucrative. 
O'Barry's criticisms are curious considering that we have a copy of a 
letter from him to Wynn,  dated November 13,  1989,  stating his 
support for the Mirage project,  for which he was then a paid 
consultant.  The letter states that O'Barry will support the Mirage 
as long as dolphins are not captured and that the Mirage improves the 
quality of life for the dolphins it rescues.  I have seen nothing at 
the Mirage that suggests Wynn is doing anything other than what 
O'Barry requested of him.  It was only after Wynn turned down 
O'Barry's application for a trainer's job that O'Barry became 
critical of the Mirage.
	Sea Shepherd accepts Wynn's support because we recognize his 
legitimate concerns as a conservationist.   Wynn has also made many 
efforts that should bring praise from animal people:  he does not 
allow furs to be sold in his hotels;  he encourages nesting peregrine 
falcons on his hotels;  he has hired the Circus du Soleil because it 
does not include animal acts;  and he very early ensured that only 
dolphin-safe tuna would be served in his restaurants.  Steve Wynn 
also purchased the Dunes Hotel and promptly terminated orangutan 
trainer Bobby Berosini's contract.
	We agree that there will always be faults found in any 
captive situation,  and we acknowledge that there are faults at the 
Mirage.  But the relationship between Sea Shepherd and the Mirage is 
not connected to the issue of captivity.  Wynn supports our campaigns 
to stop driftnetting and the killing of wild dolphins at sea.  His 
contribution to this effort is  much appreciated.
	Sea Shepherd will support efforts to release captive dolphins 
back into the wild under the following circumstances.  First,  the 
captive animals must have been captured from the wild.  Captive-born 
dolphins would not be able to adapt to a wild state.  Second, 
captive dolphins must be returned to the pod they were taken from. 
All the research data available indicates that dolphins including 
Orcinus orcas can only be released to the wild if returned to their 
original social structure.  We do believe that Sea World's Corky may 
be released,  as the pod she was captured from is known and the 
whereabouts of the pod are also known.
	Unfortunately,  orcas such as Keiko of Free Willy fame, 
captured from Iceland,  are more problematic due to lack of research 
on orca pods in Icelandic waters.  In fact,  only the orca pods off 
British Columbia are sufficiently well documented to risk returning 
captives.  The dolphins of the Mirage were all either born in 
captivity,  or their origins are unknown.
	Sea Shepherd continues to oppose any capture of dolphins from 
the wild,  including the November 27 captures by the Shedd Aquarium.
	Sea Shepherd has attracted many volunteers from the ranks of 
the animal rights,  animal welfare,  conservation,  and environmental 
movements.  To maintain focus,  we have sometimes been forced to 
intervene and chastise volunteers,  some of whom have left with the 
feeling they were betrayed and that their understanding of what Sea 
Shepherd is has been betrayed.  This has led to the present bitter 
accusations about our integrity and motivations.
	This is ironic considering that Sea Shepherd is an 
all-volunteer organization.  No Sea Shepherd director or crew member 
has realized personal gain.
	What this controversy most illustrates is the degree of 
intolerance within our movements of other approaches,  tactics,  and 
strategies.  The strength of an ecosystem is determined by the 
diversity of species within it.  This applies as well to social 
change movements.  The strength of our movements is determined by our 
acceptance of diverse approaches and philosophies.  The intolerance 
of many activists is the reason our movements are slow to grow and 
are continuously defensive against an opposition that does tolerate 
diversity.
	Corporations compete against each other for profits,  but 
have a history of uniting against anything that threatens their 
profits in common.  We must learn from this and agree to disagree on 
some issues while agreeing upon the bigger picture.