On 'captivity'

 

A dolphin born among humans, living a meaningful life, touching and playing with humans every day in a marine animal rehabilitation facility

Recently, several persons in online postings about human-dolphin interactions described me as "pro-captivity".

This is not correct.

If you want a label for me, say I am:
'pro-understanding the challenging situation we have with dolphins who live among humans'.

My work is dedicated to understanding this situation and to bettering the conditions under which they live. 

I oppose capturing dolphins for any reason other than to help them survive.

I seek the best possible care for dolphins wherever they may be. That includes those living among humans.

To respond to the inaccuracy, I will address the topic in some detail. It is a complex topic, and deserves no less.

To begin, a definition of ‘captivity’ will help clarify the discussion.

Dictionaries make a distinction between humans and animals, in regard to 'captivity', as if there is a difference. I don't think there is:  humans are animals too.

Dictionaries state that a human who has been captured is a captive, or ‘in captivity’. 
They also say that any non-human animal who is confined is a captive, or ‘in captivity’. 

Using one word to refer to two different conditions is one way the concept of 'captivity' has become a confused issue.

At what point in a relationship between a human and another animal is there 'captivity'? Are our cats captives? When is an animal unequivocally a 'captive'?

I find the word to be vague, ill-defined, and less than helpful in understanding the complexities of our relations with other animals. I don't accept ‘captivity’ as being an appropriate description for all circumstances in which a non-human animal is in a constructed environment...in fact I find it nearly useless.

Nevertheless, I have dedicated much of my adult life to understanding 'captivity' in all its complexities.

It is not a simple, single condition.

Horses in paddocks are confined so they cannot wander. Dogs on leashes are 'confined' to movements dictated by the person on the other end of the leash. Are these 'in captivity'? 

I think that they are at liberty to express innate capacities, with various restrictions on their movements, created by caring humans who seek their safety and well-being and that of others.

An elderly visitor to the dolphins, making contact, sharing a moment

 

Now to the topic of dolphins.

The ‘captivity’ of dolphins is a reality.

What I mean by saying that 'captivity is a reality' is this: All dolphins living in human care had their origins in the wild. 

The few still living who were captured while the collection of specimens was not an issue, and all their descendants, and those brought in to be cared for due to dire circumstances, and the few who came to be living in human made environments by other paths, live within enclosures. This is a fact.

 

Confinement of dolphins exists and must be acknowledged, understood and managed.

 

This situation is not going away in the foreseeable future.

Some dolphins have crossed the boundary lines into human-made spaces, and will remain within them.

There is no 'going back', except for those few who can be helped and released.

 
Approximately 80% of the dolphins living in dolphinariums in the developed world were either born there, or have been living among humans for over 20 years, and not 'releaseable'.
 

Whether we describe this as being the result of mistakes in the past, the product of legitimate curiosities and desire for scientific understandings, an outcome of economic opportunism for profit, or a part of a larger scenario in a spiritual context beyond our understanding, is open for interpretation.

Just as other species have joined humans in a relationship of companionship, so dolphins have joined us in our constructed world. They live among us, few of whom will stay only a short time.

I accept the situation as it is. This does not mean I like all aspects of it, or am 'pro-captivity'.

I accept it but do not condone it in all circumstances.

I work hard at understanding it, having done so for over 30 years.

I also work to make the confinement of non-human animals of all kinds to be part of the humane responses humans enact toward the living world. Rescues, best-practice care, release when possible, long-term committments to care, companionship, and compassion for all animals...everywhere. That is my position.

                                                         ~~~~~~~~

 

A brief synopsis of the various ethical positions regarding human/non-human relations may help to make more clear my understandings and position:

The position of 'Animal Liberation' is an extremist position, one that ignores many things. It justifies extreme actions, including the killing of dolphins "who would be better off dead than living in a pool", to quote an Animal Liberation dolphin murderer from here in Australia.

The "Empty Cages" promoted by Dr Tom Regan, Dr Thomas White, Dr Lori Marino, and many others are fantasies that are not based on animal welfare, but an abstract notion of 'The Natural World', a world in which humans and other animals live separate lives, apart from each other, leaving each other 'alone'.

The position of 'Animal Rights' has its own problems, inherent in its constructions. Rights and responsibilities are part of the same idea in the legal sense. Having one requires the other. Responsibilities cannot be required of a non-human...an impossible notion, to require specific actions of non-humans. 

 

The other way of understanding 'rights' is to conceive of them as 'natural rights', and not legal rights. However, 'natural rights' are impossible to clearly define in a world in which all living things are part of a biosystem in which each depends on consuming others.

This leaves 'Animal Welfare' as the last of the three major pillars of human ethical theories about how to be in right relations with other animals. Some would argue that no amount of improvement of conditions for animals is enough, that all non-humans should be out from under all human care. This anti-welfare position denies human compassion, the innate response we have toward suffering. Walk on by when we come across a dolphin struggling in the surf? No, never. 

Animal Welfare pays close attention to the needs of individuals. Animal Rights and Animal Liberation pay attention to species, not individuals as unique sites of complex histories and adaptations.

Consider this: A dolphin born in a constructed environment is not a 'captive', in my view. It was not captured. It literally and actually has nowhere else to go.

A dolphin rescued and rehabilitated who cannot be expected to survive in the Ocean, and who is given a life-long opportunity to live under human care, is not a ‘captive’. It also has nowhere else to go.

There is one more 'ethical pillar', one that is less acknowledged, but important: the Ethic of Care. Developed as part of Feminism, it recognises that caring for the wellbeing of another is not part of the 'calculus of suffering' that Animal Liberationist and Animal Rights campaigners use to determine ethical behaviour. The Ethic of Care is direct in its individualized responses to the needs of others, and does not discriminate against 'otherness' in any form...including non-human animals.

A young dolphin, born among humans, full of curiosity, delight, and willingness to accept humans into her space, just as humans have accepted her into theirs.
She will have a lifetime of excellent care, no matter how long that may be.

 

My position is this: We must always consider the actual individual as we work toward best possible outcomes. This is within the Animal Welfare concept. I add the concept of Animal Rights to this, partially, in the sense that I accept that we cannot know with certainty the 'natural rights' of other animals, but humans can create limits for human actions that enable other animals to thrive and not suffer under human care, as a natural right. And to this, I add the Ethic of Care, one that supports caring for any creature, just as religious traditions urge, as acts of compassion.

There are, of course, many details in this hybrid construction of my ethical stance that require more space and time to discuss than can be undertaken here.

Is this "pro-captivity"?

No, it is not.

It accepts the reality of what already is, without condoning it, and aims to continually improve how we treat dolphins who live among us. It accepts that some circumstances can bring dolphins across the species boundary, into human care, and that this is the most important part of the issue: how can humans improve their care of other animals, some of whom have joined humans in constructed environments?

Does this meet the demands of some activists who state that “captivity is captivity and it must be abolished”? No, it does not. Rather, my position suggests that we need to make clear what we oppose, what we accept, and what we can, in unity, support.

Sincerely,

C. Scott  Taylor, Ambassador

Investigation into allegations in "The Cove"

We highly recommend looking into this investigation.

Someone, so far unknown to us, has taken it upon themselves to investigate allegations made in the Oscar-winning documentary "The Cove" about dolphins being sold from the slaughter site to dolphin facilities "all over the world".  It struck us, when we watched The Cove, that it was a continuation of the mis-representation of facts that Ric O'Barry has indulged in for many years. These two short videos only begin the deeper investigation into O'Barry's manipulation of facts. 

See them here:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tbwUEQo4Yo 
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KllJxpznagY 


You may note that the author of the videos says:

"Note to all: As the producer of this video, allow me to state quite clearly this work is mine alone and has not been commissioned by or for Sea World, or for any other aquarium for that matter. Their parks were specifically referenced in this video only because they were featured prevalently in The Cove. 

This video is not intended to be "pro" or "anti" captivity, just to keep to facts of a volatile issue - and one that needs to be solved with honesty."

We look forward to the movement toward more honesty in this issue. We support the move toward a diplomatic solution of the Japanese slaughter, including a much better attitude of respect toward the Japanese people, their culture, and dignity. It is not acceptable to us to characterise Japanese people as dolphin killers as a generalisation and the stated intentions of the producers of The Cove to increase anger toward the Japanese people. This is counter-productive and can only add to the very complex challenges this presents to both Japan and other nations. 

Warm regards, 
Scott 
Dolphin Embassy, Ambassador

A New Direction

Over the years my work has taken many forms. Chapters in my efforts to bring humans and dolphins closer together have spanned areas such as:

• Dolphin-Assisted Therapy research and program development and running a program for three years (Dolphin EDventures Wellness Programs)
  
• writing a major book (“Souls in the Sea: Dolphins, Whales, and Human Destiny”, published by Frog Ltd., Berkeley, CA, 2003)
• writing and producing a TV series (“The Dolphin People”)
• writing screenplays and TV series treatments
• producing and presenting thousands of lectures around the world
• leading journeys to dolphin sites (Mexico, Bahamas, Hawaii, Florida, Australia)
• tirelessly advocating the recognition of the Cetacean Nation
• researching, developing, and sharing the Legend of the Golden Dolphin with many thousands of people
• exploring the philosophical, psychological, and metaphysical dimensions of the human-dolphin connection
• exploring the mythological and traditional indigenous people’s wisdom regarding this ancient connection

and many more areas. My work has spanned 26 years now and continues, as my dedication remains unabated.

My latest efforts to find a location for a re-established Dolphin EDventures Wellness Program have, so far, not yielded a suitable location. I remain hopeful a facility with an enlightened management will be found, where we can demonstrate the four-way success that is possible – for the facility, for the guests, for us, and most especially for the dolphins.

At present my plans have taken yet another direction, one that I have always known was coming: a return to the Academic world, in pursuit of a Doctorate.

I have seen many inroads over the last ten years, advances (if this word can be used here -- smile) against work done by many dedicated people, making the human-dolphin connection stronger and more available, work that we feel has been so important. Science has been accumulating evidence of the dangers of some interactions, for both humans and dolphins. Science has attempted to show how the lives of dolphins can be, and have been, negatively impacted by human contact.

While some of what has been published along this line has been well-founded, and proposals to do more to protect dolphins from foolish actions by humans, or dangerous environmental activities, are certainly welcome and necessary, I have seen another kind of reporting that is questionable. Since science is the basis for most governmental decisions regarding the management of the human-dolphin connection, it is science that must be addressed first if we want to be sure that rules, laws and the legislation that creates these are wise and helpful.

In my many years of work in the field, we have seen some good come from proper management. The heavy penalties for “cowboy roundups’ of dolphins so that people can see them more easily, or swim with them in the wild, have effectively put a stop to most of this dangerous behaviour. In places where contact occurs that have instituted good education programs for the public, improved safety for both humans and dolphins has been the result.

I have also seen some poor management practices. While well-intentioned, they have been unnecessarily intrusive, restricting safe, knowledgeable, and mutually beneficial interactions in some cases. Wild encounters, compassionate interactions during strandings, and even Dolphin-Assisted Therapy have been strongly – negatively -- affected by poorly informed laws based on science that has not been adequate.

To this end, I have decided to focus on an area of science that holds promise for bringing more comprehensive and more compassionate understanding into the field. Recent advances in both philosophical and sociological studies have opened up a new field that I feel has exciting promise for our purposes: Animal Geography.

Animal Geography studies how humans and animals share space. In my case, I intend to advance our understanding of how the dolphin encounter affects the human family, the role of the choices that dolphins make, and how these can be seen from new viewpoints.

I believe that I have found strong theoretical and biological frameworks for establishment of the person-hood of dolphins, and even further, that there is a very strong argument to be made that dolphins do exercise intelligent and informed choices, and that we must recognise the rights of dolphins to make their own decisions, especially regarding interaction with humans.
 

Exploring possibilities, I have found that the University of the Sunshine Coast is willing to allow me to undertake a year of Honours study, producing a 25,000 word dissertation by early November of 2009 (working title of the dissertation: “The Dolphin-Human encounter: Embassy or Zoo-without-walls?”). Despite not having a Bachelor’s degree, alternative entry has enabled him to enter the University at a level commensurate with his abilities.

Following the Honours year, assuming the dissertation is well-received, I will then enter the PhD program, aiming at a Doctorate of Philosophy.

With a PhD (which I currently intend to be based  upon an examination of how Dolphin-Assisted Therapy is understood by the public, by science, by the therapeutic community, and by the patients and their families) I feel I can effectively address the scientific and academic community’s concerns, hopefully redirecting thereby some of the misguided rules, laws, and opinions that have begun to impinge on the human-dolphin connection.

Wish me luck, I have a lot of work ahead. University classes start in just over a week…

Regards,

Scott
Ambassador

Dolphin stranding: Where can we put the dolphins who need to stay with us?

Research shows an alarming trend in the euthanasia of stranded dolphins. With the advent of powerful organizations whose purpose is to limit, or make entirely illegal, the display of cetaceans, the opportunity for a dolphin who strands and who requires long term care-- due to circumstances that make it inhumane to return it to the sea -- has nearly disappeared in Australia.

All too often, rangers working for government agencies appear at cetacean strandings with hypodermic syringes filled and ready. If a dolphin or small whale is thought unlikely to survive if returned to the water quickly, or who might require long-term care if rescued, it is killed on the spot.

How many have died due to having nowhere to be taken for rehabilitation? Figures are nearly impossible to find, due to governmental efforts to keep this data from the public.


The situation today: recent deaths

In known cases, officers have arrived on the scene of a stranding with syringes in hand, immediately killing the dolphin, before any realistic assessment of the condition of the dolphin has been done.

In Coffs Harbour, in 2006, a Risso’s Dolphin was found, stranded in the estuary. Local dolphin experts were in the process of getting the dolphin onto a stretcher to be carried to the Pet Porpoise Pool, one of only two facilities in Australia licensed to rehabilitate dolphins. Before they could get the dolphin onto a stretcher, a female ranger from the National Parks and Wildlife Service arrived, came down to see the dolphin, identified it as a Risso’s Dolphin (an offshore species rarely seen near land), and proceeded to inject it with a lethal dose of chemicals, killing it immediately.

The necropsy carried out the following day showed absolutely no pathology. This stranded dolphin was killed for no reason. It had no identifiable illness, disease, or parasites. Ironically, it was only meters away from one of the only rescue facilities capable of helping that lonely stranded dolphin.

If this Risso’s Dolphin had been given a fair go, it could have been helped to recover, and would have been taken to sea and released. If she had not be able to live in the ocean, she could have been given a lifetime of excellent care, living among humans as a sort of Ambassador for her kind.

The policy of NPWS is that “the best interests of the stranded cetaceans will be taken into consideration at all times”. While this is the established and published policy, in fact, the local district managers give verbal instructions to rangers to euthanise in nearly every case.

The window of opportunity for a dolphin to become an Ambassador has shut in Australia. How many people among the millions who love dolphins, who surf beside them, watch them from headlands and beaches, and who come to see them at either Sea World or the Pet Porpoise Pool, know that dolphins are being killed regularly by their government?

In a maddening case on the NSW coast, near the town of Cabarita, July 17th 2006, a very young Humpback Whale was found stranded in shallow water. Rescuers arrived and were ready to help her back into the surf when officials from NPWS decided to have her moved up onto the beach, above the high water mark, so that “assessments could be done”. Stated at the time, the reason was “to get blood samples and to see if her mother could be spotted nearby”.

However, instead of allowing for the whale’s own natural ability to find her own mother, or to make her way out into the open ocean where other whales might be found to swim with and protect her, the officials chose to keep her stranded on the beach, far above where she had been. As the tide receded, she became well and truly stranded. She lay on her belly, crushing her own lungs and internal organs. She died a horrible, slow, lingering death before the anguished eyes of the rescuers.

The official report stated that this whale had no chance of being able to survive the open sea. In fact, this was an ill-informed opinion, not a verifiable certainty, and her life was ended by lethal injection only after many, many hours of terrible suffering.
(See www.surfersforcetaceans.com/sfc.html “Death of a baby whale” story for the sad details)


Eye of the Cabarita whale, in agony as she died on the beach.
July, 2006

Australia has nearly 60,000 kilometres of coastline. There are many thousands of kilometres of beaches where cetaceans can and do strand. With only two facilities -- within 250 kilometres of each other on the east coast -- licensed to hold dolphins or small whales for rehabilitation, where do the dolphins go who might be rescued, helped to regain their health over time, and either be put back in the ocean, or given a lifetime of care?

The answer is: there is no legal way for a dolphin to be helped, other than to kill it to put it out of its suffering.

The History of an ongoing tragedy

In a country that loves the ocean and the beaches, where it is said that 75% of the population lives within 100 k of the ocean, that enjoys a worldwide reputation as ocean lovers, and especially dolphin and whale lovers, how has this come to be?

The story as the Cetacean Studies Institute has pieced it together is this:
Following the historic Frost Report in 1978, which recommended that all Australian whaling cease immediately, based on a comprehensive study carried out under Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, the general mood in Australia, especially among environmental organizations and animal welfare advocacy groups, was that all uses and potential abuses of cetaceans, including dolphins, must come under careful scrutiny.

Commendably, this was the result of dolphins having played a significant role in the research that led up to the report’s conclusions. Experts from Dr. John Lilly, to Roger Payne, to Karen Pryor, Hec Goodall (of Coffs Harbour and the Pet Porpoise Pool), Dr Bill Dawbin, Dr Peter Singer, and many others testified to the mental, emotional, and social sophistication of dolphins. Using dolphins as the only cetaceans about which much was known, it was projected that whales had many of the same qualities. On this basis, whaling was stopped.

The direct result of the campaign against whaling was another campaign, this time to close down the dolphinariums. Activists, empowered by their success in shutting down the whaling industry (although by the time of the Frost Report, only one whaling station continued to exist, as the whales had nearly been driven to extinction), organised to close the places where dolphins were under the care of humans.

Of the nine dolphin facilities in Australia at that time, only two now remain. A combination of economics, social pressure, and growing investigative powers being vested in various government agencies, began too have their effect: the facilities bowed to pressure and closed down, one by one.

Tragically, many of the dolphins who had been living among humans were now turned out to sea, and were either seen to die, or disappeared quickly, their fates unknown. What does one do with a dolphin if no one is willing to take it? Atlantis, a large marine animal facility in Western Australia, had nine dolphins when they decided to yield to public and government pressures, and close. They offered their dolphins to Underwater World in Perth, who accepted them and began a program to prepare them for a return to, or in some cases a first look at, the sea.

The story is well documented. Of the nine, three disappeared, with only one ever being seen again, despite having had a freeze brand upon its dorsal fin. Three others died, killed by sharks as witnessed by observers. The three remaining dolphins simply refused to leave, and returned repeatedly to the boat harbour, begging fish from boaters.

The three who were begging food were retaken into human care. In a mysterious incident, and to this day not publicly explained as to who did it, or how it was done, they were all poisoned and died. The community expressed its outrage, tears were shed, local authorities insisted that they would not rest until the culprits were found and punished, and the entire affair was eventually shoved back into the collective memory and ignored.

The Pet Porpoise Pool, an outstanding example

When Hec Goodall and some of his mates decided to build an animal rehabilitation centre in Coffs Harbour in the late 60s, it made sense to build it next to an estuary. Land was purchased, funds were raised, and building commenced. By Boxing Day of 1970, the Pet Porpoise Pool was open.

Not long after opening, a call came in, alerting the staff to a stranding event in the nearby Nambucca River. In an oyster lease, on a sandbar, were found four dolphins, badly sunburned, dehydrated, and suffering. Before they could all be rescued, two died. The other two were brought to the PPP and rehabilitation began. Based on Hec's and the Pickering brothers experience at the Jack Evans Porpoise Pool in Tweed Heads, they were able, somehow, to keep the dolphins alive.

The older one was a female and it was initially thought that she was the other one’s mother. Quickly they realised she was not – she was not lactating, and showed no maternal interest in the other, much younger rescuee. The young one was judged to be about one year old, and was named Buck, for the Nambucca River where he was found.

Both young Buck and the female recovered. However, both were badly damaged, and it had taken over a year to deem them healthy again. The female was not strong enough to go back to sea, and young Buck had, by then, entirely forgotten the ways of the wild. He had lived in very clean, disease-and-parasite-free water, had been fed five times a day, and had grown quite attached to his human family.

It was decided, by government officials, veterinarians, and the staff at the Pet Porpoise Pool, to keep both dolphins at the PPP. Thus began the amazing life of Buck. His female friend died of natural causes a few years later, but as of this date, Buck is still with us, at the age of 37, having spent 36 years among humans.

Buck is a delightfully friendly dolphin. He genuinely likes people, approaching all who come to the side of his pool, allowing caresses and seeking out those willing to play catch with a ball. He has, in a conservative estimate, befriended nearly a million people in his many years.

When Hec Goodall was told that he should begin making plans to close the Pet Porpoise Pool, he thought of Buck. Could he survive in an ocean he had not known since he was an infant? Could he, in good conscience, tell the public that, due to government regulations, he was going to condemn Buck to certain death? No, it was not going to happen.

Hec Goodall then began a 20-year campaign to get a permanent license to rehabilitate, or display if unable to be returned to the sea, any dolphin who should make it into his facility. It took a terrible toll on Hec, but he managed to do it. In October of 2004, the Pet Porpoise Pool was granted a permanent license to house dolphins.

Calamity, a female dolphin, was rescued in 1995, not once, but twice. Her tail wrapped with fishing gear, and badly wounded, she was found near the mouth of the Tweed River. Healed and grown strong again, she was returned to the sea. Several months later she was found again, this time with over 10 kilos of fishing line wrapped around her tail stock, so tightly her flukes were nearly severed. This time, once she was healthy again, it was clear that her weakened tail would not allow her to survive at sea.

Many dolphins have come and gone from the Pet Porpoise Pool. Many have been rehabilitated and returned to the ocean. Some have died, despite heroic efforts to help them live. At present (April 2008), there are four dolphins at the PPP, including Buck and Calamity, Buck’s son Zip, who is 19 years old, and young Bella, the energetic daughter of Buck and Calamity.


Buck, Calamity, Zip, and Bella

What are the chances for a dolphin who strands today, to be given a lifetime of excellent care, and a role as a teacher, ambassador, and example of compassionate care for Nature? Unless it happens close to Sea World on the Gold Coast, or near Coffs Harbour, and a National Parks and Wildlife Service ranger can be prevented from killing it immediately, its chances are virtually nonexistent.

Based on the NPWS idea that the Australian public does not want to see dolphins under human care, an old idea left over from the days of the “End the Whaling” campaigns, rangers are told to exercise their authority to euthanise all dolphins who cannot be expected to survive a very short period of stabilisation. In practice, this means that all dolphins are put down if they cannot be refloated and released on the spot.

At present there are only a handful of citizens in Australia trained to act as official dolphin or whale stranding volunteers. The pitifully small numbers, with little equipment, virtually no sea-water pools designated to serve as holding pools, and no government support, can do next to nothing in the event of a stranding.

Where can the dolphins go?

The Cetacean Studies Institute has hopes that a national education campaign can be undertaken, aimed at several outcomes.

1) A change of legislation to govern the NPWS policies regarding stranded dolphins and small whales. Rules must be written that will allow for stranding teams to help dolphins and small whales to be taken into care if at all possible.
2) A national stranding network should be designed, publicised, and supported by government grants, with trained, well-equipped teams and designated salt-water pools listed.
3) Regional centres should be built to rehabilitate, return to the wild, or provide excellent lives for marine animals, at government expense.
4) Legislation should be passed to allow for more licenses for rehab and display facilities where dolphins can be given care, and whose talents can be researched.
5) Because dolphins living among humans live lives that are not as rich with challenges and opportunities to use their extraordinary abilities, and who need, and deserve, enrichment in their lives to keep them healthy, Dolphin-Assisted Therapy should be given support as a means to help dolphins, and as a real therapy, especially valuable for special-needs children, as well as a rejuvenating aspect of wellness programs.

As an independent research and education institute, we urge the Australian public to look closely at this situation, and write or talk to your local representative to initiate new legislation, enabling stranded dolphins and whales to be taken care of, and if necessary, given a meaningful -- and much longer -- life among humans.

They offer us so much. Isn't it time that we show them the compassion they deserve?

Scott Taylor
Ambassador

Showing that you care

Most internet-based petitions achieve nothing. Emails with thousands of names in them do not impress anyone, as these can be easily faked. For this reason, we ignore most requests to become involved in petitions.

However, when we were invited by some friends (Dave Rastovich, Howie Cooke, Hannah Fraser) to join them in a visual protest, a vast collection of photographs of people holding images of dolphins or whales, to be sent to the delegates at the next International Whaling Commission meeting in Peru, we felt that this could be important.

We are alerting all of you who read this to visit the website www.mindsinthewater.com and to link to the Visual Petition. Follow the instructions, download a dolphin or whale picture and take a photo of yourself holding the picture. Then upload the photo back onto the Visual Petition site and join thousands of others who believe as we do, that all whaling and killing of dolphins must stop.

Take the time, do what is asked, and you will have done something that can make a difference for the Cetacean Nation. Besides, it is fun!

~~~~~~
Hannah "Mermaid" Fraser and her husband Dave Rastovich have visited us several times here in Coffs Harbour to swim with the dolphins. They are interviewed in our TV program "The Dolphin People", and if you watch the slides on the Minds in the Water site, or the Visual Petition site, you will see the photo above of Dave with Calamity, hugging her.

If you get a chance to see Dave and his surfer friends performing their music, with their band "Low Pressure Sound System", make sure to go. You won't be sorry, they are fantastic!

The Ambassador

The Question of Tradition

Japan 'backs down on humpback hunt'
From correspondents in Tokyo
December 20, 2007 01:00am
Article from: Reuters


JAPAN has apparently agreed not to kill humpback whales during its current Antarctic hunt, the US ambassador to Tokyo said today, a move that could help ease criticism of its controversial whaling program.
Japan's whaling fleet set sail last month with plans to catch more than 1000 whales, including 50 humpbacks, which are popular among whale-watchers for their distinctive silhouettes and acrobatic leaps, before returning to port early next year.
Humpbacks were hunted to near extinction until the International Whaling Commission ordered their protection in 1966 and the planned hunt had sparked a loud outcry from activists.
"I think we had an agreement ... between the United States and Japan that humpback whales would not be harvested, I think, until maybe the International Whaling Conference in June,'' US ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer said.
Because of migration patterns, the delay would mean it would be "a while before they are at risk again,'' Mr Schieffer said.
Australia yesterday announced that it would send a fisheries patrol ship to shadow Japan's whaling fleet near Antarctica and gather evidence for a possible international court challenge to halt the yearly hunt.
Separately, Greenpeace sent a ship yesterday to try to stop the Japanese fleet hunting whales.
Japan has long resisted pressure to stop what it calls scientific whaling, insisting that whaling is a cherished cultural tradition.
"Japan's whaling is being conducted in line with international treaties and for the purpose of scientific research. We would like to win the understanding of others,'' a Japanese foreign ministry spokesman said in Tokyo.

~~~~~~

The "cherished cultural tradition" mentioned should be seen like the "cherished tradition" of early English (Saxon) people*, the people of Easter Island**, the native people of the California coast***, who were also dolphin and whale eaters. It proved unsustainable in each case, wreaking havoc on local ecologies. With the extremely high levels of toxic chemicals now found in the meat of dolphins and whales (they are at the top of the chain of "bio-accumulation" and concentrate the toxins in their blubber and the milk of nursing mothers, passing it on from generation to generation, each time gaining in concentrated killing power) the tradition of "cetaceans on the menu" is now deadly. It is time to end this "tradition".

Since the actual tradition of the Japanese whalers and dolphin hunters was to hunt and kill and eat the cetaceans from the waters around Japan (which still goes on in the tens of thousands each year, now), what does killing the whales of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary have to do with tradition?

It just doesn't make any sense.

The Ambassadors

~~~~~

* "Continuing study of the huge middle and late-Saxon vertebrate assemblage from Flixborough, North Lincolnshire, has shown that the inhabitants of this important settlement were consuming whale and dolphin meat. More than twenty fragments of these marine mammals have been recovered from only 10% of the material so far recorded. These animals may have been caught at sea or, more likely, in the nearby Humber estuary where they may have been stranded. It is possible that they represent trade with the nearby east coast fisheries, although the almost negligible quantities of marine fish from the site appear not to support this theory. More specific identification of the species of whale and dolphin will provide valuable information about the past distribution of cetaceans since all are rare or uncommon visitors to these waters today."

http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/archrev/rev96_7/enviro.htm

~~~~~

** "During the later centuries of the Mayan civilization, a new society was evolving on faraway Easter Island, some 166 square kilometers of land in the South Pacific roughly 3,200 kilometers west of South America and 2,200 kilometers from Pitcairn Island, the nearest habitation. Settled around ad 400, this civilization flourished on a volcanic island with rich soils and lush vegetation, including trees that grew 25 meters tall with trunks 2 meters in diameter. Archeological records indicate that the islanders ate mainly seafood, principally dolphins—a mammal that could only be caught by harpoon from large sea-going canoes. 

The Easter Island society flourished for several centuries, reaching an estimated population of 20,000. As its human numbers gradually increased, tree cutting exceeded the sustainable yield of forests. Eventually the large trees that were needed to build the sturdy canoes disappeared, depriving islanders of access to the dolphins and dramatically shrinking their food supply. The archeological record shows that at some point human bones became intermingled with the dolphin bones, suggesting a desperate society that had resorted to cannibalism. Today the island has fewer than 4,000 residents."
--Lester Brown

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Seg/PB2ch01_ss4.htm

~~~~~~

*** "The Dolphin Hunters: A Specialized Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation in the Southern California Channel Islands and Baja California
Judith F. Porcasi, Harumi Fujita
American Antiquity, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 543-566
doi:10.2307/2694535

Abstract
Synthesis of faunal collections from several archaeological sites on the three southernmost California Channel Islands and one in the Cape Region of Baja California reveals a distinctive maritime adaptation more heavily reliant on the capture of pelagic dolphins than on near-shore pinnipeds. Previous reports from other Southern California coastal sites suggest that dolphin hunting may have occurred there but to a lesser extent. While these findings may represent localized adaptations to special conditions on these islands and the Cape Region, they call for reassessment of the conventionally held concept that pinnipeds were invariably the primary mammalian food resource for coastal peoples. Evidence of the intensive use of small cetaceans is antithetical to the accepted models of maritime optimal foraging which assume that shore-based or near-shore marine mammals (i.e., pinnipeds) would be the highest-ranked prey because they were readily encountered and captured. While methods of dolphin hunting remain archaeologically invisible, several island cultures in which dolphin were intensively exploited by people using primitive watercraft and little or no weaponry are presented as possible analogs to a prehistoric Southern California dolphin-hunting technique. These findings also indicate that dolphin hunting was probably a cooperative endeavor among various members of the prehistoric community."

What does it take to wake up?

In a startling reversal of what most people seem to feel, a CNN QuickVote poll, taken on February 12, 2007, revealed a disturbing attitude among internet users.

Of 19,256 votes cast, 12,060 (63%) stated that "it's fin-tastic (sic)", the proposition that "dolphins and sea lions (be used for) security at a naval base".

Of those same 19,256 voters, only 7,196 (37%) stated that "it's a shipwreck (sic)".

The US Navy, until the beginning of the current war in Iraq, was very secretive about their use of marine mammals as soldiers. Perceiving the huge increase in "patriotism" as an opportunity to gain pubic support for the old programs, suddenly the Navy began posting large amounts of information on the net about the use of dolphins.

There is a monthly desktop "wallpaper calendar" you can download from the Navy dolphin program site. There are powerpoint presentations listing how many species have been tested for their usefulness. Images are available of dolphins carrying sophisticated underwater devices, presumably for detecting mines, etc. There are interior shots of the specialized ships built to deploy dolphins into combat zones....and the list goes on.

How have we moved so far backward in our appreciation for the other form of self-aware, highly developed, compassionate and friendly life on our planet? Clearly, there is much more work to be done to educate the public, helping them to know dolphins and whales as individuals, and as our constant friends and benefactors.

The Ambassadors

Whaling: Is it still a problem?

(This image is from the Australian Greenpeace website)

For those of you who did not know, we provide here an update on the International Whaling Commission ‘s work.
The 59th International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting was held in Anchorage, Alaska, from 28-31 May.


Once again the outcome was disappointing. Pro-whaling countries failed to overturn the global ban on commercial whaling and the Japanese whaling fleet will again hunt over 1,000 whales in the Southern Ocean this year – including 50 threatened humpbacks and 50 endangered fin whales.


The people of Australia, to secure the future for whales, must insist that the Australian government put the issue of commercial whaling on the agenda in its negotiations with Japan, along with trade and security.



The IWC has agreed to a special meeting to discuss reform, but unless reform means a complete overhaul of the IWC’s original mission statement, The Dolphin Embassy recommends that the IWC be closed down and a new international organization be formed, under the auspices of the UN, to protect all ocean species, especially whales, dolphins, and porpoises. The end of killing must be the goal -- never lost sight of and always the outcome we pursue.

(see www.dolphintale.com for more detailed discussion of this recommendation)

To see the inspiring efforts of several young Australians, go to these YouTube sites:

Skye Bortoli's passion for the whales
Skye Bortoli at the IWC meeting in Alaska

The Ambassadors

Recent very troubling research

A report posted July 17th, 2007, on a scientific forum has shown that in Brazilian waters, as many as 83 dolphins were killed in a single fish netting operation. This is part of the ongoing, and little documented, killing of dolphins by local fishermen in fisheries around the world.

A quote from the posting:
"We have just concluded a one-year monitoring program for incidental catches of small dolphins in the gillnet fishery operating off northern Brazil.
Since August 2006, a total of 11 field trips were monitored onboard a fishing vessel operating off the coast of Amapa' State. The main target are 'pescada-amarela' and 'gurijuba', higly prized in the fish markets of Brazil. It was detected a large by-catch of dolphins, all of them Sotalia.
Molecular analysis of a large sample set of Sotalia specimens were conducted at Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. All specimens were identified as S. guianensis.
Numbers of dolphins found entangled varied from one to 83 in a single boat operating off the northern Brazilian coast."

Sotalia dolphins are commonly known as the Tucuxi, an unusual dolphin, in that it can live in both salt and fresh water. It is sometimes seen as far inland as the foot of the Andes, 1,500 miles up the Amazon River. Its ocean range is from Nicaragua to southern Brazil.

A small dolphin, it weighs from 75 to 100 pounds (35-45k), from 4.5 to 6 ft (1.3 to 1.8m) long.
It is a beautiful, small, elegant dolphin, sometimes confused with Bottlenose Dolphin calves.

No one knows how many there are. Fewer and fewer each day, it seems....

Remember, dolphins are not under any form of direct international protection, such as the Whaling Moratorium of the International Whaling Commision, a UN supported organization. Only local, and international concern protects them.

The Ambassadors