Sites of encounter with dolphins: are they Embassies?

Do dolphins make choices? 

Should humans honour the choices they make, if they do?

The border, the meeting, the choice: whose choice is honoured?

In the language of academia, choices intentionally made are sometimes defined as an expression of 'agency'. In this article I discuss dolphin agency and how humans respond to it, and announce the publication of a scholarly article that includes a suggested way to understand and respond to interspecies encounter opportunities.

In locations around the world, from ancient times to the present, dolphins, for their own reasons, have sought out human contact. Some do so today in cooperative fishing ventures, where dolphins herd fish toward places where human fishermen stand, waiting with nets. Fish are caught in the nets, gathered up, and some let go for the dolphins to feed on. In the estuary at the mouth of the river Plata, in South America, this has been going on as long as anyone remembers. The Imragen people along the west coast of Northern Africa do the same along an ocean beach, aided by dolphins who drive fish to shore. Australian aboriginal tribes tell of many sites where dolphins drove fish inshore to be caught by humans: on Bribie Island; just north of Coffs Harbour; and at Amity Point on Stradbroke Island, among others.

And then there are the places where dolphins come for another reason: to communicate and to play. Some of these situations last only a few days or weeks, with local people enjoying a brief series of encounters. Some get more well known, lasting weeks, or months. And some, like Fungie, a dolphin who lives just outside Dingle harbour  in Ireland, stay for decades--since 1984. Fungie has been visiting the harbour there for nearly 30 years now. He has been known to have a female friend for several seasons who leaves him behind, to live alone again. His antics with divers and swimmers are legendary, having inspired films, books, healers, mystics, and activists.

Fungie and Kim Kindersley (filmmaker)

Another site where dolphins have interacted with humans for decades in Kealakekua Bay, on the Big Island of Hawaii. Here Spinner Dolphins have come daily for rest, socialising, and human interaction. Numerous scientific studies have been done at K Bay, beginning with those of Dr Ken Norris, who published two books about his research there and elsewhere (The Porpoise Watcher, 1974; Dolphin Days, 1991). A well-known dolphin interaction advocate and swim-experience leader (Joan Ocean) has lived aside K Bay for decades, writing books (Dolphin Connection, 1989; Dolphins into the Future, 1997), leading workshops, and producing various films. Terry J Walker, who wrote "How to swim with Dolphins" (1998), has lived in Hawaii most of her life, and began swimming with the K Bay dolphins in the early 90s, and has tirelessly worked to help humans understand and appreciate the dolphins there so that the interaction can continue.

Kealakekua Bay is the place where I was first drawn into the real-world challenge of dolphin-human interaction as an issue of dolphin choice versus human concerns. Humans, rightly so, have been making an effort there to avoid the problems that have arisen elsewhere, where dolphins have chosen to befriend humans. Research has shown that all-too-often these encounter sites become places of sorrow, where the dolphins suffer for their friendliness (see "Lone Rangers: a report on solitary dolphins and whales including recommendations for their protection", a report for the Marine Connection, by Goodwin and Dodds, 2008). Altho it cannot be said this always happens (see Fungie, the dolphins who visit Monkey Mia, Tangalooma and Tin Can Bay in Australia, and the Atlantic Spotted dolphins living in the waters near Bimini, as examples), there is a sad pattern to be found: the dolphins come, humans interact and all is well, then humans act inappropriately, some official entity passes restrictive rules, some humans get angry, and the dolphin is either driven away, injured, or killed.

No one wants this to happen. Efforts to understand and control these situations, with the aim of protecting the dolphins from harm, have been put in place. However, in some cases, these very rules have led to poor outcomes. Threatening signs posted on beaches, arrests for 'harassing dolphins', and huge fines for innocent interspecies play have ensued at various times.

A sign commonly found along US shorelines, warning of 
"civil and criminal penalties" for interacting with marine mammals.

One of my interests has become this issue: how to accommodate the very fulfilling, educational, stimulating, and for some, spiritually inspiring, experience of interaction with free-ranging dolphins in ways that are safe for both dolphins and humans.  To this end, I conducted a research project under the auspices of the University of the Sunshine Coast toward fulfilling the requirements for my Bachelor's Degree in Geography, under the title "The Dolphin-Human Connection: Embassy or Zoo-without-walls?". I earned a first class Honours degree for this research, which analysed various dolphin-human interaction management schemes. Based on that research, I wrote (with the assistance of Dr Jen Carter) an article for the peer-reviewed journal Geographical Research, which has now been published.  

The citation is:
Taylor, C. S. & Carter, J. (2013) The agency of dolphins: towards interspecies embassies as sites of engagement with 'significant otherness'. Geographical Research, 51 (1), 1-10.(link to journal)

The Agency of Dolphins article explores the question of choice, the intentional volition of dolphins as they come into contact with humans for their own reasons. It concludes that dolphins do have agency -- and that they make an intentional choice to approach humans-- in these situations, and that this choice  deserves to be framed as one of respectful intercultural interaction. If dolphins, and many other animals who are in contact with humans, are often referred to as 'ambassadors' of their species, it seems a simple extension of this common idea to conceive of the sites where this occurs as embassies. An embassy, by common definition, is a place where different cultures come together in a spirit of respect, where cooperation is expected to negotiate ways of communicating that can lead to mutual satisfaction. An embassy implies an 'interspecies etiquette' (first suggested by Cheney and Weston in 1999), which is a considerate stance based on empathy, intended to "create the space within which a response can emerge or an exchange coevolve".

This article is intended to open a dialog, to open an area of interspecies interaction research and subsequent legislation. It seeks to add another worldview, one that takes into account the choices of dolphins, who seem very willing, for reasons we cannot know, to befriend humans. It is up to humans to figure out how to manage human responses to these wonderful opportunities.

Serious researchers can request copies of the article. 

C Scott Taylor BSoc (first Class Honours), PhD

On Saving Whales, on ending their lives

On Sept. 2nd a stranded dying whale was killed by Australian government officials by placing explosive charges on its head and triggering a powerful implosive blow to its brain.  This occurred at Albany, on Australia's southwest coast. The whale was described as being a Humpback, about 9.5 metres long. It had been stranded for approximately two weeks, and was visibly deteriorating. 

At first the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) had determined that no euthanasia was possible for the whale for several reasons. It was "too big to be shot" and because of its position, floating in about a metre of water, "was still strong enough to be a safety risk to humans". The whale moved, stranding itself farther up on the sandbar upon which it rested, effectively immobilising it. At that point, the Albany DEC district manager, Mike Shepherd, decided to euthanise the whale.

"Our main priority has always been to treat this animal as humanely as possible while nature took its course," Mr Shepherd said.

"In the last 24 hours the whale moved a couple of metres from its original stranding position, which was enough to stabilise the whale so that we could carry out the preparations for a controlled implosion to the whale’s cranium."

"We know from experience that predominantly only sick, injured or malnourished humpbacks come inshore, so when they strand they are usually winding down,'' Mr Shepherd said.

The implosion method has been approved by the International Whaling Commission as a humane method to be used on whales larger than 7 metres and death is instantaneous.

As a contrast, a juvenile Humpback whale, approximately 7 metres long, was rescued off the coast of southern Queensland, on Sept. 4th, after having become entangled in a "shark net". According to Queensland shark control manager Tony Ham from Fisheries Queensland, it took officers less than half an hour to free the whale, which became entangled off Surfers Paradise early on Saturday morning.

"The Marine Animal Release Team, made up of officers from the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol and Seaworld, did an amazing job to free the animal," Mr Ham said."Approximately 13,000 whales are expected to be migrating along the Queensland coastline this migration season," he said.

"Juvenile whales such as this are more likely to become entangled than adults as they have less experienced and often travel on their own."

It is the first entanglement this whale migration season.

In 2009 six whales that were entangled in Gold Coast nets were successfully freed.

(To see the specialised tool used to safely cut nets that have entangled whales, and read how these were developed, see: http://www.spyderco.com/catalog/details.php?product=279)

These incidents, two days apart, highlight the troubled relationship we have with whales (and dolphins). It is with great sympathy that we consider the terrible task faced by the DEC officials in Albany, as they faced the role they took on, bringing such human-centred values to the killing of the stranded whale. It is certain that their concerns were as stated, to "treat the whale humanely", yet we know, the moment when we take an innocent life, especially one not raised to be eaten, or hunted for food out of necessity, is difficult. Many of us reading these words will have had to do something similar when a beloved companion has come to a final, painful part of their life. We call the vet and ask for our friend's life to be ended. It is always hard.

Is the action of the DEC warranted? Would the gradual death of the whale, who was eventually so stranded it could not have been expected to refloat, and whose condition appeared to be deteriorating daily, be acceptable to witness? Was it only the suffering of the whale, assuming it was suffering and not in some state of whale consciousness that was outside our knowing, waiting in some kind of peaceful acceptance, that asked for this decision? Or was it not also the human side, the visions of suffering, the agonising sense that something must be done, something must be done to alleviate our feelings of despair, helplessness, and sadness?

On the other side of the continent a young whale wandered into the shark nets, getting caught. A team of humans, would could have risked their lives to disentangle it, were able to accomplish the task in less than 30 minutes. (See footage of the rescue here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwcsJLQ5Y2A&feature=player_embedded)

Who asks if this is right to do, putting human life at risk for the sake of a whale? We imagine no one does, no one pauses, raises questions, attempts to put forward the case that the whale should be left to die. Is that because the nets are human in origin, that humans have created the danger for the whale?

Some people have expressed outrage, in comments left on news sites on the internet, protesting the 'barbaric' treatment of the western whale. While the image evoked by the description of the method used to euthanise the whale is gruesome, after contemplating the issues involved, we find it hard to fault the choice made… in this case, and with the (limited) information we have at hand.

We do not uniformly accept this type of decision. However, the evidence presented by the media, unless we learn otherwise, does make a compelling case for euthanasia. In the case of the younger whale caught off Surfer's Paradise, we consider the responsibility of humans, for placing the shark nets in the ocean (which we do not agree with, as they do little to protect anyone during the winter months with few swimmers and many very young whales heading south for the first time, and do kill cetaceans, turtles, and other sea life needlessly) makes it imperative that every effort possible must be made to save any creatures caught…including sharks.

(for some background, see http://tinyurl.com/3yoch8l, and an opposing view: http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/10/09/146125_gold-coast-news.html)

Something to ponder, these two nearly simultaneous cases.

Be well,

Scott Taylor, BSSoc (1st Class Honours), PhD
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

More direct science against any resumption of whaling

In September of 2007 I wrote an entry (see it here) about the carbon cycle in the Southern Ocean. Entitled "The Oxygen Farmers" it focused on the oxygen production that occurs in the Southern Ocean, and how it is the largest source of oxygen for our planet. Ever since the industrial whaling of the last century, the removal of the whales has added to the reduced efficiency of the Southern Oceans to produce oxygen.

Now, scientists have shown one more important part of this cycle, and why it is crucial that no commercial, or any other kind of whaling, should be allowed.

ABC news in Australia released a report today (see it here) telling us how Whale Poo is a critically important part of the life cycle in the oceans. As one of the elements in the life cycles in the oceans, the waste products from whale diets feeds algae, which in turn feeds the phytoplankton, which feeds the krill, eaten by the whales. It is the phytoplankton that creates the oxygen we breathe.

According to Japanese whaling interests, backed up by all other whaling nations, it is claimed that there is no environmental or ecological reason to stop whaling. Their claim is that the effort to end whaling is akin to "dietary imperialism" based entirely on cultural choices of what is OK to eat, and what is not OK to eat. They would have all whaling seen as purely choices of dietary preference, with no ecological consequences. To claim otherwise is only an emotional appeal based on bias, and is ecologically unwise.


Even the Australian ecologist, the highly acclaimed Tim Flannery, suggests that the imbalance in the oceans, the failing fish stocks and the ill health of many part of the world oceans, is due to unbalanced harvesting of living resources. Yes, Tim Flannery is in favour of increased whaling.

It has been my contention that the oxygen cycle is, obviously, affected by the reduction of whales in the southern Ocean. The reduction of most species has left open the ecological niches they formerly occupied, and these niches have been filling up with the increase in the population of the smallest filter-feeding whale, the Minke. It is the Minke whale that the Japanese have been removing in the hundreds each year, and the ones they must stop killing.

The arguments mount, stronger and stronger, for a total end to whaling. This is another piece of that argument.

The Ambassador

A year of research completed

The writing of a dissertation is a lengthy, complicated, and challenging process. To be honest, it was also a very satisfying process, enabling me to focus entirely upon issues, arguments, ideas, and whole ways of thinking that one rarely has the opportunity to do with such single-minded focus. The process has opened my eyes to many things, enabling me to enter the world of academia with enthusiasm for the possibilities that lie ahead. To make a contribution to the accumulated knowledge of humanity is a privilege, one I take very seriously.

For this reason, I have welcomed the sometimes intense scrutiny that is brought to bear when assessing academic work. Not many areas of human endeavour comes under such careful examination, each word required to justify its presence, each idea invoked required to be fully explicated, used with exacting accuracy, and with all arguments against it taken into consideration. It is challenging to be required to be entirely up to date on the status of intellectual work. One must first gain a broad understanding of the genesis of ideas, and then track the varying issues and arguments it brings up, analysing as you go, to come to a personal understanding, and position.

In producing my dissertation I calculate that I read well over one thousand academic papers. My library of references, built over a year of study, contains approximately 730 titles, and does not include those I read that were not relevant. My dissertation includes 14 pages of references, in both the body of the paper and in one extensive appendix.

To have had the support from my wonderful partner, Amanda, and the excellent encouragement and mentoring of my academic advisor, Dr. Jen Carter, and the rest of the faculty at the University of the Sunshine Coast, has been a real delight, one I aim to honour by carrying on the project of study originally proposed.

I am happy to report that I have been awarded a bachelors degree, BSocSc (Hon) in the field of Animal Geography. It is an Honours Degree First Class. I have been offered a candidature in the PhD research program, and several scholarships. The coming year will see the beginning stages of an extensive research project into the representations of, and varied understandings of, Dolphin-Assisted Therapy, as my PhD research project.

My dissertation, "The Dolphin-Human Connection: Embassy or Zoo-without-walls?", will be made available to read online soon. Altho it is meant for an academic audience, there are parts of it that should make interesting reading to the more general public.

For the dolphins,

Scott Taylor

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

The Dolphin Embassy -- Momentum is gathering

The Dolphin Embassy has just returned to Australia from my annual overseas journey.

Each year since 2005 I have “taken my show on the road”, traveling around the world to do presentations, informing and inspiring audiences to regard all cetaceans as deserving of recognition, recognition of their inherent status as advanced beings with unalienable rights. Each year I experience growth in the acceptance of the ideas offered.

This year the tour was shorter, but it feels that it may have had a strong impact. I spent time in Colorado, Florida, California, and Oregon, and in each place the level of interest delighted me.

I did six formal presentations in the US this year –Denver (at the beautiful headquarters of the Metaphysical Research Society), Sebastopol, Petaluma, San Francisco (at Globe Studios and Sound Therapy Center), and Mt Shasta (at the Flying Lotus) in California, and Portland, Oregon. Supported along the way by dear friends Barry and Coral of Sebastopol, Fort Schlesinger of Petaluma, and the wonderful energy of Brent Willet, we were able to reach audiences that were primed and ready to hear about the ideas I share.
 

Background

In the late 1950s, Dr. John C. Lilly began his famous research on dolphins. His quest led him to the momentous discovery that they are fully sentient, cognizant, reasoning, cultured, and sophisticated beings. It was immediately apparent to Dr. Lilly that something was amiss in our relationship with cetaceans – he had made the same mistakes as everyone else, assuming them to be just another species of animal.

Once he made his important breakthrough, it was an easy step to realize that dolphins, whales, and porpoises deserved to have their rights recognized and protected. It is not, as some have misunderstood, the human role to offer them their rights. Instead, it is our duty to acknowledge the rights that they have. As a matter of scientific fact, their history as a highly evolved family of beings is much older than the human (even the Bible, in Genesis, specifically recognizes that they were created on an earlier “Day” then humans, the fifth Day. They were the earliest creatures named in the Old Testament).

Dr. Lilly saw, in a sudden insight, that there already exists a vast nation, comprised of all the seas and oceans of our planet. The citizens of this nation, the largest on the planet, are the Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises – the Cetacean Nation.

In 1961, Dr. Lilly published his first reference to this idea. Over the subsequent years he worked with many friends to develop the concept. With Michael Bailey, of Greenpeace Hawaii (the only Greenpeace autonomous “cell” that did not become part of the subsequent amalgamated organization we know as Greenpeace International), he worked out a strategic plan for implementing recognition of the Cetacean Nation.

Later on, his close friend Rebecca Goodman joined John in publicly announcing, again, the intention to bring the Cetacean Nation to reality.

When I asked John, in 1997, what he hoped his public legacy would be --after a lifetime of inventions, discoveries, and important research – he answered without hesitation “the Cetacean Nation”.

Years of discussion and public presentations later (we shared the stage at the 6th International ICERC Whale and Dolphin Conference in Hervey Bay, Australia, 1997, presenting our ideas about the Cetacean Nation), John surprised me by publicly suggesting that his preferred Ambassador to the United Nations from the Cetacean Nation would be me. (see “Gilding the Lilly: The Cetacean Nation”, video by SoundPhotosynthesis).

Dr. John C. Lilly and Scott Taylor, Hervey Bay, Australia, 1997

John had this to say:
“Mr. Taylor is a key person in what I call the Cetacean Nation, a global network of like-minded individuals attempting to bridge the communication gap between humans and cetaceans. His work contributes a wider understanding of humanity, cetacea, and the environment on the edge of the twenty-first century. Scott’s continued efforts as educator and catalyst bridge not only the interspecies communication barrier, but the barriers between people.”

Sadly, we were not able to accomplish the global recognition of the Cetacean Nation before Dr. Lilly died (Sept. 30, 2001). My dedication to this goal is unabated, however.
The Dolphin Embassy -- Australia

I established The Dolphin Embassy as a registered non-profit organization in Australia in October of 2004. Its mission is to educate and inspire humans toward a proper regard for the rights of all cetaceans. To this end I have taken multi-media presentations on the road, traveling around the world, visiting India, Belgium, the Bahamas, Mexico, Fiji, and many states in America (Florida, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, New Mexico. Arizona, California).

I recognize the quixotic nature of this endeavor. It is easily seen as a harmless joke, a prank that we might pull to engage people, pulling them via humor into thinking, if only for a moment, about the rights of Cetaceans. We also see this as we see many aspects of the dolphin story – the closer you look, and become involved, the deeper it gets.

An Aside – and a bit of history
Doug Michels was a visionary artist, architect, and man of many talents. In 1974, he and some friends established “The Dolphin Embassy” as an art project under the aegis of the famous Ant Farm, in Houston Texas. A 501 (c) 3 non-profit was organized to support the idea. In 1978, after a disastrous fire destroyed the studios of the Ant Farm, the project was abandoned. In 1977, Michels went as far as traveling to Australia to meet some dolphins, to explain his intentions, to offer to speak on their behalf.

Doug Michels, Gold Coast, Australia, 1977

Some years later, Michels drew plans for an orbiting space station (Project Blue Star) that included a central glass globe full of water, in which dolphins could live. His idea was that dolphins could be the best weightless teachers we could find, alien intelligence that could help us understand the mysteries of outer space. (it was not explained how the dolphins would access air, or how the water would be taken up to the station).

Project Blue Star

In an sad bit of synchronicity, Doug Michels was in Australia, working on a film about the friendly Orca of Eden Bay in 2004 when he slipped and fell off a cliff and died. He died on the same day that we formally established The Dolphin Embassy in Australia. We did not know that he was in Australia at the time…

The Current Status of the Dolphin Embassy

Over the years I have met many people with parts to offer. Some have led us to important aspects of the process of becoming able to work at the United Nations (thanks, Marsha, for that!) Some have engaged in lengthy discussions via email, aiming to sharpen our approach. And some have been very supportive in helping gather audiences to hear our ideas (thanks especially for this, Brent!). We are always on the lookout for well-prepared people in the fields of international law, diplomacy, intercultural communications, and NGO experience to discuss this idea.

Studying the application form from the UN for recognition of a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), I discovered that one does not have to be human to be represented! How delightful…

Addressing the inevitable challenges we can assume we will face when we arrive at the United Nations, from those who do not accept that we can truthfully represent the dolphins – we can hear them now: “When have you, or anyone, ever had a meaningful conversation with a dolphin? What right do you have to represent them?” – we have carefully developed a four-point agenda. We feel that no one can realistically assert that dolphins, whales, and porpoises would NOT want these four rights to be recognized:

Four-part agenda of the Cetacean Nation at the UN
Safe  Universal protection from intentional harm. This will require diplomacy, as some cultures still believe cetaceans are food
Clean  Clean water in which to live. All water, everywhere, flows to the Oceans. We must stop pollution and clean the waters of the world.
Quiet  No sonic pollution of the oceans. Commercial and Military uses of sound in the oceans must be reduced to harmless levels.
Peace  An end to war. Humans must stop killing each other-- as a prerequisite to peace for all.

If you feel that you have skills or resources to offer to this effort, please contact us. I have many details developed in our strategic plan, requiring support from a large team of dedicated people.

Would you like to join us in taking the voice of the dolphins to the United Nations?

Join us for discussion of these ideas at: http://groups.google.com/group/dolphinembassy

C. Scott Taylor, PhD
Ambassador