By Teresa Platt, Executive Director, Fur Commission USA

December 1997

The U.S. high seas' tuna fleet was virtually eliminated from the yellowfin tuna fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific in less than five years. Why? The fishery, stretching from California to South America and out to Hawaii, is well-managed, healthy, and experiencing marine mammal mortality rates a fraction of what is allowed as biologically insignificant in U.S. fisheries. Although many object philosophically to the intentional encirclement and release of marine mammals during tuna harvesting, it is well recognized that substitution of other gear would result in higher marine mammal losses.

So why did the tuna/dolphin association in the eastern Pacific escalate into one of the most contentious environmental issues of the decade, resulting in public confusion, trade disputes, and displaced, ruined fishermen? What are we failing to understand? Why is it so difficult to secure healthy fisheries and fishing communities when we agree we want sound conservation, humane treatment of animals and respect for other cultures? Why are we so ineffective at identifying real problems, developing solutions, setting goals and passing sensible laws?

Just a short century ago, the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population was involved in food production. Urbanization has radically altered this, with less than 2 percent of the nation now involved in food production. Less than 15 percent of the country is involved in any sort of interaction with natural resources although the entire country is dependent on this invisible, primarily rural, segment for food, shelter and clothing. We have a public isolated from, but dependent on, the resource providers of the world. We have a public that turns on a faucet for running water, a switch for electricity. Food is foraged from boxes and cans, not from fields, orchards or the body of animals.

This recent disassociation of the public from its food producers is ripe for exploitation by the "conflict industry," which makes money by creating conflict, not from solving problems. Computers and mass communication have fueled the explosive and unregulated growth of this new industry. You can recognize the conflict industry by its methods and message. "Good guys versus bad guys" theater is wrapped up in one-word debates over dolphins and owls. Simplistic solutions and impossible-to-reach zero tolerance standards ensure job security for conflict industrialists selling easily explained, easily adopted positions.

Ignorance and packaged hate are a lethal combination in the manipulation of public opinion and the mobilization of massive numbers of concerned people. The resulting policies are based on dark fantasies of the world very similar to the beliefs of primitive societies where the harvest and the earth were protected by ritual and rote, not by examination and understanding. The conflict industry makes good use of totems, taboos and sacred cows. One tribe is sent into battle against another with cries of "right and the gods are on our side!"

If all the world's people were well fed, clothed and housed, a little dissent and dark entertainment would be of small consequence. But with 6 billion people and more coming soon to a planet near you, our policies need to be based on fact, not fantasy and fiction. At stake is a future of enlightenment, health and plenty or desperate poverty and starvation with group pitted against group.

One of the first times the tuna/dolphin issue was presented to a mass audience was in a movie called "Heaven Can Wait." Warren Beatty as the CEO of a large corporation, learns that his company is being sued because they kill dolphins in their tuna fishing operations. Beatty replies that they should become the "Good Guy Tuna Company." He explains that "We don't care how much it costs. We just care how much it makes."

In succinct wording, a screenwriter summed up the entire "dolphin safe" campaign years before it was presented to the world. But listen carefully to what he said: "We don't care how much it costs. We just care how much it makes."

There are financial, social and environmental costs to every decision. The simplistic definition of "dolphin safe" as established by the conflict industry caused enormous dislocation and incurred huge financial costs. U.S. fishermen took out loans of over one million dollars per boat to outfit their boats for fishing outside of the eastern Pacific. In the debacle that followed, operations shifted to other parts of the world, taxing infrastructure, collapsing the global market for tuna and forcing fishermen to endure the lowest prices in over twenty years. "We don't care how much it costs. We just care how much it makes."

Over decades, tuna fishermen invented all the methods to release dolphins unharmed from their nets and gave the technology away for free. In contrast, out of the hundreds of millions of dollars raised by the conflict industry on this issue, not a dime went to the fishery to solve real problems. And a tuna cannery representative, commenting on the financially dismal "dolphin safe" marketing campaign, stated, "We were disappointed that the environmentalists didn't come through for us at the cash register." "We don't care how much it costs. We just care how much it makes."

Third and fourth generation Southern California tuna fishermen are suffering the social costs of "dolphin safe." They wonder, in despair, if this country wants fifth generation fishing communities. And after seeing their fathers and grandfathers publicly tarred and feathered, children of fishermen question the value of what their family does. We lost one third of the high seas Pacific tuna fleet in less than five years and virtually eliminated the U.S. tuna fishermen from the eastern half of the Pacific, an area almost three times the size of the United States and their traditional fishing grounds since the turn of the century. "We don't care how much it costs. We just care how much it makes."

There are environmental costs to "dolphin safe" too. To meet the definition, fishermen in the eastern Pacific avoid the large tuna that swim with dolphin. Forced to fish on baby tunas, they threaten the future of the fishery with the scientists estimating a reduction of yellowfin tuna production of 30 to 60 percent if the current definition of "dolphin safe" fishing were embraced by all the fishermen. Even worse, discards of small tunas, other fish, sharks, billfish and turtles rose from 0.1 percent to over 30 percent of the catch.

"Dolphin safe" set a zero tolerance standard for one animal in one area of the world as impacted by one type of fishing gear. The present definition of "dolphin safe" is based on the concept that there are 9.6 million dolphins in the eastern Pacific and none anywhere else in the world. It ignores the fact that marine mammals inhabit all the world's oceans and therefore all the world's fisheries. It ignores the real impact fishing gear has on these animals and other creatures in fisheries around the world. Greenpeace correctly called this a "greenwash." Out of sight, out of mind. By teaching people not to look at problems, we can't solve them. "We don't care how much it costs. We just care how much it makes."

So what are we teaching fishermen? We are teaching them that cooperation with government and science means going out of business. The fate of the U.S. tuna fleet sends a haunting message to other fishermen who worry about even attempting to discuss their problems in public. Who is stupid here?

Did we do anything right in addressing the tuna/dolphin issue? Yes. In fact, a lot out of public view went very well. Thanks to the concerted efforts of governments and scientists, the eastern Pacific yellowfin tuna fishery benefited from good cooperation among the involved nations. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, the management body in the eastern Pacific, developed a solid "applied science" program to assess the gear and techniques which fishermen invented and perfected, moving the information efficiently across borders and through the fleet. Goals were set and reevaluated and reset. Dolphin mortality plummeted as regulations stressed individual responsibility on the part of the fishermen and the fishing boats. The program is a model for other fisheries and State Department calls it an "environmental success story." So the answers in the eastern Pacific were what they always are: international cooperation, education, individual responsibility and science, science, science.

Where do we want to go? Where do we need to go? How do we get there? People of reason need to be involved in setting the agenda. Was the agenda in the eastern Pacific tuna fishery to reduce dolphin mortality, without exchanging one environmental problem for another, or to destroy "big, bad, wicked, evil" fishermen? Both agendas continue to run parallel and it is unclear which will cross the finish line first. It is foolish to waste precious resources and human abilities on non-issues or reacting to irrational agendas that should be rejected in the first place.

Let's look at some of the agendas or "visions" for our future offered up by various components of our society and the conflict industrialists. The scientists have a long-term vision based on a thoughtful collection of information, a vision based on reality. The "preservationists" offer a three-part vision which never changes: resources should be locked up, they should be in charge and people should go away. The "animal rightists" embrace a vision which demands that animals not be inconvenienced even if this destroys human communities or causes enormous suffering for animal populations. And the resource providers have a vision of being decently paid and left in peace, respected while meeting society's most basic needs.

In sifting through these visions, the public and its representatives need to excel at evaluating and balancing the costs of public policy decisions. We must ask the right questions in order to uncover the goals and set standards which allow flexibility, creativity and markets to determine how to reach those standards. It is important to minimize disruption and risk, protecting long-term thinking and attracting capital. It is true that a government governs best that governs least. We need to recognize and continuously measure the financial, social and environmental costs of everything we do.

The political arena is our forum for pulling all these areas together. How can a small group of isolated and invisible fishermen succeed in a system which does not hear small groups and is not very good at fine tuning or flexibility? The political process is still controlled by large corporations, old money, and public opinion which generates votes, a necessity for the politicians. The conflict industry very effectively manipulates public opinion and advances its agenda by pushing our representatives to embrace ideologies in exchange for public goodwill and the resultant votes. Unfortunately, most of our "leaders" do not lead: they are pushed.

The marriage of the established green groups with conflict-style fundraising is a deadly combination for resource policies. By constantly selling the "good guys versus bad guys" scenario to the public, the eco-groups find it almost impossible to politically support resource people, as this negatively impacts a bottom line dependent on maintaining resource people as the "enemy." Many of the true conservationists in the environmental movement are disturbed by this knowledge, recognizing that this type of fundraising runs counter to truly protecting the environment. The eco-groups find themselves guilty of the same behavior they accuse resource industries of: short term profits at the expense of the environment, milking an issue until it's exhausted, rape and pillage, cut and run.

Frightening costs loom over us if we persist in keeping the public ignorant of, and isolated from, the resource providers of the world. If we continue to dismember vital human communities in our quest to save the earth from real and imaginary demons, then the eastern tropical Pacific fishermen's trial by fire will be just one of many sad examples of human folly.

In October of 1995, five of the world's largest environmental groups changed their standing on the tuna/dolphin issue of the eastern Pacific. World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Marine Conservation and National Wildlife Federation announced their support for the fishermen's education program of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. This shift has the environmental groups following fishermen and many resource and property rights groups who have long supported this approach. Agreement was reached and laws passed to redefine "dolphin safe" to a gold star for perfect performance in releasing dolphins unharmed, allowing generations of Pacific fishermen to continue fishing in a healthy ocean.

Does this mean that the eco-groups' message will change from eco-pap/attack propaganda to real environmental information designed to meet the demands of a more discerning audience? Fishermen and other resource people are watching closely, hoping that we are finally approaching the day when those involved in the environmental debate forever abandon the use of totems, taboos and sacred cows.

Back to Perspectives / Home