I just want to say sorry for not being on the blog as of late. Life has been crazy and any down time I get, I try to spend it with family. But I wanted to stop and ask for prayer. Some opportunities may be coming my way and I want to do what God is calling me to do instead of what I want to do.
I am trying to stop by the blog more and will try to post some new things. Check back but in the mean time, please keep me in your prayers.
END OF LINE…
Can be found on Mormonism Research Ministry (www.mrm.org) By Eric Johnson
An open letter to Glenn Beck…from a “monster”
By Eric Johnson
Note: On April 25th, 2014, Glenn Beck addressed the student body at Liberty University (LU) at a tri-weekly gathering called “convocation.” (You can watch the talk here.) While each student must attend the service or face a $10 fine--it was no different for Beck's talk--the entire faculty and staff at Liberty were also required to attend, which doesn't always happen. (Because the arena was filled, they watched on cable television in other rooms.) Beck spoke on the history of the Bible, mentioned Joseph Smith and his “martyrdom,” and insinuated that the unique LDS teaching of preexistence is true. Later that morning, MRM published my response titled “What Glenn Beck Didn’t Explain at this Morning’s Convocation Talk.”
Within a day, we received five separate emails (four LU students and an LU professor), all saying they agreed with the article. (You can see the student posts listed at the bottom of the article linked above. In addition, a two-part blog will be published next week on Mormon Coffee that will respond to LU’s defense of the issue.) While one LU official personally told me that the university hoped this controversial issue would just fade away, Glenn Beck decided to revisit the topic in a scathing article published on May 20, 2014 titled “”A Land of Monsters’: Beck Fires Back at Those Attacking Liberty University for Inviting Him to Speak." Instead of letting the issue die, Mr. Beck aims directly at those folks (like myself) who believed he should not have been allowed to speak on spiritual issues from a pulpit at a prestigious Christian university. With that as a background, allow me to respond as I reprint his entire article (underlined) followed by my response.
Dear Mr. Beck
I have read your May 20th article titled ‘A Land of Monsters’: Beck Fires Back at Those Attacking Liberty University for Inviting Him to Speak.
Your staff member wrote, Glenn Beck was the featured convocation speaker at Liberty University on April 25, and it didn’t take long for critics to begin attacking the university for inviting him to speak. But Beck said on his radio program Tuesday that many of the attacks haven’t actually come from the left.
The words "attacks" and “attacking”. . . what exactly did your writer mean by that? Wouldn’t you consider these loaded words? Johnnie Moore, the senior vice president of LU who serves directly under President Jerry Falwell, Jr., told me that he received about 20 emails concerning your visit. Apparently all but one criticized Liberty's choice. (The only one who wrote to agree was written by an LDS student who attends LU--go figure!) Why was there such an uproar? I think this quote from your talk epitomized what the writers felt was wrong:
I share your faith. I am from a different denomination, and a denomination quite honestly that I'm sure can make many people at Liberty feel uncomfortable. I am a Mormon, but I share your faith in the atonement of the Savior Jesus Christ.
One of the writers shared her letter with me (her name is taken out, but otherwise it is intact):
Dear Johnnie Moore,
My name is ______________ and I am a former student of Liberty University. I still have many friends at LU and so I usually see the LU news on my facebook, the most recent being Glenn Beck's speech in convocation. With all due respect, Sir, leaving Mr. Beck's words without explanation is extremely detrimental to your students' faith and blurs the line between Christianity and Mormonism, which cannot be combined. Let me briefly explain:
I have grown up in a very Mormonized part of Idaho. I have worked in theatre companies that are almost exclusively Mormon. In my junior year I transferred to Liberty from a college where I was one of only six non-Mormons in the entire department (professors included). Friends at LU asked what a Mormon was and I was utterly shocked! The Mormon temple is less than two minutes from my house - “Holiness to the Lord, the House of the Lord” is written on its steeple while the angel Moroni stands blowing his golden trumpet at the peak. In short, I understand Mormonism. I speak Mormon. Sir, what is so deceptive about this particular religion is that it uses the same vocabulary as Christianity, but it has different definitions. When they say “Jesus,” it is not the same Jesus. When they say “salvation,” it is not the same salvation. When they say “heaven,” you must ask, “Which one?” (There are three heavens and you can't get to the top one unless you're married, either in this life or the afterlife.) At the risk of sounding harsh, Mormonism is a very sneaky and deceptive religion which hijacks Christianity in a very clever way: by masquerading as Christianity.
I remember Mormons animatedly insisting that they were NOT Christian - they were MORMON. Now the tide has turned, as it so often does in Mormonism. It is now the goal of Mormonism to be accepted as a mainstream Christian denomination. Glenn Beck, in his convo speech, included himself as part of a Christian denomination, and to uninformed LU students, it probably sounded like he was just that.
The message in Eric Johnson's article - "What Glenn Beck didn't explain at yesterday morning's convocation talk at Liberty University" - is exactly what myself and many other students tried to express to LU faculty last year before Mitt Romney gave the commencement speech - the closing cap at "the biggest Christian university in the world." Christians over here in the West spend much time trying to unravel Mormonism for Mormon people, many of whom don't even know the history of their own church. Please understand that when Liberty University – “the biggest Christian university in the world” - asks a Mormon leader to speak, knowing that his words sound dangerously Christian, it undoes everything Christians over here in the West (and even in the East) have tried to do. In Mormon eyes, it equates Mormonism and Christianity. To Mormons, when “the biggest Christian university in the world” accepts Mormon speakers (especially as a commencement speaker), it is an affirmation of Mormonism as Christianity.
Sir, as a recent Liberty student who understands the predicament of the West, I beg you to differentiate between these two religions. I love my Mormon friends - they are wonderful people - but to equate Mormonism and Christianity is to adopt heresy. Once more, it is heresy that uses the same vocabulary but different definitions – a wolf in sheep's clothing, if you will. Mormonism Research Ministry has graciously offered to speak on this very topic at no charge, and as a university that cites Mormonism as a cult in their theology courses, I think it would be a huge step in the right direction if Liberty were to take them up on that offer.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
__________________
Mr. Beck, how exactly should this woman's words be attributed as an “attack” on Liberty? It sounds to me that, while there certainly is a disagreement, this is anything but an “attack.” What this lady did is how civilized people let the leaders of an institution know when they disagree with their actions. Sending emails and letters along with making phone calls is a right we have. As a parent of a 2014 Liberty grad, I have this same right, as do those who don't have any connections at all with LU. The word “attack” should be reserved for the actions of lynch mobs or terrorists. Of course, I am not privy to the other correspondence sent to LU, but I would think that the letter above is very typical of the criticism communicated to the university.
Perhaps you didn't intend to focus your barb at the lady above but rather were thinking more about Christian apologists like me. Please understand, my criticism was not aimed so much at you as it was the leadership of the school. You have every right to say what you want. You certainly took full advantage at Liberty’s last convocation to speak on a topic that was sure to rile the critics who take their Christianity seriously. In fact, you admitted at the beginning of your talk that you had changed your message from what you origianlly planned to say.
According to the LU administration, what you said about your Mormonism surprised them. They claimed that they had no idea you would speak about Mormons belonging to a “different denomination,” the integrity of Joseph Smith, or the assumption that preexistence is true. After all, they don't require the speakers to submit an outline of their talks, so maybe they shouldn't have been surprised. However, I think you are well-versed in the differences between our faiths to know that most people wouldn’t catch the subtleties. When your company live-streamed your sermon and made it available for everyone in the world to see, you had to know that there would be some out there who would be better versed in Mormonism than the audience in that Liberty arena. Could it be that you knew your talk would generate controversy? It almost seems that way, which doesn't appear very thoughful if you really cared about the school and the leaders there who continue to speak so highly of you. The university, not you, has taken most of the flak. Until now.
You are right that the criticism originated from those in Christian circles who probably hold very similar values as you. For instance, politically, you and I are much closer than many, as I too am conservative. Socially, we would agree on issues like abortion and homosexual marriage. Spiritually, though, we are worlds apart. Just as you probably wouldn’t consider your disagreement with Obamacare, liberal legislation, and independent judicial rulings as “attacks,” please don’t label our disagreement with Liberty officials in the same way. You and I may not see eye-to-eye on certain issues, but as human beings and fellow Americans, may I please request that you have more respect by allowing for differences and dealing with these at a table of dialogue? It is you who seems to be on the "attack," as you begin your article by using "land of monsters," a negative remark about those with whom you disagree. Could we agree to avoid the ad hominem attacks in future dialogue so we can focus on the issues at hand?
“Liberty University is being smeared, absolutely smeared, and they’re being smeared by religious people [who] claim to be followers of Christ,” Beck remarked. “Now, I’ve read the Bible several times, and I just can’t find the place where Jesus hates.”
I had to reread this several times just to make sure I understood what you were trying to say. “Absolutely smeared”? You need to provide evidence that a “smear” campaign was attempted by “religious people." A more complete explanation combined with evidence to support your accusation is necessary to validate your claim.
Then you say that you've "read the Bible several times, and I just can’t find the place where Jesus hates.” Allow me to provide three passages--one from each Sypnotic Gospel writer--quoting Jesus who was dealing with the religious leaders of his day:
Mark 12:38-42:
As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”
Luke 11:37-52:
When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal. Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. . . . “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
Matthew 23:1ff
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. . . .
“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ You blind fools! . . . “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. . . . You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. . . . “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
I would agree that Jesus didn't use hate speech to put the Pharisees in their place. Yet how many liberals would consider Jesus’s mere disagreement and choice words as somehow hateful and even contradicting what He said in Matthew 7:1? Indeed Jesus was quite colorful in calling human beings—if Mormonism’s view of preexistence is true, they too are “children of God”— “blind guides,” “hypocrites,” “child(ren) of hell,” “fools,” “whitewashed tombs” “full of the bones of the dead,” “full of hypocrisy and wickedness,” “snakes,” “brood of vipers,” and ultimately people who are “condemned to hell." Reread the letter from the former student above and then look over Jesus’s words once more. Is it really fair to say that LU (or even you) has been “smeared”? Something tells me there is no comparison. The Jesus you picture, meek and mild, just doesn't hold water when the facts are entertained, even though this goes against the popular conception that the Savior would have never criticized anyone.
Beck said there’s a group of people who identify themselves as Christians, but always seem to “have a problem” with him and men like historian David Barton.
I’m not sure how Christian historian David Barton has anything to do with your speaking at LU. Yes, the critics of LU are Christians who are very concerned about Liberty's policy of allowing a Latter-day Saint using religious jargon and emotional language to make Mormonism sound the same as the Christianity taught by the Bible department at LU. You may still feel that the critics are without reason for their criticism. If so, allow me to use a passage from the Bible (2 John 7-11) to provide more detail:
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.
Let’s dissect these verses. First of all, John warns against deceivers in the same way Jesus did in Matthew 7:15, which says:
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”
Jesus said we will know these false teachers by their fruit. And then, in 2 John 7, we see that wrong doctrine is “bad” fruit. You may read verse 7 and, with a smile, say, “But Mormons do believe that Jesus came in the flesh.” Literally, this is true, as your leaders have taught the Jesus came to this earth through the Virgin Birth, a direct result of a physical union between Elohim (Heavenly Father) and Mary. (For those doubting what I am saying, please see herefor more details.) Mormonism's view of Jesus is much different than what is taught at LU, which has been admitted by your leadership. For example, one of your former apostles had this to say about the differences:
“And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 269).
Consider what fifteenth President Gordon B. Hinckley had to say:
“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages’” (“Crown of Gospel is Upon Our Heads, Church News, June 20, 1998, p. 7).
Four years later he said,
“As a church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say” (“We look to Christ,” Ensign (Conference Edition), May 2002, p. 90).
I agree with your general authorities in saying that the Jesus of Mormonism is different than the Jesus worshipped by millions of Christians around the world. Because this is true, what is John’s advice? He said that those teaching such a false gospel should not be allowed in the "house." What does this mean? Should Christians invite the missionaries into their homes? The context of the day gives a different perspective. Because the Christians in those early days met in homes, very similar to our Sunday church services today, they were not supposed to let false teachers introduce heretical doctrines from the pulpits. Doing so, verse 11 says, is the same as “shar(ing) in their wicked work.” Thus, John is instructing the churches to keep the sheep (Christians) safe by not allowing any wolves to share their corrupt philosophies.
I realize that Liberty officials do not think their convocation is the same as a “chapel” or “worship” service. It is a place, Mr. Moore has written, that allows for a variety of viewpoints. Yet musical worship to God, combined with prayer before and after the talk, play major roles in all convocation services where the pulpit (although LU officials don’t like that term, I'll still use it) is given over to someone like you, Mr. Beck. You changed whatever message you originally were going to bring so you could present what turned out to be a confusing talk, leaving many students thinking that Mormonism and their Christianity were one and the same. Shame on Liberty's administrators for allowing students to possibly walk away convinced that your spiritual view is aligned with theirs. And shame on you for taking advantage of the situation.
“I want to make it really, really super clear: there is no difference between the people who are currently trying to take down Liberty University because they’re ‘not Christian enough,’ or me because I’m ‘not a Christian,’ [and] the people who are trying to run other people out of the square.”
This is nothing more than rhetoric. How can our belief that you shouldn't have been allowed to taken the pulpit at LU be the same as running “people out of the square"? You have every right to talk about your political and spiritual views. (In fact, you have dedicated whole television shows to Book of Mormon issues.) Your platform is your “square" and you have every right to your beliefs. However, the administrators at the largest Christian university in the world had the right to (or not to) invite you to speak to their students. They chose to let you come, and it is my opinion that this was not a wise choice. Still, nobody is running you out of the "square."
Think about it this way, Mr. Beck. What are the possibilities that I could speak at your church’s next general conference? What do you mean that I would never be allowed? Isn't this discriminatory? Yes, it is, and your leaders have every right to discriminate! In the same way Liberty’s officials should have been more discriminatory in who they allow to speak at convocation on spiritual topics. And asking the university's officials to not allow someone from another religion to address the student body on spiritual issues is well within our (my) rights.
“This is why your churches are dwindling,” Beck continued. “You think you’re standing for something, when indeed, you’re standing for hate and bigotry. I think Jesus was hanging out with prostitutes and sinners, wasn’t he? You won’t even listen to a man who says … ‘I challenge you to know your faith, not my faith, your faith so well that you’re willing to die for it. Stand with one another.’ That frightens you so much? If it does, you might want to consider that you’re on the wrong side.”
Mr. Beck, you lose me when you trot out the “hate” card. For Pete’s sake, you sound more like a political liberal than the conservative you are supposed to be. Should I take your disagreement against me (and my position that Liberty shouldn’t have invited you to speak) as hateful? You can’t win with the hate card and I suggest hanging up this stale maneuver once and for all.
As far as Jesus “hanging out” with prostitutes and sinners, these were the folks who knew they were lost as they often beat their chests in seeking repentance. They understood that forgiveness could only come through a contrite heart and they recognized they were sinners. Forgiveness cannot come without the understanding that we have fallen way short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23)
This brings me to a quote from Mr. Moore, as reported by the Religion News Service article published on Monday, May 19. He said that “many conservative evangelical leaders who are closer to Beck than me have told me that they believe Beck has had a born again experience recently. “
Mr. Beck, is this true? (You would know better than anyone else, right?) Do you believe that you have had a “born again” experience? I would love to see you become a Christian, yet in your talk, you clearly stated that you remain a “Mormon.” To support this, you spoke highly of Mormonism's founder Joseph Smith--a man who repudiated the basic beliefs of the historic Christian faith--and you uphold the doctrine of the "first estate" (preexistence). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am betting that you would fully agree with Smith who said that “being born again comes by the Spirit of God through ordinances.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 162)
Let me ask a few other questions to get more clairty:
If your answers are all affirmative, then what exactly do you think Mr. Moore means when he suggests you have had a recent “born again experience"? If you have left Mormonism and become a born again Christian, let us all know. If he's wrong, perhaps you might want to clarify this issue with him so he doesn't assume something that is not true. There are sins of commission, but there are also sins of ommission.
Beck said America is “turning into a land of monsters.”
“I look at every single lover of light and truth as my ally, my friend, my brother,” he said. “I look at everyone who is my enemy as my brother. I don’t care what you say; I don’t care what you think your belief is; I don’t care what your lifestyle is — you’re not going to change me. And I invite you to join me, join others of multiple faiths — never asking anyone to change their faith — asking you to strengthen your faith, whatever it is.”
Do you believe President Obama is your brother? (I’ve heard your show before and you’ve said some pretty harsh things about our nation's President.) And if I were to ask Mr. Obama what he thought of you, would he call you a "monster"? Yes, it goes both ways. By calling your enemy a "brother," are you referring to nothing more than Mormoism's teaching that all people are spirit brothers and sisters going back to the preexistence? Or do you mean that as brothers we should all agree with one another? A little more clarity here would be appreciated in your response.
Beck said he wants “nothing to do with you” if your religion is telling you to “kill people, burn their books, shut them up, torture them, imprison them.”
Are you serious? How did my disagreement with Liberty's invitation to you create me into a “monster” who wants to “kill people, burn (your) books, shut (you) up, torture (you), imprison (you).” Sounds like the type of rhetoric offered by the Nazis in the early 1930s! See, this is what waving the hate card does to a person. If disagreement with someone leads to this type of accusation, then perhaps you need to look in the mirror yourself, Mr. Beck, when giving such a diatribe, as your words should also apply to you as well. As Matthew 19 as quoted above mentions, hypocrites are not favored by Jesus!
“[But] if your faith says: learn about love, learn about goodness, learn about the power of faith, learn about the miracles of God … I’d love to meet you,” he said. “And I’d love to be around you.”
Let’s have lunch, Mr. Beck, and discuss this in a civil manner. Let’s lay the differences on the table and, using good communication tactics, fairly explain why we disagree. Let's stay away from good cop, bad cop. Instead, let's determine the strength of our ideas based on the evidence we can provide. Meanwhile, stereotypes and flamboyant language should be left on the porch outside.
Liberty University has also stood by its decision to invite Beck to speak. An email from the office of Johnnie Moore, senior vice-president for communications and assistant to the president at Liberty University, was posted at Religion News Service.
“College is about learning,” the email read. “How can you defend what you believe if you don’t understand what others believe? I believe our students are stronger in their faith because of our convocation speaker series and the wide diversity of views that they have been privileged to hear in person over the last few decades.”
As I wrote earlier, my response to this (and other quotes) given by Liberty University will be posted on Mormon Coffee in a two-part series beginning Monday, May 26.
As I close, I want to reiterate once more that I hold no animosity against you or Liberty University. Know that I don’t hate you, as I actually pray for your salvation. Until that day comes, though, I cannot accept nor endorse a policy that allows someone with heretical views to address my daughter and her fellow Christian students from a pulpit, especially when the backdrop reads "Training Champions for Christ." Because I believe that Mormonism is not the same as Christianity, I will continue to defend this idea as long as our nation upholds our First Amendment rights. After reading this, I hope you still don’t consider me to be a monster, just as I don't consider you to be one either. We just disagree.
Sincerely,
Eric Johnson
Mormonism Research Ministry
This time last week I was in Costa Rica watching a Michael Jackson impersonator. Although I am not and MJ mega fan, I can truly say that I like most of his hits. The show was enjoyable and they did “Black and White” which if you asked I would have to say is in my top 3 MJ songs.
Now what does Michael Jackson have to do with my love- hate relationship with an Orca? Well one of the songs that they did was “Will You Be There” the theme song to the 1993 movie Free Willy.
This Movie was about a Orca name Willy (played by Keiko) who was captured in the wild and moved to a Sea World type location. then a boy meets Willy and wants to free him from the park because the owners want to kill willy for the insurance money. Long story short, they Free Willy.
HATE:
So what is about this movie that gets to me? The name. My name is Willie. Not William but Willie. So with a name like Willie I have heard it all. The nicknames that the kids would call me it school… well lets just say I heard it all. But when things like Free Willy and Achy Breaky Heart came out I got teased in school a lot.
(Now you maybe asking what Achy Breaky Heart has to do with my name and me being teased. Well Achy Breaky Heart was sang by Billy Ray Cyrus and my name is Willie Ray Hoffmann. Billy Ray- Willie Ray, yeah really fun for me.)
After hearing this song again and thinking back to the movie, I wanted to revisit it because in all reality although I am not a fan of the name, the message on the movie is great.
LOVE:
Over the years I have came to love the ocean and the life that is in it. Going to Costa Rica was amazing. It will be one of those trips that will stand out for my whole family. One night our group when out to the beach and I saw one of the amazing things I would ever see. A sea turtle just after laying her eggs and going back out to sea.
As my family and I watch this awesome animal once again the sea had touched me. Later that night I went down to the beach and just seat there thinking of what more I could do for the area of the earth I loved so much.
Thinking about Free Willy I decided to re-watch the movie. I went to wal-mart and just so happen to find all 4 Free Willy’s in one set. Now as I write this I am watching the 1st one. One of My passion has and is the ocean and the life in it. We as humans like to destroy what God has given us. I see that God has given the ocean to us to take care of and I would like to do more to help. In fact I believe we should all do more to help the earth.
Though my blog is called “One Pastors Point of View”, I see that I am not the only pastor who does not necessarily believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.
Maybe I should start by telling a little about my draw I had to looking for a church to pastor in Utah.
For the 7 years before I moved to Utah, I had been studying the Mormon faith or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints (LDS). Mormonism was a very interesting belief system to me. I say these young men walk by the pizza place I was working at, knocking on the many doors of the college apartments that where across the road. It was the dead of Missouri Summer it St. Charles Missouri and here were these men in shirts and ties and long pants. I really had respect for these men and still today I have respect for them for spending 2 years of their lives preaching what they believe. (You will not see a lot of Christians doing this.)
When I first time I saw these missionaries, I was at bad time in my life. I had lost a great paying job and gave up on my god complete. See for year I was praying to a god of my own making and I had finally given up on it. I planed to live for myself but one day I say two missionaries walking in the heat and I wanted someone to talk to.
As I talked with those Mormons and they told me a very poor version of Jesus, I started to have questions. (Now let me point out that when I say poor, I mean according to the Mormon I lived with and told this story to, they use the word poor. The Mormon missionaries gave a very poor “Missionary lesion”)
I started to look into faiths and soon became a born again Christian and joined a Southern Baptist Church. Although I was now a Baptist I was still interested in the LDS faith. So with studying the Bible, I also started to study Mormonism.
UNTIL NEXT TIME, END OF LINE…
"You want to know why there's so much darkness in this world? Could it be because a lot of folks don't see us loving one another?" - Fred Luter
I know it has been some time since I have posted anything on my sites. The reason for this is that I have moved from my home in Utah and have came back home, in a since, to Missouri. I plan to write out more about my move later but I wanted to give a brief idea for the move.
As most people know I was born and raised in Missouri. I moved to St. Louis when I was 18 and was very happy. Then I felt God calling me to Utah to preach for a small church in a small town.
And let me tell you, going from the STL to Duchesne was a big adjustment. Duchesne, Utah has about 1700+ people and in a very small town. St. Louis is a little bigger. 300,000+
I grow up on a farm and all but yes, I became a little to city and I liked it. But God was calling me to Duchesne, so I went.
Now I don’t want to go to much into my time in Duchesne right now but let me put it like this.
But right now I am seating in a hotel room, the day after my birthday thinking about what God has called me to do next. I am seating mu Kansas City, Missouri waiting to start my new roll as a church planter. If you don’t know what that means it simple, I am going to start a new church in the KC area.
There are a lot of things I will miss about Utah But I have to follow God. I will tell the whole story soon.
END OF LINE…
The Nisshin Maru rams the Steve Irwin as the
Sea Shepherd fleet block whaling fleet’s illegal refueling efforts.
have been rammed by the Japanese whaling fleet’s massive factory vessel, theNisshin Maru. The floating slaughter-house is eight times the mass of the Steve Irwin.
The Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin were behind Sun Laurel,Steve Irwin on portside, Bob Barker on starboard.
On load-speaker, the Shonan Maru No. 2 ordered Sea Shepherd’s Australian flagged ship, the SSS Sam Simon, which is located in the Australian Antarctic Territory, to leave the area on the orders of the Government of Japan. Concussion grenades were thrown at the Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin by the crew of the Nissin Maru.
Captain Peter Hammarstedt radioed the whaling fleet’s factory vessel, the Nisshin Maru, and told them that theBob Barker intended to maintain course and speed, that the moral and legal obligation to avoid the collision was on the Nisshin Maru.
The Nisshin Maru, turned and was approaching from starboard. It nearly collided with Bob Barker, before it turned into Steve Irwin, and rammed the Sea Shepherd ship’s stern.
The Nisshin Maru continued on its collision course, and rammed the portside of the Steve Irwin.
The Nisshin Maru then rammed the Bob Barker. The Steve Irwin increased its speed ahead to avoid the Nisshin Maru.
The Bob Barker took the Steve Irwin’s position on the portside of the Sun Laurel.
The Steve Irwin circled back, and the Nisshin Maru pushed the Bob Barker into the Sun Laurel, sandwiching theBob Barker between itself and the Sun Laurel. The Nisshin Maru then fell back behind the Bob Barker, and rammed full speed into the portside stern of the Sun Laurel, shattering their portside life-raft, and destroying the davit to launch the other life-raft. The Nisshin Maru then rammed the Bob Barker again from behind, destroying one of their radars, and all of their masts.
The Bob Barker completely lost power and issued a MayDay distress call. As this distress call was issued, theNisshin Maru turned away and began fleeing north.
Sea Shepherd Australia Co-Campaign leader, former Senator Bob Brown, has informed the Australian Government of the Japanese multiple breaches of international law and called for Tokyo to be required to remove its ships from this region north of Australia’s Casey Base and to desist from its gross violation of Australian and international laws. He says that the Australian Navy should be dispatched to restore the law.
Currently the Sun Laurel is being escorted north by the Sea Shepherd fleet, since they have no emergency life-saving devices in the potentially treacherous waters of the Southern Ocean. Director of Sea Shepherd Australia, Jeff Hansen said, "The Nisshin Maru has committed the maritime equivalent of a hit and run accident. They have rammed the Sun Laurel, putting them in perilous danger, and simply abandoned them."
All vessels are heading north with the illegal whale poachers from Japan two miles ahead of Sea Shepherds’ fleet.
All three Sea Shepherd ships were rammed, with the Bob Barker sustaining the heaviest damage. Power has been restored to the Bob Barker. Fortunately no crewmembers sustained injuries. The crews completed the mission to block the refuelling and will continue to protect the whales in the sanctuary.
photo: Sea Shepherd Australia/Glenn Lockitch
photo: Sea Shepherd Australia/Glenn Lockitch
February 20, 2013 -The Nisshin Maru rams the SSS Bob Barker,
SSS Steve Irwin and South Korean tanker Sun Laurel
The Japanese whalers' factory ship, the Nisshin Maru, rams the much smaller Sea Shepherd ships, the Bob Barker and Steve Irwin, along with the Korean tanker, Sun Laurel, in the Antarctic Whale Santuary. video: Sea Shepherd Australia
The kick off to Activate's new sermon series by Pastor AJ, "Storytime" begins with two great testimonies, one student testimony by Becky and special guest speaker, Jason David Frank: Actor, MMA fighter, Martial Artist, Motivational speaker, and the original Green power ranger!
It was 1975, Greenpeace's first campaign, and the bodies of six Soviet-slaughtered whales were lying lifeless in the swell. I thought to myself, is humanity really this insane?
Paul Watson on top of a slaughtered whale calf in the foreground, with the Greenpeace ship Phyllis Cormack behind, on 26 June 1975. Photograph: Rex Weyler/Greenpeace
The greatest gift that I have ever received is also my great and enduring curse.
It was June 1975 and I was a crew member on the first Greenpeace campaign to protect the whales. It was off the coast of northern California, 60 miles offshore. Before us, spread across the waters like some invading foreign armada, was the Soviet whaling fleet.
The ships were grey, black, and freckled with rust. From out of the side of the largest vessel, the huge factory ship Dalni Vostok, a steady stream of thick steaming blood poured into the sea.
We felt pretty small on board the 85ft Phyllis Cormack, the halibut seiner we had chartered out of British Columbia, skippered by big no-nonsense Captain John C Cormack.
We were a crew of 13 and I was the first officer.
This was before the 200 territorial limit had been imposed and when the Russians freely fished and whaled up to 13 miles off the shore. The Americans did not like it, but legally there was nothing they could do. Thus it fell to a small band of idealistic young Canadians to challenge the whale killers off the Californian coast.
We had been searching for them since April starting in the north off the Queen Charlotte Islands. It was like trying to find a needle in a haystack and we had no idea of where to even begin looking.
However in early June we received a tip-off from a source I can never reveal in Washington DC that if we wanted to find the Russian whalers, we needed to go south. As we proceeded south, the source supplied us with the movements of the Soviet fleet.
And there we were, 60 miles off the town of Eureka, approaching a massive factory ship and three fast, killer boats, each mounted with harpoons painted the colour of robin's eggs.
We caught them hunting, arriving on the scene just as a harpoon tore into the backside of a young sperm whale. The whalers left it there floating with a radio buoy attached as they took off in pursuit of another victim.
We launched a Zodiac inflatable and I stood in the bow, the bowline wrapped tightly around my wrist for support as we approached the body bobbing up and down in the swells.
I stepped off the Zodiac and on to the carcass of the whale. It was still very warm and blood oozed and bubbled from a gaping raw wound in its side. A long yellow polypropylene rope protruded from the ugly wound. It had been cut and the nylon strands danced about on the surface of the water, whipping rivulets of blood into a salmon pink tinted foam.
The Phyllis Cormack came alongside for our photographer Rex Weyler to take a picture of the whale, using my body as a gauge to measure the animal. It was small, around 22 feet. A young whale.
My bare hand on the whale felt the warmth of its body and the blood on my skin was hot. The whale was lying on its left side and the right eye was open, staring sightlessly skyward. The lower jaw opened and closed with each swell and I could see the lower two rows of pointed teeth.
Suddenly there was a shout from the Phyllis Cormack. The harpoon vessel was returning and they had a fire hose blasting a stream of high-pressure water from the bow.
I jumped into the Zodiac as the Soviets quickly lashed the dead whale to the side of their ship and made way back to the factory ship. We followed and filmed them as they transferred the whale over to the slipway, where it was hauled by cables and winches up on to the flensing deck, where men with long sharp knives waited to flay the body.
More blood gushed from the scuppers into the sea.
And we felt so helpless, so small, and so useless.
After the harpoon vessels transferred their whales, they spread out to resume the killing. We followed one of the harpooners in three Zodiacs as the Phyllis Cormack slowly followed.
It was not long before the Russians found another pod, and once again the chase was on. But this time we were chasing the whalers as they pursued the whales.
Our strategy was simple. We would place our bodies between the whales and the harpoon. We were Gandhi-influenced non-violent advocates, and this was the only tactic we could think of to protect the whales without injuring the whalers.
We had practiced what we would do for over a year and I turned to Bob Hunter, our expedition leader, who was in the boat with me, and said, "Well Bob, this is it. Let's do it."
I gunned the outboard motor, and our inflatable boat roared ahead of the harpoon vessel, with the other two inflatables on either side. Within minutes we were racing ahead of the whaler and behind a pod of eight magnificent sperm whales.
They were racing for their lives, unable to take in enough air for a deep dive. They were spouting rapidly and we could see rainbows sparkling from the mist they expelled into the air. We were so close we could smell their breath, and our objective was to block the path of the harpoon.
Would the Soviets risk killing a human being to slay a whale? The answer to that question was a mystery to us.
But we were tempting them to give us an answer one way or another. As our three inflatable boats raced before the bow, I looked back to see an ape of a man stooping behind the massive harpoon cannon, trying to get one of the whales in his sight. He was not succeeding, and was clearly frustrated.
Suddenly a larger man came storming forward along the catwalk and began yelling into the ear of the Soviet harpooner. The harpooner nodded and crouched down behind his gun as the man who we later identified as the captain stood up and looked down at us with a smile. He brought his finger slowly across his throat, and that was when we realised that Gandhi was not going to work for us that day.
I saw the pod of whales rise up on a swell in front of us just as the harpoon vessel rode up on a swell behind us. As our inflatables descended into the deep trough between the two large swells, a horrendous explosion boomed over the whales.
The explosive-tipped harpoon whizzed through the air above as the attached cable slashed down upon the water close by, cleaving the surface like a heavy sword.
In front of us a female sperm whale screamed in pain as she rolled on her side, with a fountain of hot steaming blood pouring from her. Beside her, the largest whale in the pod rose up from the surface of the sea and dove. As his mighty tail slapped the water with a bang, he disappeared. The other six whales carried on fleeing as the huge male turned to defend them.
For a moment we thought he would attack us. We had all seen the old prints and woodcuts of enraged sperm whales cutting Yankee whaling boats in half with their sabre-like teeth, spilling wounded whalers into the sea.
We had little time to think as the ocean exploded behind us, and this great whale hurled himself from the water trying to reach the man behind the harpoon.
They were ready for him and had quickly reloaded the harpoon gun with a unattached harpoon. As the whale rose up and out of the water, the harpooner lowered the gun, pulling the trigger at point black range. With a thundering explosion the harpoon tore into the whale's head.
He screamed. It was an excruciating cry of pain, shock, and confusion. He fell back into the sea, rolling in agony on the surface in a sea stained scarlet with his blood.
The two dying whales struggled to hold on to life between the harpoon boat and the six of us in three boats, sitting motionless on the swells.
I could not take my eyes off the dying whale closest to us. His tail flayed the sea and pink foam frothed all around him.
Then suddenly the whale was looking directly at me. I saw his huge eye and I could see that he saw me. At that moment he dove once again and I saw pink bloody bubbles coming to the surface, moving closer to our boat. Within seconds the whale's head shot above the surface of the sea and began to tower above, rising higher, but as if in slow motion, and angled so that we could see that his intent was to come crashing down upon us.
And as his head rose ever higher I saw that eye once again, so close that I could see my own reflection in that deep dark orb. Suddenly I was struck with the realisation that this whale understood what we were doing.
His lower jaw hung down almost touching the side of our inflatable boat, so close that I could have reached across and encircled one of the six-inch teeth with my fingers.
His muscles tensed and he stopped rising, and began to slowly slide at an angle back into the sea. I kept eye contact with him until his eye sank beneath the surface of the sea and disappeared.
And so he died.
He could have killed us, but he had not, and the look in that eye has haunted me ever since.
I felt understanding and I knew he knew that we were there to save him, not to kill him. I felt ashamed that we had failed. I felt powerless and angry, frustrated and awed all at once. I felt indebted to him for sparing my life.
But I also saw something else in that eye, and that was pity.
Not for himself nor for his kind, but for us.
An uncomfortable pallor of shame fell over me as I sensed what the whale perceived. It was indeed pity, but pity for us, that we could take life so ruthlessly, so thoughtlessly, and so mercilessly; and for what?
We sat there in our little inflatable boats in the midst of the Soviet whaling fleet with the bodies of a half dozen sperm whales lying lifeless in the swell. I watched the sun begin to set in the west and I remembered that the Russians were killing whales primarily for the valuable spermaceti oil.
Spermaceti oil is valued for its high resistance to heat, and thus it is used in machinery where there is excessive heat. One of the demands for this oil by the Soviets was for use in the production on intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Here they were slaughtering these magnificent, intelligent, socially complex, wondrous sentient beings for the purpose of making a weapon designed for the mass extermination of human beings.
And I thought to myself, are we really this insane?
It is that thought, that unanswered question, that has haunted me every day since.
It is from what I saw in the eye of that whale that has led me to devote my entire adult life to the defence of the whales and the other creatures of the sea, because I know that if we cannot save the whales, the turtles, the sharks, the tuna, and the complex marine biodiversity, that the oceans will not survive. If the life in our oceans is diminished, humanity is diminished and if the oceans die, humanity will die; for we cannot survive on this planet with a dead ocean.
• Captain Paul Watson is a co-founder of the Greenpeace Foundation and the founder in 1977 of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. He is currently on board the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin intervening against the killing of whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary by the Japanese whaling fleet
Photo: Australian CustomsIn response to recent reports stating concern by Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the United States over potential conflicts in the Southern Ocean between Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Japan’s whaling fleet, Sea Shepherd would like to invite Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the United States to send a representative to join the Sea Shepherd ships at sea to witness first-hand the “incidents” about which they have concern.
This invitation echoes the call on Monday documented in news reports by Australia’s Environment spokesman Greg Hunt stating he wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard proposing that Australia send a Customs vessel to monitor the impending face-off in the Southern Ocean. Citing a resolution passed by the International Maritime Organization in 2010 compelling whaling vessels to ensure the safety of protesters during demonstrations, rallies or confrontations on the high seas, reports state that Australia has “warned Japanese whaling vessels it won't tolerate protesters being threatened.”
Australia states it remains “resolutely opposed” to commercial whaling, including so-called "scientific" whaling, and has expressed concern about hunting activities in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
Sea Shepherd wishes to thank Australia for its support. Until now warnings by the nations noted herein have been directed primarily at Sea Shepherd, while simple facts in the case have being ignored, specifically:
Sea Shepherd invites Australia to send a ship to monitor the situation and to keep the peace. Similarly, if New Zealand, the Netherlands or the U.S. are truly concerned about safety at sea, they should send a representative onboard the Sea Shepherd ships and the Japanese vessels to observe the situation for themselves.
Photo: Billy Danger / Sea Shepherd
Sea Shepherd Australia wishes to make it clear that Sea Shepherd does not wish nor intends to do anything illegal or violent. We never have and we never intend to.
The governments of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands claim to oppose whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary — a sanctuary they themselves voted into existence — but none of these governments is actively protecting the sanctuary. Australia is taking Japan to court but most likely Japan will ignore any ruling from the international court just as they have ignored the Australian ruling. Where is the enforcement of the integrity of this internationally designated sanctuary? Where are the sanctions against Japan for blatantly ignoring international conservation law?
“The least these governments can do is to observe the situation first-hand to get an objective understanding of the situation instead of simply condemning Sea Shepherd and ignoring the violence and the crimes of the Japanese whaling fleet,” said Sea Shepherd founder and President Captain Paul Watson.
For further information:
SBS World News - Customs must monitor whaling
The Courier-Mail - Customs vessel must monitor hunt
Visit our
Operation Zero Tolerance
site for more information about our
2012-2013 Antarctic Whale Defense Campaign
When you first see a dolphin show, it looks like a lot of fun. The dolphins are always smiling, and they're also laughing in their own way - and so are we. The audience is applauding as these marvelous creatures - so intelligent, so bursting with energy - doing amazing tricks for us.
Could anything be better?
Well, yes. It could be better if it were true. The dolphin smiling and all of us laughing and having a rollicking good time, all this seems like it's really happening. But look again. It's actually show business. At first glance you think it's real and I don't blame you, because it's magic, theater magic.
For many years I worked the show-biz side of things. I helped capture dolphins for the Miami Seaquarium and trained them, putting on a great show of dolphins leaping and jumping through hoops on command and acting the clown in amusing skits. I even trained the most famous of all dolphins, Flipper, who starred in his own TV series and feature films during the 1960s, some of which are still being seen around the world. It was a great job and a daily challenge, staying ahead of the scriptwriters and the several dolphins that played the role of Flipper.
Disillusionment
Only toward the end of my dolphin-training career did I admit to myself that there's something wrong about using dolphins for our amusement. They have wonderfully rich lives of their own until we yank them out of the sea, their lives as a species going back 60 million years. I worked for a time on the Miami Seaquarium Capture Boat and used to help abduct them, kicking and screaming all the way. We brought them ashore and dumped them into an alien fantasy world -- and why? It was my job. If someone would pay me to do this, surely, I thought, it must be okay. I really thought what I was doing was acceptable. I even convinced myself that the dolphins we captured were lucky because they would be cared for by humans for the rest of their lives. And listen to the people laugh and clap their hands when the dolphins do flips in the air. Isn't that worth something?
I could have stayed in the business of capturing and training dolphins and could have made a lot of money doing it. But when the Flipper show ended and I suddenly had lots of time to think about my life so far, I was sick to my stomach. I was appalled and disgusted by what I had been part of. I was also determined to stop it.
Oh, it would be difficult, I knew. Perhaps impossible. If it had taken me years to see dolphins as they actually are and what we were doing to them, how could I expect the public to understand? I was being paid to think that it was okay, of course. On the other hand, I knew what dolphins in the wild were really like. Most people who go to dolphin shows believe that it's great family entertainment. How could I get anyone to realize that this is just a lie, an elaborate ruse masking our ruthless exploitation of these magnificent creatures?
Like any other business, the dolphin captivity industry is based on supply and demand. As long as there are people willing to buy tickets to watch dolphins perform tricks, dolphins will be captured from the wild and trained to perform for huge paying audiences. Therefore, the key to putting a stop to the exploitation of dolphins is to reach the consumers. I am sure that if the public knew what really goes on behind the glittering scene of the captive dolphin spectacle, most would revolt against it. In other words, rather than buying tickets to watch dolphins perform, they would be helping us free them.
Getting worldwide public opinion on our side, getting people to see what we see at a dolphin show, that's our big goal. And we're making some progress overall, winning in some parts of the world; losing in others. If people understand our message, they'll join us. I'm sure of that. If they can realize that when we talk about “dolphin abuse,” we don't necessarily mean that they're being kicked or neglected. Being in captivity itself is abusive. For a wild dolphin swimming free, being captured and plunged into a tank that's like a teacup, how could that not be abusive?
The other side, and why they hate us
Owners of dolphin shows and the people who work there have a huge advantage. For openers, many people like the shows. They're amused by the silly dolphin antics. Or they love the spectacles of animal domination, and the more amazing the animal, the more they love it. Chances are they'll never understand what we are trying to do. But a lot of others are borderline. They will listen to us and to their own heart.
The other side has lots of money, billions of dollars. As part of the establishment, they make money and pay taxes. They're good citizens. They advertise, they support the chamber of commerce, and as far as the government is concerned, dolphin shows are just another taxable business.
But it's an ugly business, and that's our key to winning.
Since many people are amused by dolphins doing tricks, the key to our campaign is to show them that it's not amusing, that in fact it's disgusting. If we could convince even a third of the people who go to these shows that it's actually exploitation of the most unforgivable kind, the shows would end tomorrow.
Why do they hate us? They hate us because if we succeed, they go down in flames.
Getting to know dolphins
One of the first steps in getting others to see the problem is to know dolphins in the wild. The most obvious and important difference is that wild dolphins don't wear funny hats, for instance. Nor do they jump through hoops, dance on their tails, applaud themselves with their pectoral fins, or make squeaky sounds like Flipper the TV star.
In your study of dolphins you'll find that the majority of dolphins held in captivity are Atlantic Bottlenose dolphins. (Tursiops truncatus) They live in temperate and tropical waters worldwide, weigh from 300 to 600 pounds and grow to more than eight feet in length. They live in groups called “pods,” made up of from several individuals to several hundred - males usually hanging out with males, females with females and their calves - and they swim up to 40 miles a day, navigating, socializing, mating, and foraging for schools of fish.
Whales (Cetacea) are divided into 13 families, which are composed of about 76 species. Four of those 13 families are baleen whales (Mysticeti), those that swim through the ocean sifting out plankton (like small crustaceans and krill) to eat. All the other families are Odontoceti, which means that they have teeth. They use these teeth not for chewing, incidentally, but for grasping. One of those families, the Delphinidae, is composed of 31 species, including the killer whale (Orca), common dolphin, porpoise, spinner dolphin and the bottlenose dolphin, (Tursiops truncatus), the one like Flipper.
But when we see them at a dolphin show, what do we see? I'll tell you what I see. I see a dolphin eager to please and ready to do whatever the trainer wants him to. And why? Because he's hungry. Yes, dolphins perform tricks because that's when they're fed. One of the first things a trainer learns about dolphins is that they do not perform immediately unless they're hungry. This is why dolphins are fed during the show. You see the trainer blow a whistle and toss them a fish every time they do something right. And they know what they're supposed to do because they've been trained to expect a fish when they get it right. In fact they often start the show themselves when they get hungry. The trainers call their training method “positive reward.” From the dolphins’ perspective, however, it's food deprivation. If the dolphins get it wrong and the whistle is not blown, that means they won't be getting any fish reward.
If you understand the life of captive dolphins, you also begin to see the dolphin show with all its clowning around in another way. It's not clever anymore. It's abusive. When we understand that the dolphins are doing this because it's their only way of staying alive, we see it clearly for what it is: dominance. We're making dolphins do silly things, they would never do in nature, because we're amused by dominating helpless members of another species. The worst part is that it teaches children that it's okay to mock and disrespect one of nature's most fabulous of beings. The law permits this only because it's supposed to be educational. What a joke! But the joke is on us. These pathetic dolphins in captivity, wearing funny hats and leaping through hoops, are in no way like dolphins are in the wild.
The saddest part is that we've allowed the entertainment industry not only to twist a beautiful species into a parody of itself but also allowed them to profit from it.
What happens to dolphins when the show is over and everybody is gone? Most of the dolphins do nothing at all. They languish in their tank or cage and wait for the next show, the next feeding.
If you feel the same way about dolphins that I do, then this booklet is for you. Either you want to stop a planned dolphinarium or try to shut down an existing one. Or you want to stop the capture and trade (import and export) in dolphins. Or maybe you simply want to help us spread the word about the plight of captive dolphins.
Getting Organized
Animal protection organizations are practically everywhere, but not all of them work on the dolphin captivity issue. Unfortunately, some groups simply post information about the dolphin captivity issue on their websites for fund-raising purposes. Do your homework and ask them exactly what they are doing on this issue. Log onto your computer and surf the web, call newspapers, check at city hall and the chamber of commerce for organizations that are already working on the kind of campaign you wish to conduct. If you find one, join them. If none of the organizations you contact work on the dolphin captivity issue, maybe you can get them interested in starting such a campaign.
In working for dolphins or any other cause, you'll discover that you need to communicate with some government agencies, as well as people in the media, law enforcement officials and civic organizations. You'll need to write to these people from time to time, they'll get to know your name, you'll make appointments to talk to them at their office and later, perhaps, you'll get to know them well enough so that you can just drop by if you have a special problem or a question. You may get lucky; some of these people may be closet animal protection supporters.
If you have a special problem, something that needs immediate attention, consider calling in the media. Their job is reporting special problems.
And don't forget civic clubs. If you like to speak publicly, every civic club in the world is looking for someone interesting to talk to them. If you do a good job at your first one, they'll all want you. This is an excellent way to recruit more members to your cause.
Dealing with the law
The legislation concerning dolphin captivity is different in every country. You will need to research what the law says in the specific country you are dealing with. If you find it's too complicated to do, contact an animal welfare organization in that country. They will be more than happy to help you find the information you are looking for. In fact, they probably already have the specific legislation on file and can send it to you in a matter of a few days.
In some cases the legislation regarding the keeping of cetaceans will support you in your efforts to stop a planned dolphinarium. But be prepared that in most cases it won't.
The media
Unless you can get your story out to the public, you will get nowhere in your campaign. You need the media for that. But don't call it “publicity.” A reporter or journalist of any media is not interested in your publicity. Reporters are interested in news or a good story. The reporter comes to you because he or she needs facts for the story. So you must deal in facts. Don't guess. Don't offer your opinion, your suspicion, or your hope as fact. And if you don't know the answer to a question, just say so. But if you know anything at all that the reporter needs to know, say that. Be helpful, and honest.
Don't even think about manipulating the press. You don't want to be manipulated, do you? Well, neither do reporters. And they know immediately when you try to manipulate them. Instead, think in terms of getting the information out to the public. That's what the reporter is thinking. Don't fool yourself about what the reporter should be doing. He/she is never looking for the truth. Two and two are four is true, but reporters never write about it. The reporter is looking for a good story. But only if it's true. If you help him/her, the reporter will appreciate it by calling on you in the future.
Play it straight. And don't be surprised if the media is not on your side or even fair. They usually listen to all sides of a controversy and sometimes they might favor the other side. Remember that most aquariums and amusement parks spend a fortune advertising in the local media, and newspapers and TV stations don't want to alienate their client.
Providing background
When you supply information to a reporter, have the background and supporting data of your story available. If you're talking about the law regarding dolphins, for instance, acknowledge that the law doesn't reflect our views about abuse and we're working to change it. From our viewpoint, captivity is abusive in itself. But in a climate of abuse, captivity as a form of abuse seems to be invisible to many people. Our campaign is to get them to see what we see. We want them to realize that putting dolphins in captivity is an abuse of power. Dolphins didn't volunteer to be clowns in our world. They were captured in a froth of violence and plunked into a business to amuse people, a world where they must play the fool just to stay alive. Some of these dolphins were born into this dead end job.
Until the law is changed, all we can legally do is inveigh against captivity and take note of more obvious kinds of abuse. If you were to witness a trainer kicking a dolphin, that's clearly abusive. Don't expect to see abuse like that, though. A trainer kicking a dolphin would be fired. And most trainers wouldn't dream of kicking their dolphins.
It's all about money
Back in 1938 when dolphin exploitation suddenly burst on the scene at Marine Studios in St. Augustine, Florida, USA, the public paid a few dollars each and sat in the stands to watch dolphins do their tricks. Now they've found something much more profitable to do with dolphins. Now you can “swim” with them. It's not really swimming, of course. Customers take turns holding on to the dolphins' dorsal fins and having the dolphin pull them around the tank.
My wife Helene and I monitored a swim program in the Caribbean during March of 2001. Customers entered the tank six at a time to encounter two waiting dolphins, three others on standby. The swim periods lasted less than 15 minutes each. Except for brief breaks so that the dolphins could perform in the show, the swim program we monitored was going full blast, loud techno music blaring, from 9 a.m. till after 8 p.m.
Is this abusive?
Horrendously so!
It's also quite profitable, which explains why swim programs are springing up like mushrooms.
Doing the math, we have dolphins servicing six people every 15 minutes. That's 24 people an hour. If this goes on for 11 hours, the dolphins work 264 pay periods in a single day. And at $65 per pay period, that's $17,160.
But that's not all. Three photos are taken of each person swimming with the dolphins. These cost $7 each. Assuming that each of the 264 swimmers buys one picture, that's $1,848, bringing the grand total to $19,008 a day.
Even this was not enough for proprietors of the show. The next year they raised the price from $65 to $75.
Now we all want to make a profit. But please! Not like this.
Handling delicate questions
There are a number of questions you will be asked when announcing your opposition to dolphin captivity. In many cases a journalist who has first interviewed the “other side” will ask you questions like these:
Q: What about “special cases” like Make-a-Wish Kids? These are children dying of a disease like cancer, and their final wish is to swim with a dolphin. Don't they benefit by swimming with dolphins?
A: They would benefit just as much by getting a puppy from the pound. There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that Dolphin-Assisted-Therapy works. Even if there were, it couldn't possibly justify the animal cruelty that these programs are based upon.
Q: Kids from the inner city would never otherwise see a dolphin, would they?
A: The very same kids will never see a snow leopard.
Q: If dolphins weren't on display, how would people learn to care about them or protect them?
A: Nonsense! Humpback whales are protected by people who have never seen them in captivity.
Q: What's wrong with keeping a few dolphins in captivity? There are millions of them out there.
A: It's abusive, that's what's wrong. There are millions of women and children out there, too, but that doesn't mean it's okay to abuse a few of them.
Collecting facts
Since our value as an organization is based on the facts we gather, let's consider how facts are gathered. Read books about dolphins and take notes. When you read newspapers and magazines, clip out items that relate to dolphins. This will help you learn about them. Develop a file system and date entries in your files. In collecting facts, collect complete facts, which includes exactly who did what to whom and when. Everything you learn about the subject can be put in the files and dated. From time to time, you might want to make sub-files and a key to them that will allow you to go directly to a particular item.
In your reading, you will run across the names of people who are quoted about dolphins. Collect their names and what they said in the stories. Later you can call them for verification and further information.
Gathering facts in the field about captive dolphins is sometimes quite challenging because you can't be sure that the names dolphins have are correct. Little honky-tank dolphin road shows and even the largest, most prestigious of dolphinariums have been known to substitute one dolphin for another whenever it suited them. Get to know the dolphins individually. Check out their dorsal fins, for instance. Dorsal fins in ideal dolphins are always perfect. But the dorsal fins of real dolphins are often flawed. Note the dolphin's general size, his eyes and skin condition. Many have nicks and scars.
Don't be confused by rake marks. When dolphins play or fight with one another, their teeth leave temporary superficial scrape marks on the side of their fellow dolphins' skin, the marks as if you had run your fingernails down their side. This is not necessarily abuse; it happens with dolphins in a tank, and in the wild. But for other signs you can get photos for verification if you need them. Take a video camera with you to record what you're talking about.
Avoiding pitfalls
Over the years we have worked with numerous campaigners, of which some belong to the category of people who, without knowing a whole lot about dolphins, have a strong sense that dolphins don't belong in captivity. In order to help them be more effective in their attempt at educating the public about dolphin captivity, we have had to first educate the campaigners. Knowing what kinds of mistakes first-time campaigners most frequently make, the following is meant as a help to avoid some of these common pitfalls.
1. Knowing the dolphin species
When putting together a dolphin fact sheet for your supporters, the general public and the media, it's important that the information you provide is factual. As mentioned earlier, there are about 76 species of dolphins and they are all different. Educate yourself on the specific characteristics of the particular dolphin species you are referring to. Is your campaign aimed at closing down a facility that keeps bottlenose dolphins? Or is your campaign directed at preventing the import of a Pacific white-sided dolphin or a beluga whale? Make sure that your fact sheet provides information on the specific species of dolphin you're dealing with.
Just one example:
“Dolphins in the wild swim up to 100 miles a day.”
This statement doesn't tell the reader which dolphin species we're talking about. I happen to know that the statement comes from a leaflet that aims at providing information on the bottlenose dolphin. But bottlenose dolphins don't swim up to 100 miles per day. This information applies to another dolphin species, the orca, also known as the killer whale.
A mistake like this is very unfortunate because it undermines your credibility. You don't' have to be a marine biologist to talk intelligently about dolphins, but you do need to know the difference between the basic characteristics of a bottlenose dolphin and a killer whale.
2. Knowing the dolphin issues
Another common pitfall is for a campaigner to be mislead by the dolphin captivity industry's deliberate attempt at confusing the dolphin issues. An example of this is how dolphinariums use the tuna-dolphin issue to justify the display of dolphins. They say that fisherman would still be killing dolphins in their tuna nets if people could not see dolphins up-close and personal. "You only love what you know," is their argument. But the dolphin species that get caught in tuna nets are the spinner dolphin and the spotted dolphins; not the bottlenose dolphins that are on display. Furthermore, you need to be aware of the following: Seven to ten million dolphin have been killed by the tuna industry in recent years. Environmentalists launched a boycott of canned tuna that lasted for several years. During this time, marine parks did nothing to educate the public to the tuna-dolphin issue. In fact, you could buy a tuna-fish sandwich at most dolphinariums! I suspect they did not want to disrupt the complacency of their paying guests who were there for casual amusement. It's ironic, therefore, that the captive dolphin industry is now trying to take credit for solving the tuna-dolphin problem.
3. Using US regulation as a role model
Over the years, I have been contacted by many people who wanted to prevent a proposed dolphinarium from being established in their country. One of the first things they have asked me is, “Can't we stop it by arguing that this new facility won't live up to US standards and is therefore substandard?”
The answer is no. In the United States the government agency that sets the standards for the keeping of cetaceans in captivity, such as the required amount of space, is the US Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). According to these rules it is legal to confine a dolphin in an enclosure that measures no more than 30 by 30 feet, 6 feet deep. What kind of standard is this? Any captive dolphin facility can easily exceed it. The standards for keeping dolphins in captivity in the United States were made up by marine mammal scientists and veterinarians who were working for the dolphin captivity industry. These dolphin tanks and cages were not designed in the best interest of the animals. They were designed in the best interest of those who stood to make a profit from displaying captive dolphins. Don't expect the government agencies of the United States to do the right thing when it comes to captive dolphins. The bottom line is: The system doesn't work.
4. The “If we're going to do it, let's do it right” - pitfall
“What is the required amount of space a captive dolphin needs in order to be happy?” is another question we are often asked by first-time campaigners. They want to use this information to argue with the authorities that the size of the facility they are fighting is too small and therefore must be shut down or at least made bigger. But any tank or enclosure is too small for a dolphin. Dolphins are free-ranging marine mammals that would normally swim up to 40 miles per day. Our work is not about making the cage bigger. It's about abolishing the cage. So the answer to the question is simple: The only habitat that meets a dolphin's space requirements is - the open sea.
5. The statistics
There has been much debate about the longevity of captive dolphins compared with that of dolphins in the wild. Some animal welfare organizations publicize mortality statistics as if they were based on indisputable facts. For example, they will tell you that the average lifespan of captive bottlenose dolphins is about five years compared with 45 years in nature. This statement is highly misleading, first of all because it confuses average lifespan with maximum longevity: According to some researchers, 45 years is the maximum longevity of bottlenose dolphins in the wild, not the average lifespan (life expectancy). Secondly, nobody really knows the exact average lifespan of captive dolphins. In order to know this information one would need to have access to the records for every single dolphin that has been brought into captivity worldwide since 1938, either by the means of a capture or through captive breeding. One would have to know the exact time of capture or birth and the exact time of death. It is simply not possible to gather this information, as it is not made available to us by the dolphin captivity industry. What's more, even if were factual that dolphins last only about five years in captivity, this doesn't tell us anything about how old the dolphins were at their time of death. As you can see, it makes no sense to compare average lifespan and maximum life expectancy as seen in the statement above.
However, the biggest mistake in putting so much emphasis on captive dolphins' average lifespan compared with that of dolphins in nature is the fact that it reduces this issue to being a question of how long a captive dolphin can be kept alive. It's like saying that if the dolphin captivity industry were able to keep their dolphins alive for a certain amount of time, then there wouldn't be a problem with capturing and confining these animals. But an animal's life span cannot be used as a measurement for the animal's well being. The dolphin captivity issue is not about quantity of life; it's about quality of life, not about science, but ethics.
6. Captive born dolphins versus captured dolphins
"If the dolphinariums only used dolphins that were born in captivity, then there wouldn't be a problem," is another typical pitfall. We are aware that some captive dolphin facilities are trying to appear politically correct by displaying captive born dolphins. But we strongly oppose captive breeding. It is imperative to consider the ethics and educational value of breeding dolphins in captivity. Some dolphins have been confined within the same barren walls of a concrete tank all their lives. They think the roof is the sky and have never experienced the simplest elements of nature, such as the natural rhythms of the sea, the sunshine, and the rain. They will never swim in a straight line for as long as they desire; nor will they ever be able to use their speed, intelligence, sonar, and sense of cooperation to catch live fish. They are freaks that we have created for our own amusement, and they have no positive educational value.
7. Dolphin - Assisted - Therapy
Don't accept the use of dolphins in so-called Dolphin-Assisted-Therapy (DAT.) DAT has become a lucrative business over the last years and presents a serious threat to the welfare of dolphins, in that it creates further violent captures of dolphins worldwide.
DAT takes advantage of desperate and vulnerable parents who pay large sums of money to give their ill or disabled children what the billion-dollar dolphin captivity industry advertises as a life-enhancing dolphin experience. But there is no scientific evidence to substantiate the claim that spending time in a tank or sea enclosure with dolphins has a healing effect on people. Even if there was, could this really justify the high price that dolphins pay for our desire to be close to them? We find that it is inherently hypocritical to capture and confine dolphins - thereby destroying the quality of their lives - in an attempt to enhance our own.
When considering whether or not using dolphins to heal people is acceptable, it is important to note the following:
Dolphins are free ranging, social, sonic, and highly intelligent marine mammals. The vastness and biological diversity of the open sea cannot be duplicated in a tank or an enclosure in the sea. Consequently, the complexity of a dolphin's behavioral repertoire cannot be accommodated in captivity. Based on today’s knowledge of Cetaceans’ sophisticated physiology and highly developed emotional sense, one must conclude that confining dolphins and other whales to a small space inevitably causes stress in the animals. This negative effect of captivity is reinforced by the fact that dolphins used in Swim-With-The-Dolphins programs and DAT programs have to be trained by the means of food control to endure the constant pressure of being used as pets and "healers."
It is hardly surprising that dolphins used in swim programs have demonstrated agitated and aggressive behaviors under the stressful conditions of confinement and forced interactions with people. These behaviors have resulted in injury to swimmers. A 300-400 pound frustrated animal can cause serious injury to a human being, and there are accounts of human injuries in the form of lacerations, tooth rakes, internal injuries, broken bones and shock.
Legal concerns
The trick is to expose the people who need to be exposed as much as possible, without getting sued.
During interviews and in your printed material don't let your enthusiasm exceed the facts. Neither should you assume that quoted material you've found in the media is correct. It would be correct to say that John Doe was quoted saying “Such and such” in a certain edition of a periodical, but not that he actually said it. If you need to know whether he actually said it or not, you should verify it with him directly. And even then, it would not necessarily survive cross-examination in a court of law unless you can prove it with a witness who would back you up.
Watch out for libel. But don't be paralyzed by it. I'm not a lawyer, but I have a working theory about libelous statements in the United States: If you deal in facts and your motives are pure, don't worry about it.
Libel is too complicated to examine here except in a cursory way. You should know, however, that libel is not merely a false statement. Nobody is perfect. Libel is a statement that is published (meaning circulated to the public) and injures somebody's reputation. (Your reputation is what other people think of you.) What you write in a private letter is not libelous because it's not published. You also cannot libel the dead or anyone with a bad reputation. And it's very difficult to libel a public figure, the reason being that he put himself in the public eye and must take the risk of criticism.
As a practical matter, any statement that might injure anyone's reputation should be checked and rechecked. If the statement is true and you can prove it, go ahead and use it if you need to. Bottom line: Truth and a lack of malice is an absolute defense to charges of libel, provided you can prove it and there was a good reason to publish it in the first place.
One further thing: libel is not easy to prove. In order for the person libeled to collect in a court of law, he must show (prove) that the statement led directly to his financial loss.
Try to enlist the help of a pro-bono lawyer. If you have the money, hire one that is interested in these issues.
Using the data
So when you've gathered the information, what do you do with it?
Sometimes we have so much material that strongly indicates mistreatment of dolphins, we can go directly to the police or prosecuting attorney. In either case you will be expected to cite the law or regulation you claim is being broken and who broke it, when and where.
If your information doesn't support criminal charges, it may be strong enough for the media. Send a press release to all newspapers and TV stations in the area. They all have reporters interested in legitimate environmental subjects. Generally they're leery of a story that could backfire into a lawsuit that would cost them money - even if they win it. So you can expect them to be skeptical at first. And if they suspect that your information is not completely accurate, they'll show you the door.
Use your spell-checker. People who can spell correctly are taken more seriously.
Writing letters to the editor should always include your full name, address, and telephone number. Newspapers will most likely call you, before publishing your letter, they need to confirm that it was you who wrote the letter.
More than facts
We need facts, but the main thrust of our campaign is moral. We're saying that keeping dolphins in captivity is wrong.
Our objective is to shut down captive dolphin facilities and stop any further captures and exploitation of dolphins. Ultimately, what we want to do is free captive dolphins; return them to the wild if possible. Not all captive dolphins can be successfully released back into the wild, of course. Some dolphins have been in captivity too long and sometimes they've forgotten even how to catch a life fish or eat one. Can we tell whether a captive dolphin can make it in the wild or not?
Definitely.
We don't do it by training them to be free dolphins, incidentally. That's impossible. But we can give them a chance for rehabilitation by weaning them away from everything human beings have taught them and reacquainting them with the skills they depended on as dolphins in nature.
If they succeed, they're candidates for freedom. We release them, monitor them till we're sure they're okay in the wild, and then go on to the next case. For those who are not candidates, we can try to transfer them to protective custody. Our coalition would like to establish a dolphin sanctuary for these particular dolphins.
Twelve simple things you can do
1. If you hear of a planned dolphin capture, alert the media or, if possible, videotape it yourself and then hand the footage over to the media. The last thing the dolphin captivity industry wants is for the public to see images of a violent dolphin capture. This is how we stopped the captures of dolphins in the United States where there is currently a voluntary moratorium on dolphin captures.
2. Contact your government officials and representatives. Ask them to implement greater protection for marine mammals and the sea in general. There is no point in saving the dolphin without saving its habitat.
3. Write to government officials and insist that existing captive dolphin facilities be instituted to work toward the rehabilitation and release of captive dolphins.
4. Boycott captive dolphin shows and encourage your friends to do the same. Buy or rent a video of dolphins in the wild with the money that you saved.
5. Speak out. A Letter to the Editor of your local newspaper will reach thousands of people.
6. Encourage others to become interested in the plight of captive dolphins and show them how they can help.
7. Write to government officials and ask them not to approve permits for the trade (import or export) of marine mammals.
8. Remember, the commercial exploitation of dolphins is based on supply and demand, just like any other product. If you don't buy a ticket, you won't be supporting this abuse. Tell your friends.
9. Produce a free public event. Bring in some dolphin experts who are opposed to dolphin captivity and give a free lecture to the community and invite the media. This is a great way to start a campaign. We would be happy to help you with this.
10. Challenge the local dolphinarium to a public debate. The debate could be held at a television station, a public library, hotel, civic center or just about anyplace in the community. We would be happy to help you with this also. We have participated in debates with the dolphin captivity industry all over the world.
11. Start a letter writing campaign to local government officials. There are several international organizations in the animal protection community that will be willing to write a letter of support for your anti-captivity campaign.
12. Distribute your message. Produce bumper stickers, one-page flyers that can be handed out to the public, posted at bulletin boards, laundromats, libraries, grocery stores, and other public places. We have even rented full size billboards that carried our anti-captivity message.
Protesting the abuse
If the media turns its back on you, consider going public with a demonstration.
Because a protest involves a direct contact of emotional opposites, anything could happen during a demonstration. We try to script them to keep control of things. We tell police officials in advance what we're going to do so that nobody will get bopped on the head.
But nobody really knows what will happen during a protest, and that's one of the main reasons the media covers demonstrations. Though the media has turned us down in terms of a straight news or feature story, the main job of the media is still to report what people do. And that includes a staged event. It's worth covering because something truly newsworthy might happen. And if they don't cover the protest and their opposition does, they are caught off guard if something does happen. The main reason, though, is that in the back of their minds they know that real news usually begins from inside when disaffected whistle-blowers go public. And when the media refuse to listen to whistle-blowers, they do so at their peril.
Protesters are trying to alert the public to a legal or moral problem and a governmental cover up. They blow the whistle in protesting, and when the media covers it, the job is done.
Rules for protesting
1. Demonstrations and protests must be legal and peaceful. You represent your cause, so be courteous.
2. If you need a permit in order to protest, get one. You can call City Hall or the police department and ask if you need one. Always get names of people you talk to on the phone. With the permit, you will be told where you are allowed to demonstrate. Explain this to everyone in the demonstration. You will probably not be allowed to interfere with people attending the event or trying to buy a ticket.
3. If you have a lawyer, let him/her know what you're doing.
4. Only one person should speak for the group. This avoids the appearance of
conflict, which can destroy the effectiveness of the demonstration.
5. Hand out dodgers (printed only on one side) that briefly explain your position and give the group's address and phone number. If someone tosses the dodger on the ground, pick it up and give it to someone else. If they tear it up, gather up the pieces and put them in the trash. Be pleasant at all times.
Protesting really works
"Eighty percent of success is showing up"
Woody Allen
Looking back, we were successful in closing several captive dolphin facilities in the United States, some in Australia, Canada, the Middle East, Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean, and other places around the world.
There's an important point here that needs to be mentioned: Almost all of these facilities were closed because caring people showed up to protest and demonstrate their concern. If protesting was not part of the campaign, these facilities would still be open for business today, and the suffering would continue.
I mention this because some animal protection organizations and individuals don't want to participate in any kind of protest. Some won't participate because they are following the policy of the conservative organization that they work for. Others seem to think that protesting is undignified or below them. Personally, I don't like protesting either, it goes against my very nature. I don't like bringing attention to myself. But it's necessary and important, so I do it anyhow.
It's important to understand that protesting really works. Many times it's the only thing that works. For example, in the United States the dolphin captivity industry stopped capturing dolphins because of a small handful of protesters that were not afraid to disrupt the dolphin captures. Many of the captive dolphins in various European amusement parks - including a discothèque - were captured in the Gulf of Mexico near Pine Island, Florida. We started protesting these captures, even to the point of getting arrested, going to jail and then on a hunger strike to bring attention to the problem. This is called civil disobedience. It attracted the media who, for the first time, exposed that fact that the captivity industry in the United States was capturing Florida dolphins and selling them to deplorable facilities abroad. We called this campaign "Export Oranges, Not Dolphins." We printed tee shirts and bumper stickers with our slogan. Eventually, the captivity industry backed off and announced that they were observing a "voluntary moratorium" on all dolphin captures. The capture of dolphins in the United States was finally over.
Why did this happen? The answer is simple: the media finally exposed the dolphin captivity industry. And the media only showed up because they were attracted by the protesters. The daily news is like show business, and the media is always looking for a good story. This is especially true with TV news. They want moving pictures, action and conflict. To them, these are elements of a good story. And we give it to them in a non-violent, peaceful manner. Most people who visit dolphinariums never ask the right questions. They ask things like "what's the dolphin's name," "how much do they eat," or something trivial like that. The questions that they should be asking are: "How did the dolphin get here, and how long is he going to be staying here?" Questions like these are not so easy to answer, and these questions are discouraged by the dolphinarium.
The dolphinarium will have you believe that God put the dolphins there, or they came out of the sky. They don't want the visitors to know that the dolphins they are watching were actually captured. When confronted with the fact that the dolphin was captured, they will often say that this was a "humane capture." But the concept of a humane capture is an oxymoron: There is simply no such thing as a humane dolphin capture. All dolphin captures are violent and cruel.
When this kind of violent and cruel injustice is absolute, one must oppose it absolutely. And that means showing up to protest, in a non-violent, peaceful manner. The bottom line is: Direct action works.
A measure of our success
Here is a list in no particular order of captive dolphin facilities that were closed or never opened. These success stories were accomplished by ordinary people like yourself who actually showed up to protest these dolphin abusement parks:
Facility Name Location Status
Lerner Marine Lab Bimini, Bahamas Islands Closed
Marineland Adelaide, Australia Closed
Waragamba Dam Dolphinarium Waragamba, Australia Closed
Antwerp Zoo Dolphinarium Antwerp, Belgium Closed
Hagenbeck Zoo Dolphinarium Hamburg, Germany Closed
Kinder Zoo Dolphinarium Rapperswil, Switzerland Closed
Tel Aviv Dolphinarium Tel Aviv, Israel Closed
Luna Park Dolphinarium Tel Aviv, Israel Closed
Seaquarium San Andres, Colombia Closed
Ocean Reef Club Dolphinarium Key Largo, Florida Closed
Oklahoma City Zoo Dolphinarium Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Closed
Ocean World Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Closed
US Navy Dolphin Facility Key West, Florida Closed
Santos Amusement Park Santos, Brazil Closed
Dolphin Swim Program Buenos Aires Argentina Closed
Ocean Expo Dolphinarium Myrtle Beach, South Carolina Never Opened
Dolphin Swim Program Managua, Nicaragua Never Opened
Dolphin Swim Program Guatemala City, Guatemala Closed
Europapark Rust Rust, Germany Closed
Hansaland Dolphinarium Hamburg, Germany Closed
Holiday Park Dolphinarium Hossloch, Germany Closed
Phantasialand Dolphinarium Bruhl, Germany Closed
Paramount Parks (four parks) USA Closed
Wonderland Maple, Ontario, Canada Closed
Worlds of Fun Dolphinarium Kansas City, Missouri Closed
Knotts Berry Farm Dolphinarium Los Angeles, California Closed
Six Flags Dolphinarium Aurora, Ohio Closed
Marine Life Dolphinarium Sioux Falls, South Dakota Closed
Colorado Ocean Journey Denver, Colorado Never Opened
Virginia Marine Science Center Virginia Beach, Virginia Never Opened
Proposed Dolphinarium Maui, Hawaii Never Opened
Sealand Dolphinarium Victoria, BC Never Opened
Montreal Biodome Quebec, Canada No Belugas
Vancouver Aquarium Vancouver, Canada No Orca Show
Granby Zoo Quebec, Canada Never Opened
Dolphin Swim Park Les Arcadins Islands, Haiti Closed
Flamingo Land England Closed
Brighton Dolphinarium England Closed
Morecambe Dolphinarium England Closed
Windsor Safari Park England Closed
Moulin Rouge Nightclub Paris, France Closed
Seaorama Galveston, Texas Closed
Ocean World Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Closed
Cedar Fair Sandusky, Ohio Closed
Kings Island Kings Island, Ohio Closed
Six Flags over Texas Arlington, Texas Closed
Six Flags Mid-America Eureka, Missouri Closed
Astro-World of Houston Houston, Texas Closed
Six Flags Magic Mountain Los Angeles, California Closed
Paradise Acapulco, Mexico Closed
Centro Vacacional Oaxtepec Mexico Never Opened
Edmonton Shopping Mall Edmonton, Canada Closed
Louisville Marine Display Louisville, Kentucky Never Opened
Dolphin Discovery Antigua, West Indies Closed
Atlantida Dolphinarium St. Martin, Dutch West Indies Never Opened
Connyland Dolphinarium Liperswil, Switzerland Closed
San Juan Dolphinarium San Juan, Puerto Rico Never Opened
Dolphin Lagoon Maldives Islands Never Opened
Louisville Aquarium Louisville, Kentucky Never Opened
Vodnjan Dolphinarium Vodnjan, Croatia Never Opened
