It is a for-profit business. "Piracy" is theft for financial gain. The volunteers on the Steve Irwin aren't stealing anything... they aren't there to make money.
'Piracy' comes in many forms of theft.
Funding is important. Which brings me to a recent post by regular Donnie Mac Leod on Brian Carnell's excellent site AnimalRights.net. Mr. Mac Leod points out that Paul Watson "has publicly admitted that the seal hunt is the most profitable of all the activist activities and that is how Greenpeace used to raise the bulk of their money" and points us to the 1978 audio of that CBC interview (Watson had resigned or was booted from Greenpeace in 1977 after a dispute with the Greenpeace Board of Directors):
Here's a verbatim transcript of part of the interview:
[ . . . ]
Announcer Beyond the sound and the fury, there's a lot of hard cash on the line. The seal hunt is big business. It means $3 million a year for several thousand Newfoundland fishermen. Another $2.5 million a year to secondary industries of packaging and processing.
[02:16] And now, the third and fastest growing sector of the seal business: the protest industry, worth well into the millions, and still growing.
While Newfoundland fishermen struggle along at the poverty line, the seal protest business is booming. From all over the world, hundreds of thousands of dollars pour into the offices of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Animal Protection Institute, the Greenpeace Foundation.
It comes in so fast the groups just can't seem to spend it all.
Paul Watson, a former director of the Greenpeace Foundation in Vancouver, was kicked off the foundation's Board of Directors last June after a disagreement over the tactics for fighting the hunt.
[02:55]Female voice Mr. Watson, how easy is it to raise money against the hunt?
Watson Well, I think that of all the animals in the world or any environmental problem in the world the harp seal is the easiest issue to raise funds on. Greenpeace has always managed to — to raise more money on the seal issue than for the campaigns than has actually been spent on the campaigns themselves.
The seal hunt has always turned a profit for the Greenpeace Foundation. And then other organizations like IFAW, API, Fund for Animals, also make a profit off the seal hunt.
[03:29]Female voice You suggesting that they fight for seals rather than other animals because it's easy, or easier to raise money that way, or because it's a profit maker for them?
[03:38]Watson Well it's definitely because it's easier to make money and because it's easier to make a profit because there are over a thousand animals on the endangered species list, and the harp seal isn't one of them. [My emphasis . . . ed.]
Female voice Did anyone in Greenpeace ever express that aloud, that it was easy to make some hay on the seal hunt so let's get into that?
[03:55]Watson Well, a lot of people have done that. See the thing is the seal is very easy to exploit as an image. We have posters, we have buttons, we have shirts, all of which portray the head of a baby seal with the tears coming out of its eyes. Baby seals are always crying because — its — they're always — the salt tears keep their eyes from freezing. But they have this image — they're baby animals, they're beautiful, and because of that, coupled with the horror of a sealer hitting them over the head with a club, it's — it's an image that just goes right to the heart of — of animal lovers all over North America.
[ . . . ]
And now we have a dozen people this year from Greenpeace California — I mean they're coming from the highest standard of living region in North America — they're traveling to the place with the lowest income per year on this continent telling them not to kill seals because they're cute but not endangered species.
Yet off the coast of California there are three species of dolphin — the spinner the spotted and the white belly — and they're being slaughtered towards the brink of extinction by American tuna boats. And then the slaughter of (unintelligible) sea turtles in (unintelligible) in Mexico.
Female voice Now what happens within Greenpeace when you raise a point like that?
[05:08]Watson They know they can't raise any money off of it. They know that if they send a crew down to try to interfere with the killing of sea turtles in Mexico that they're not going to get any support. And they know that if they — the problem with the dolphins is that there's so much competition there is so many groups that are trying to raise money to protect dolphins and protect whales . . .
[05:27]Female voice How much money did Greenpeace raise the year you left against the seal hunt?
Watson Well, last year, I had submitted a budget for $60,000. We spent $55,000, and I believe we raised well over $100,000. And I do know that . . .
[ . . . ]
Watson Well, Greenpeace protesters in the last two years were not paid a salary. They were all volunteers.
This year, the crew members are paid volunteers. Their salaries, I would believe — I would think that the amount of money spent on salaries for the Greenpeace organization right now is about a quarter of a million dollars a year.
There are other groups too, like API — Animal Protection Institute —
Female voice How much do they spend to fight the seal hunt?
[06:49]Watson I don't think they spend anything. They put their money into advertising, which they say makes the public aware, and also it has their address on the corner which has people send in more money. So, in fact every time they invest money in advertising, they make more money back in return.
Female voice Any idea of total sum of all the money raised every year, to fight the seal hunt?
Watson Well, I would estimate between API, IFAW, Greenpeace and any other groups that's three to four million dollars.
Female voice Are these funds collected from individuals who feel badly, or are there corporate givers, do you know?
Watson No, mainly they're from . . .
Female voice So two and five dollar customers?
Watson Yeah. A lot of school children, a lot of pensioners.
Female voice Your fear then is that it isn't just money that people can easily spend, that it's coming from people who you think would be better off keeping it.
Watson Well, I think that a lot of the money is now being abused.
Female voice In addition to their salary, I assume that there's a lot of money to be used from the group for your personal living expenses — traveling, money raising . . .
Watson Oh certainly. The people in additional to getting a salary — Greenpeace people are flying around the world all the time. I mean Australia, Japan, Hawaii, California, Norway, England. There — at any time there are a dozen people that are on their way to or from these countries. Right now we have Dr. Paul Fong is in Hawaii on his way to Japan. People are in Europe. You know. So there's a lot . . .
Female voice And those are all business expenses.
Watson Yeah. I think that the problem that is happening, and that it deserves criticism, is that the organization becomes more important than the issue.
So there you have it . . .
Though the interview dates from 1978 and Skipper Paul was talking mainly about Greenpeace, the logic certainly works for the SSCS: the organization becomes more important than the issue, which makes money all-important, as it must be if the organization is to thrive. Any capitalist will tell you that . . .
The non-endangered harp seals are the focus of attention, rather than endangered species like dolphins and sea turtles which really are on the brink of extinction, because the harp seals appear cute and cuddly and are therefore very useful levers for prying money out of pockets — if mainly from the pockets of kids and pensioners, so be it. The harp seals are also useful because, at least at the time, there were so many groups championing dolphins and whales that it would have been hard to compete with them for funds . . .
Assets — like a good reputation that will help raise bucks — are to be nurtured. Liabilities — like Board members who advocate assassination and might jeopardize fund raising — are to be discarded . . . but only if absolutely necessary.
Let me make this ethic crystal clear: good = anything that benefits income; bad = anything that jeopardizes income.
