letters

Just four letters this time

Ocean Embassy truth

NONE of the accusations we have read in any of the papers, including your current letter posted by Ric O'Barry has any semblance of accuracy.  And NONE of these people have spoken directly to us except you, Eric. In particular the letter you posted from Ric O'Barry, postures as if he cares about dolphins when in fact it is well known in the US that he was convicted of violating the US Marine Mammal Protection Act resulting in the preventable neglect, abandonment and subsequent death of two captive dolphins.  See http://www.animallaw.info/cases/caus1999noaalexis1.htm.

We spoke to you about this during our interview, and this is why he does not operate in he US anymore.   In addition HSUS and Naomi Rose have NO experience with dolphins.  She is an animal "rights" extremist and is ignored in the US (where 44 dolphin programs exist, by the way).  Her group has criticized every quality zoological institution including Smithsonian'sNational Zoo in Washington DC. In fact they were refused entry into CITES in 2000 for "filing false information about member nations." http://www.consumerfreedom.com/search.cfm

They give nothing to Panama except false information, and leave Panama nothing but frustration, however THEY get a chance for fund-raising at Panama's expense and sadly, the environment, the dolphins and the economy ultimately pays the price of their actions. Our program saves dolphin lives, establishes a breeding program according to Law, gives excellent care to animals, educates people, provides exciting jobs, transfers new technology, and generates scientific information that enables us to protect wild dolphins for generations to come.  What are our critics doing?  Nothing except fund-raising using dolphins.

We would NEVER hunt, capture illegally, or mistreat animals. NEVER. It is against both US and Panama law and completely against our scientific and personal ethics.

Ted Turner

Editor's note: Let us recognize the different points of view and experiences of different people and organizations, so as not to smear people with broad brushes.

The Humane Society of the United States especially does not like the capture of wild animals for zoos, and doesn't particularly like zoos either, but all across America local governments work closely with the local Humane Society chapters in confronting animal welfare and animal control problems. Back in the 70s when I was a local politician, for example, pigeons became something of a nuisance in our small city's downtown area and the Humane Society was in the forefront of both objecting to a proposal to poison the birds and the finding of a better solution.

For a non-governmental organization to get thrown out of a United Nations - sponsored forum should not, in my opinion, be taken as too big of a disgrace. Japan insisted upon the exclusion of Greenpeace and other anti-whaling groups from the most recent International Whaling Commission meeting, for example, making similar claims of libel and slander. The United Nations represents governments and when confronted by arguments between states and NGOs it not surprisingly usually sides with the former.

Among the critics of the Ocean Embassy dolphin park and dolphin capture program is one Juan Carlos Navarro Q., the mayor of Panama City. Although its management is now being devolved to a quasi-private foundation, one of the things that the mayor has done for these past few years is to take ultimate administrative responsibility for Parque Summit --- which includes the municipal zoo.

Mr. O'Barry, in his letter, acknowledged that he was not proud of the role he used to play in the dolphin capture industry. But of course his past, like anybody else's, ought to be taken into account when trying to judge credibility.

This debate has become in many instances mean and personal. It would be better for all sides to dispense with the sweeping characterizations of their adversaries and partial presentations of the facts and get down to the heart of this matter. The problem is, we're dealing with a number of different people whose hearts are motivated by different things.

Noriega

Noriega should be allowed to go to his homeland of Panama.  You better get off your butt and start studying Noriega career and how the US goverment used him.  for the commments you made either your left in the dark with no clue or your working for them.

Noriega belongs in Panama with his family.

P. Warner

Editor's note: I don't work for any government and I understand that a lot of Panamanians who don't necessarily like the former strongman are very much opposed to the concept of exiling people from their homeland, as the Torrijos and Noriega dictatorship did on many occasions, and that the constitution forbids the practice. I also know about how Noriega was used, and for, example, how the Reagan administration supported him in the theft of the 1984 presidential election. I still think it's not in Panama's interest for this individual to return to this country, whether as a prisoner or as a free man.

Beware of machinations that may harm Panama

Was wondering if you folks were aware of the continuing machinations Dr. Robert Pastor who is the father of the North American Union which preliminary information indicates has been designed to redirect shipping from the Panama Canal to Mexico.

A word to the wise is sufficient. Scroll about two-thirds of the way down the following linked article, to Pastor and the Panama Canal:  http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TreasonAbounds.html

These so-called globalist types respect nothing and no one other than those of their own ilk. BEWARE!!!!

Robert Macdonell

Foreign policy minimalism

China is no threat!!

Michael Hanson