The Japanese whaling thread: Winter 2008-2009

[retributionnk]

The season is upon us:

The air is rich with the smell of burning pine, there is joy in the hearts of the young, and the Japanese whalers are at it again, locked in a Mexican standoff with the wily activists of Sea Shepherd.

Just curious of the opinions of the masses on 1) Whaling; and 2) Eco-terrorism. Have at it!

[Bones]

Go Whaling!!!!!:thumbup:

B:old:

[retributionnk]

haha! Yea, I'd say all in all I'm for it as well. Kill those soon-to-be-extinct mammoths!! They taste yummy!!

[Muku]

The season is upon us:

The air is rich with the smell of burning pine, there is joy in the hearts of the young, and the Japanese whalers are at it again, locked in a Mexican standoff with the wily activists of Sea Shepherd.

Just curious of the opinions of the masses on 1) Whaling; and 2) Eco-terrorism. Have at it!

I think it would be easier for the masses to participate if the person writing the OP would put their own opinions on the subject out there first. I think it behooves the OP to do such if they want people to participate in a thread such as this.

It is a divisive subject and to me at least to write an OP like this just sounds like you are looking to stir shit up.:thumbdown:

As if that doesnt happen here enough:thumbdown:

[retributionnk]

I'd just like the thread to NOT turn in to a 2-person debate for once, which generally happens when I create a thread on such a topic. If you look at my recent posts, none of them are intentional trolls, but all logical arguments (the above kill the whales joke not withstanding). However, I do see where you are coming from, and I at least though about it when typing the OP. That being said:

Eco-terrorists are quite a despicable group of people. Eco-terrorist groups are merely criminals who have won the favor of international lawmakers, so they can get away with attacking vessels in international waters. I believe there's a group of folks in Somalia who've been doing that lately, although the news calls them, wait for it, pirates. Just because groups like Sea Shepherd are operating under the umbrella of animal rights, they think they're immune to common law, international law, and the Law of the Sea. Sadly, they've gotten away with it thus far. Attacking vessels that are legally whaling is a violation of the basic human rights of those fishermen. As far as I'm concerned, they should either be institutionalized for placing the rights of animals before human rights, or they should be jailed, probably in the same jail as Osama bin Laden's posse.

[Muku]

I'd just like the thread to NOT turn in to a 2-person debate for once, which generally happens when I create a thread on such a topic. If you look at my recent posts, none of them are intentional trolls, but all logical arguments (the above kill the whales joke not withstanding). However, I do see where you are coming from, and I at least though about it when typing the OP. That being said:

Eco-terrorists are quite a despicable group of people. Eco-terrorist groups are merely criminals who have won the favor of international lawmakers, so they can get away with attacking vessels in international waters. I believe there's a group of folks in Somalia who've been doing that lately, although the news calls them, wait for it, pirates. Just because groups like Sea Shepherd are operating under the umbrella of animal rights, they think they're immune to common law, international law, and the Law of the Sea. Sadly, they've gotten away with it thus far. Attacking vessels that are legally whaling is a violation of the basic human rights of those fishermen. As far as I'm concerned, they should either be institutionalized for placing the rights of animals before human rights, or they should be jailed, probably in the same jail as Osama bin Laden's posse.

Ok I agree on the issue of eco-terrorists, however is what the Japanese whaling fleet doing under the guise of research justifiable as well?

Should the Japanese SDF ships be used to protect these vessels from attacks from the sea shepard?

I never will condone the actions of the Sea Shepard, and there was a thread somewhere here about the Capt and others being wanted by Interpol (?)and the Japanese authorities for their terrorist like actions and activities.

ONLY FOR DISCUSSIONS SAKE HERE AND NOT MY PERSONAL OPINION

What other options are there for animal rights activists to take to stop the Japanese from hunting whales? Since the general Japanese public doesnt seem to care, and that Japan also seems to be imune to international pressure to stop these "research" (harvesting for sushi shops) hunts, what other viable options remain?

[acidcrash]

I have been seeing a lot of ads for Whale Bacon on the National Geographic Channel lately...
Ironic.

I am a tree hugger by nature, but... I gotta admit, .... I would like a taste.

If you are hunting whales, use the term "hunting" not reasearching. and Do so in your own territorial waters.
If the JSDF wants to deploy, they should set off the coast of Somalia and protect thier merchant vessels.
The Japanese are not noted for managing thier fishing grounds very well. They have destroyed most of what they had.
I have been surfing, diving, and offshore fishing in Okinawa since 1996. As proof of thier fishing technic, I have only seen one shark in all that time.

[Crazysix]

may the sea shepard rust in davey jones locker!!!!...kinda funny though, IMHO i would not be on the sea shepard....they may get mistaken for pirates!!!!!

[retributionnk]

Ok I agree on the issue of eco-terrorists, however is what the Japanese whaling fleet doing under the guise of research justifiable as well?

As far as the whale hunting goes, the only ethical problem is that they're calling it research, and not hunting. Just say you're going to kill the whales and kill them. My animal rights view is very much utilitarian. I have a couple of criteria to meet when it comes to killing animals: 1) Do they serve more of a purpose to me (humans) dead than alive? 2) Will killing them create a problem within the entire habitat (eg overpopulation of something else)? If the answers to both of those indicate that the animal is not of significant use to us or its habitat while alive, then I see no ethical reason not to kill it. I do not extend to non-humans the basic right to life that we all have. Maybe that's a bit anthropocentric, but for the time being we're at the top to make that decision. Conscious thought is an awesome thing.

Should the Japanese SDF ships be used to protect these vessels from attacks from the sea shepard?

Should they be? Yes, definitely. The Japanese government has the duty to protect its economic interests.

Will it happen? No. It'd cause a huge stink in the international community.

What other options are there for animal rights activists to take to stop the Japanese from hunting whales? Since the general Japanese public doesnt seem to care, and that Japan also seems to be imune to international pressure to stop these "research" (harvesting for sushi shops) hunts, what other viable options remain?

I'd say if trying to gain public interest doesn't work, then the activists are on the losing end of the battle. The viable option they have is continue to try to make the whale hunting public (and with shows like Whale Wars on the discovery channel, they're definitely making headway). Education and persistence will be crucial in winning the minds of the public. They are pursuing plenty of viable options already, they just need to cease the criminal ones.

[P_chan]

They have some type of special about sea sheppard attacking Japanese ships on the animal planet channel. So I guess you're a hero for breaking laws as long as it's for some whales:thumbdown:

[retributionnk]

They have some type of special about sea sheppard attacking Japanese ships on the animal planet channel. So I guess you're a hero for breaking laws as long as it's for some whales:thumbdown:

Yea, it sucks that they come out on the side of eco-terrorism. I think the name of the show is Whale Wars. Makes me wanna slap someone. :-|:-|

[gtlm2000]

I haven't eaten whales.
My mom told me she ate it for long time ago, but it's not now.

[thistle]

It is one of the world's mysteries why the Japanese continue to hunt whales for 'research' and come on, really no one eats whale meat anymore.

In the past when taking Japanese friend's or husband or anyone to my Sister's in Scotland, one of the first questions she always asks them is why they still hunt whales. They only squirm in their toes. They don't know, and they don't care.

I hate to be apathetic but this issue has been going on so long, no matter what kind of protest the Sea sheppard or any other vessel out there at sea makes it is not going to make the blindes bit of difference.

[Asshat]

Yea, it sucks that they come out on the side of eco-terrorism. I think the name of the show is Whale Wars. Makes me wanna slap someone. :-|:-|

I've said this before here, and got into a heated discussion. But Sea Sheppard could legitimately be fired upon and sank, since it is involved with piracy by any definition. It's bows are reinforced with metal sheeting, and further balasted with concrete for ramming.

Endangering the lives of mariners no matter what the cause is either and act of piracy, or an act of war. The skipper of that boat has a long history of violent activism. His actions should be met by the same.

Japan should also stop the whaling "research."

[moron]

The Japanese are poaching in a whale sanctuary, and using the research angle as a cover for their hunting activities. So, we have one gang of renegades up against another. We have tacit support for Sea Shepherd, as they get safe haven, as well as being able to refuel and resupply in several nations. A real dilly of a pickle.

[P_chan]

I say sink em'! Maybe the whales they love so much will come to their rescue? But yes it is a messed up situation. In no why do I agree with sea morons tactics but at the same time I don't think japan should still be killing whales.

[retributionnk]

I don't care what the Japanese does with whales, but they shouldn't lie about it. If they're breaking laws by whaling, they should be prosecuted. I know laws aren't made based off of my opinions, so I don't expect whaling to be legal, especially with the way the Japanese go about it.

None of that excuses the actions of Sea Shepherd, though. I'd love to stuff one of those assholes into a whale carcass!

[The Dark Knight]

I guess this is an admission of guilt by the Japanese - they need whale meat for their markets, not for any sort of research.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-resumes-whale-meat-imports

Japan has bought whale meat from Iceland, the first time in 17 years it has imported the banned meat, a news report said Saturday.

The shipment passed through Japanese customs and was already on the market, Kyodo News agency said, quoting unidentified trade ministry officials. Officials refused to give further details, including how much and what kind of whale meat was involved, Kyodo said.

Japanese fisheries and trade officials were not available for comment Saturday.

Japan last imported whale meat in 1991. Commercial whaling was banned in 1986 under the International Whaling Commission.

[moron]

Japan appears likely to approve the importation of a consignment of whalemeat from Iceland and Norway.

A senior official from Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry told BBC News that an import licence has been granted.

The consignment, of about 65 tonnes, was sent to Japan in June but has been held in customs since its arrival.

The whalemeat trade is banned under UN rules but the three countries involved hold opt-outs, making it legal.

The international whalemeat trade is banned under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), but Norway, Iceland and Japan have all registered reservations to exempt themselves, as the treaty permits.

In response to the contention that the Japanese market is shrinking, as environment groups maintain, she said: "We don't know just how big the market is before we start, but I'm sure it can be re-developed

"Japan is sticking two fingers up at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and at CITES," said Claire Bass, marine mammal programme manager with the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA).

IWC members are currently engaged in discussions aiming to find a "compromise package" of reforms before the organisation's next annual meeting in June 2009.

"It really shows that none of the whaling nations have any commitment to the process on the IWC's future, nor any intention to honour obligations under CITES, (where) reservations to trade banned species are fairly frowned upon," said Ms Bass.

"Clearly Iceland has no market for this meat, but neither has Japan - they currently have about 2,000 tonnes in cold storage, so it's hard to imagine why they're importing any more."

The consignment consists of about 60 tonnes of fin whale meat from Hvalur hf, and about five tonnes of minke meat exported by the Norwegian company Myklebust Trading.

The fin whale hunt is especially controversial as it is listed internationally as an endangered species, although the north Atlantic population is believed to number about 30,000 and may be increasing, according to the latest Red List of Threatened Species.

[whyisitso]

I'd just like the thread to NOT turn in to a 2-person debate for once, which generally happens when I create a thread on such a topic. If you look at my recent posts, none of them are intentional trolls, but all logical arguments (the above kill the whales joke not withstanding). However, I do see where you are coming from, and I at least though about it when typing the OP. That being said:

Eco-terrorists are quite a despicable group of people. Eco-terrorist groups are merely criminals who have won the favor of international lawmakers, so they can get away with attacking vessels in international waters. I believe there's a group of folks in Somalia who've been doing that lately, although the news calls them, wait for it, pirates. Just because groups like Sea Shepherd are operating under the umbrella of animal rights, they think they're immune to common law, international law, and the Law of the Sea. Sadly, they've gotten away with it thus far. Attacking vessels that are legally whaling is a violation of the basic human rights of those fishermen. As far as I'm concerned, they should either be institutionalized for placing the rights of animals before human rights, or they should be jailed, probably in the same jail as Osama bin Laden's posse.

First things first - the whaling vessels are Not legally whaling, according to international law and treaties signed by Japan, and Sea Shepherd is no more interfering with the human rights of the fishermen than a security guard is interfering with the human rights of a thief trying to steel your stuff. Japan may choose to drop out of the international treaties banning commercial whaling, but doing so would simply expose how far out of step Japan is on this issue.

The accepted meaning of an "Eco-terrorist" requires a willingness to harm other humans in the process of pursing their cause. The only humans harmed in Sea Shepherd's cause are Sea Shepherd's volunteers, who are occasionally harmed by whaling fleet workers. The Sea Shepherd "attacks" are non-violent and no whaling fleet worker has ever been injured. The "acid" in the infamous "acid attacks" is non-harmful and simply smells bad. Important point - Sea Shepherd has never harmed any whaler to date. Regarding your characterization of activist groups as "merely criminals" neglects to recognize that Japan is, in fact, in violation of international law - which, by the way, explicitly authorizes non-government individuals and organizations to take action in mitigating crimes in progress on the high seas. If anything, Sea Shepherd is acting within the law and the whaling fleet is not...
... which is why Sea Shepherd has received so much international support. You don't see the Somali pirates receiving any international support, now do you?

The ONLY reason Australia, NZ, and other nations tolerate Japan's indiscretions is because Japan carries substantial financial, trade and political clout. In the political calculus of international relations, Australia and NZ in particular have decided to demure from an all out battle over whaling. But that decision does not validate the actions of the offending whaling fleet.

So, the question to you is this - what motivated you to make your comment?
(1) Do you have a disdain for wildlife?
(2) Do you personally profit from whaling, directly or indirectly?
(3) Do you simply like whale meat?
(4) Do you like to make silly shock-jock comments at watch reactions?

Otherwise, none of your comments make any rational sense at face value.

[whyisitso]

I don't care what the Japanese does with whales, but they shouldn't lie about it. If they're breaking laws by whaling, they should be prosecuted. I know laws aren't made based off of my opinions, so I don't expect whaling to be legal, especially with the way the Japanese go about it.

None of that excuses the actions of Sea Shepherd, though. I'd love to stuff one of those assholes into a whale carcass!

And who is going to prosecute illegal whaling fleets? They operate in either international waters or regions Japan (alone) has decided are international waters - for example Australia's South Sea Whale Sanctuary. So, who has jurisdiction and motivation to prosecute? Only Japan has jurisdiction according to Japan's interpretation of Japan's laws - and do you really expect the Japanese government to prosecute the whaling fleet? That is quite silly.

[P_chan]

Sea Shepherd is no more interfering with the human rights of the fishermen than a security guard is interfering with the human rights of a thief trying to steel your stuff.You're talking as if whales should have human rights:rolleyes:. Now who's comments don't make any rational sense again?

[whyisitso]

You're talking as if whales should have human rights:rolleyes:. Now who's comments don't make any rational sense again?

Technically, I'm referring to Whales as our stuff. And the community
of nations who decided to protect our stuff by signing treaties to said
effect is being regularly burglarized by the whaling fleet. Sea Shepherd
is simply protecting our stuff from illegal looters - aka, the Japanese
whaling fleet.

Get your analogies strait.

[TheLastDon]

Guess who's back.... back again....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[P_chan]

Well get back to me when they stop acting like pirates and then maybe they'll get some sympathy from me. But I highly doubt that:rolleyes:

Guess who's back.... back again....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Oh say it ain't so! I was enjoying not having an animal rights nut job running around the forum.

[whyisitso]

Well get back to me when they stop acting like pirates and then maybe they'll get some sympathy from me. But I highly doubt that:rolleyes:


Pirates kill people.
Pirates take stuff - especially stuff from the people they kill.
Pirates take hostages and demand ransoms.

Sea Shepherd does none of those pirate-defining activities.
If anything, they exercise considerable restraint in prosecuting their mission.

A lack of outright contempt is probably enough if you can't bring yourself all the way to sympathy.

[P_chan]

Pirates kill people.
Pirates take stuff - especially stuff from the people they kill.
Pirates take hostages and demand ransoms.

Sea Shepherd does none of those pirate-defining activities.
If anything, they exercise considerable restraint in prosecuting their mission.

A lack of outright contempt is probably enough if you can't bring yourself all the way to sympathy.

Hmmmm let's see, piracy is also acts of violence on the high seas. They were throwing stink bombs at vessels, attempting to entangle the ships propeller, boarded another vessel, and most importantly they're endangering human lives to further their own twisted views. Not to mention their boat is made to ram other vessels IIRC. Yeah, but because they have a thing for whales everyone thinks they're heros which is a bunch of BS IMO. All of this seems pretty violent to me, which would mean it's piracy now wouldn't it?

What I find even more humorous is other real conservation groups like Greenpeace don't support sea shepard because they endanger human lives. After all that, seems like they're no better then pirates to me.

:edit:I agree the japanese should stop whaling. However, sea shitheads are going about it the wrong way.

[whyisitso]

Hmmmm let's see, piracy is also acts of violence on the high seas. They were throwing stink bombs at vessels, attempting to entangle the ships propeller, boarded another vessel, and most importantly they're endangering human lives to further their own twisted views. Not to mention their boat is made to ram other vessels IIRC. Yeah, but because they have a boner for whales everyone thinks their heros which is a bunch of BS IMO. All of this seems pretty violent to me, which would mean it's piracy now wouldn't it?

What I find evne more humorous is other real conservation groups like Greenpeace don't support sea shepard because they endanger human lives. After all that, seems like they're no better then pirates to me.

Greenpeace is more of a bloated bureaucracy with timid, but opinionated salary people and a general sense of wanting to do something good in the world. I wouldn't call them a "real" conservation group unless being castrated is a requirement of being real.

I'm actually quite torn over the idea of putting volunteers in harms way; but I am also not going to tell someone on a passionate mission what they can or can't do. And each volunteer specifically acts with informed and free consent, so it's hard to argue with that. Therefore, I would no sooner restrict the volunteers from their passionate mission involving arguable stupid and dangerous actions than I would restrict myself from doing something stupid and dangerous, like enjoy the occasional double-diamond ski run or frequent big air while kitesurfing.

If throwing stink bombs constituted piracy, then half my undergrad classmates would be pirates. That's an extremely low bar for deeming someone a high seas criminal. Sea Shepherd doesn't put anyone in danger except themselves. So, you can certainly say that's stupid - in a self-preservation sort of way, but not piracy.

Turning things around - isn't acting in complete contempt of international law and killing endangered species in clear violation of said law just a little bit more naughty throwing rotten butter at someone? The only reason the Japanese whaling fleet gets away with their looting is because of Japan's economic and political clout - and because Japanese politicians have decided to provide unholy cover for the commercial Japanese whaling industry. If it were Ponapeans out there killing whales, they'd be shut down tomorrow.

[commando]

The wiki page says piracy are acts done for private ends. If it can be shown that this Sea Shepard group is doing stuff for their own gain then they can be called prirates.

[retributionnk]

Before I answer your series of questions, I'll comment a bit on the rest of your post. I'm no expert on international law, and I don't claim to me. That said, in the literature I've seen on the subject, the Japanese are authorized some sort of exception to whaling policies for 'research purposes'. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. That being said, I know that they don't just kill whales for research purposes. Frankly, I don't care. I just think they should be transparent. If being transparent about what they do with their whaling fleet causes them to be chastised internationally, then heck, they'd probably better stop.

Now on to Eco-terrorism. P_Chan summed it up fairly well in post #27 of this thread. I will add however, that not only are Sea Shepherd's ships equipped to ram other vessels, it is there stated intention to do so. To disable whaling vessels by any means. And to further prove Sea Shepherd's illegal actions, they look to violently stop perfectly legal killing of other sea animals, like the seals in Canada for example.


So, the question to you is this - what motivated you to make your comment?
(1) Do you have a disdain for wildlife?
(2) Do you personally profit from whaling, directly or indirectly?
(3) Do you simply like whale meat?
(4) Do you like to make silly shock-jock comments at watch reactions?

Otherwise, none of your comments make any rational sense at face value.
(1) No, I've got a utilitarian view of wildlife. Some might refer to it as anthropocentric. There's a post by me on the first page of the thread about my view on animal rights. (Heck, didn't you say that whales are 'our stuff'? Sounds to me like we can do what we want with our property, right?)
(2) I must say that I do profit from whaling. Without whaling we wouldn't be able to have this debate. Otherwise, no.
(3) I've never tried it, but I'm very open to new things. Bring it on!
(4) I've not made a single comment (sans a joke here and there) that doesn't have a base in logic. It amazes me though, that so many people out there try to justify the actions of Eco-terrorist organizations.

[commando]

I've tried whale meat. As sashimi its kinda rubbery and as steak its kinda rubbery. Oily too. I can see a town or area eating whale if they don't got nothing else but why eat it if you don need too?

[whyisitso]

Before I answer your series of questions, I'll comment a bit on the rest of your post. I'm no expert on international law, and I don't claim to me. That said, in the literature I've seen on the subject, the Japanese are authorized some sort of exception to whaling policies for 'research purposes'. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. That being said, I know that they don't just kill whales for research purposes. Frankly, I don't care. I just think they should be transparent. If being transparent about what they do with their whaling fleet causes them to be chastised internationally, then heck, they'd probably better stop.

There is indeed a research exception. But painting "RESEARCH" on your commercial whaling ship and holding up huge signs like "Sampling Tissue" to the helicopter film crew doesn't transform a commercial fishing take into "research," especially when the only "research" involved is carving up the animal for transport to market. The commercial nature of the enterprise makes it, according to international law, illegal. The research exception was supposed to make actual research easier and less onerous than restrictions scientists have to abide in studying other endangered animals - not open up wholesale slaughter of the animals.


Now on to Eco-terrorism. P_Chan summed it up fairly well in post #27 of this thread. I will add however, that not only are Sea Shepherd's ships equipped to ram other vessels, it is there stated intention to do so. To disable whaling vessels by any means. And to further prove Sea Shepherd's illegal actions, they look to violently stop perfectly legal killing of other sea animals, like the seals in Canada for example.

Actually, the ship they are using to thwart illegal whaling is Not well suited to hitting anything - it doesn't even have an ice rating, which is problematic considering the environment. You didn't qualify "any means" properly, because that does not include harming the human staff of the commercial whaling ships. If "any means" didn't include that qualifier, the entire whaling fleet would be collecting new coral growth as we speak.

Yes, it is perfectly legal to kill "adult" seals in Canada; HOWEVER, it is somehow a serious crime (large fines + jail time) in Canada to photograph, film, or otherwise even WITNESS the killing of seals without a permit (they pretty much don't issue permits to anyone except commercial sealers). Also, Canada has redefined "adult" over time to be just a couple weeks old - I guess you can't go around killing BABY seals, eh? That's be bad press. So, what Sea Shepherd does in Canada is photograph the killings - clearly such photography is a "despicable act," to quote a Canadian official on the subject. Now then, when did photographing something out in nature (other than your neighbors making out in the backyard) ever become a despicable act?

[retributionnk]

There is indeed a research exception. But painting "RESEARCH" on your commercial whaling ship and holding up huge signs like "Sampling Tissue" to the helicopter film crew doesn't transform a commercial fishing take into "research," especially when the only "research" involved is carving up the animal for transport to market. The commercial nature of the enterprise makes it, according to international law, illegal. The research exception was supposed to make actual research easier and less onerous than restrictions scientists have to abide in studying other endangered animals - not open up wholesale slaughter of the animals.

As I said in previous posts, I know that the Japanese are abusing the spirit of whatever auspice under which they operate their whaling fleet. They shouldn't be lying, but I really don't care if they kill whales, torture them, eat them, marry them, etc.



Actually, the ship they are using to thwart illegal whaling is Not well suited to hitting anything - it doesn't even have an ice rating, which is problematic considering the environment. You didn't qualify "any means" properly, because that does not include harming the human staff of the commercial whaling ships. If "any means" didn't include that qualifier, the entire whaling fleet would be collecting new coral growth as we speak.

Sea Shepherd is linked to the sea mine-caused sinking of a whaling vessel in the 80s, the same vessel it rammed with one of its it's 'ill-equipped' (as you are implying) boats. The leader, Paul Watson threatened Canadian officials with death! Many members have been arrested and convicted for violent acts against whalers since Sea Shepherd's inception. Arson, firing on authorities with rifles; you can't possibly claim that Sea Shepherd has any regard for human life.

Yes, it is perfectly legal to kill "adult" seals in Canada; HOWEVER, it is somehow a serious crime (large fines + jail time) in Canada to photograph, film, or otherwise even WITNESS the killing of seals without a permit (they pretty much don't issue permits to anyone except commercial sealers). Also, Canada has redefined "adult" over time to be just a couple weeks old - I guess you can't go around killing BABY seals, eh? That's be bad press. So, what Sea Shepherd does in Canada is photograph the killings - clearly such photography is a "despicable act," to quote a Canadian official on the subject. Now then, when did photographing something out in nature (other than your neighbors making out in the backyard) ever become a despicable act?

I don't care about the slaughter of baby seals. However, I would agree that if the Sea Shepherd folks are merely photographing the killing of the seals (which I doubt), then let them be. I am all for allowing people to protest or publicize wrongs they think are being done, even if I don't agree. I am vehemently against the use of violence to achieve that end.

[commando]

I checked these guys webpage and it said they're fighing right now!
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-081219-1.html

[whyisitso]

I checked these guys webpage and it said they're fighing right now!
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-081219-1.html

Giddy-Yup! Let the games begin!

[acidcrash]

Has anyone tried ordering the Whale Bacon advertised on The Discovery Channel Japan?

[Asshat]

Actually, the ship they are using to thwart illegal whaling is Not well suited to hitting anything - it doesn't even have an ice rating, which is problematic considering the environment.

Actually the Sea Shephard is modified to ram. It has been ballested with concrete on the bows and reinforced with steel. It has used this tactic often.

The Farley Mowat (another ship with these eco-terrorists) has a device on it's hull called the “can opener” used to rupture ships hulls.

They are endangering the lives of mariners and under international maritime regulations are considered pirates.

[P_chan]

Actually the Sea Shephard is modified to ram. It has been ballested with concrete on the bows and reinforced with steel. It has used this tactic often.

The Farley Mowat (another ship with these eco-terrorists) has a device on it's hull called the “can opener” used to rupture ships hulls.

They are endangering the lives of mariners and under international maritime regulations are considered pirates.

But they are trying to save whales so that makes them the good guys right?:rolleyes:

[Asshat]

But they are trying to save whales so that makes them the good guys right?:rolleyes:

There are a lot of gullible and ignorant people on the planet. Thing is, some of the whaling done is not illegal. Morally wrong in my estimation, since they are endangered, but not illegal.

But attempted murder on the high seas is more wrong. And the recent issue with boarding a boat near Oz was dealt with harshly by that Government, but it was hushed up.

I got that from a retired Oz sea captain I know.

[P_chan]

Yeah I don't agree with the whaling either. But putting humans lives at risk over this issue is just plain moronic IMO. They should go about their business in more constructive ways. IMO what they're doing is in the same boat (no pun intended) as religious nut jobs who kill for their god.

[Sex Wax]

Save the Whales.....but kill the Dolphins. Dolphins are really just gay sharks. Sharks ROCK !!!

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o169/AshMiller1972/gayshark.jpg

[whyisitso]

There are a lot of gullible and ignorant people on the planet. Thing is, some of the whaling done is not illegal. Morally wrong in my estimation, since they are endangered, but not illegal.

But attempted murder on the high seas is more wrong. And the recent issue with boarding a boat near Oz was dealt with harshly by that Government, but it was hushed up.

I got that from a retired Oz sea captain I know.

"Legality" has everything to do with two things: (1) jurisdiction, and (2) power to enforce. In other words - where you commit an act and who can do anything about it really defines legality and criminality. Everything else is just name calling (or marketing).

From an Australian perspective, the Whaling in the Australian Arctic Sanctuary is highly HIGHLY illegal - but, the Aussies don't have the 'nads to enforce not only their own law, but the mandate to enforce those laws handed down from their own highest court. The economic fallout could be rather painful for Australia and perhaps the threat of that fallout keeps Australia from taking a stand against Japan in Australian waters. So, while Australia claims jurisdiction, they are afraid to enforce.

From a Japanese perspective, "research" whaling is perfectly legal, and boo-hoo, these "despicable" "pirates" are making them loose money in their, efforts to, ummmmmm, fund the whale research by selling off all that researched meat. Right. But Japan is quite isolated in their belief that their whaling - even flagrant killing of explicitly protected species under the research provision - is somehow legal. Most countries simply don't want to raise a diplomatic finger against Japan on this issue because the economic fallout is very direct issue whereas dead whales is a remote issue that most politicians won't spend political capital on.

The "problem" arises when you have people who passionately believe that they are on a transcendent mission of truth and righteousness, a mission so critical both in terms of time and importance that they will push harder than polite society normally expects - just like that pesky Paul Watson and his crew getting in the way of the Japanese whaling fleet. ... And just like those pesky foreigners in Nanking getting in the way from 1937 to 1938.

That pretty much sums it up. Whaling today is simply a test of will - right or wrong is left to interpretation and vested interest. Each side will prosecute their cause as they see fit until one relents. Is it "wrong" to kill a whale that has not offended you? Is it wrong to kill a human of another race that has not offended you? And before you answer: why is it right or wrong? "Because I have decided thusly" is a perfectly legit answer, BTW.

[Asshat]

"Legality" has everything to do with two things: (1) jurisdiction, and (2) power to enforce. In other words - where you commit an act and who can do anything about it really defines legality and criminality. Everything else is just name calling (or marketing).

I think terms like attempted murder are legitimate all over the world. Certainly any licensing body would pull the Captain rating from any individual involved with ramming ships.

From an Australian perspective, the Whaling in the Australian Arctic Sanctuary is highly HIGHLY illegal - but, the Aussies don't have the 'nads to enforce not only their own law, but the mandate to enforce those laws handed down from their own highest court.

They do, and have on occasion allowed Sea Sheppard legal ability to interdict. Not ram, but interdict. Indeed the Oz gov is cowed by the anti-whaling crowd.

Most of the attacks from Sea Sheppard-at least the ones I see documented happened outside of Oz territory. (Your first comment applies here)

From a Japanese perspective, "research" whaling is perfectly legal, and boo-hoo, these "despicable" "pirates" are making them loose money in their, efforts to, ummmmmm, fund the whale research by selling off all that researched meat. Right. But Japan is quite isolated in their belief that their whaling - even flagrant killing of explicitly protected species under the research provision - is somehow legal. Most countries simply don't want to raise a diplomatic finger against Japan on this issue because the economic fallout is very direct issue whereas dead whales is a remote issue that most politicians won't spend political capital on..

Yep. 100%.

The "problem" arises when you have people who passionately believe that they are on a transcendent mission of truth and righteousness, a mission so critical both in terms of time and importance that they will push harder than polite society normally expects - just like that pesky Paul Watson and his crew getting in the way of the Japanese whaling fleet. ... And just like those pesky foreigners in Nanking getting in the way from 1937 to 1938. .

I wouldn't compare Japanese aggression in China with the acts of Paul Watson. He is a punk acting out a fantasy of piracy.

That pretty much sums it up. Whaling today is simply a test of will - right or wrong is left to interpretation and vested interest. Each side will prosecute their cause as they see fit until one relents. Is it "wrong" to kill a whale that has not offended you? Is it wrong to kill a human of another race that has not offended you? And before you answer: why is it right or wrong? "Because I have decided thusly" is a perfectly legit answer, BTW.

Yep, or more simply put, "do humans have more right to life than whales?" Watson has stated worms have more right to exist than humans. In any country, that rationale is contrary to law.

[whyisitso]

I wouldn't compare Japanese aggression in China with the acts of Paul Watson. He is a punk acting out a fantasy of piracy.

Actually, I was comparing the acts of Paul Watson to the acts of the foreigners in Nanking who tried to stop Japanese Aggression there by putting themselves in harms way and being a pain in the arse. I suppose those foreigners were punks with fantasies of saving lives.

[Asshat]

Actually, I was comparing the acts of Paul Watson to the acts of the foreigners in Nanking who tried to stop Japanese Aggression there by putting themselves in harms way and being a pain in the arse. I suppose those foreigners were punks with fantasies of saving lives.

So you "are" comparing the defence of a nation being invaded with killing whales.

Or in keeping with your Nanking analogy, the killing and raping of a quarter million Chinese by an invading Japanese army is akin to the Japanese killing whales.

I certainly don't see Watson as accomplishing anything near that valient.

Not sure why you are stuck on that analogy.

[whyisitso]

So you "are" comparing the defence of a nation being invaded with killing whales.

Or in keeping with your Nanking analogy, the killing and raping of a quarter million Chinese by an invading Japanese army is akin to the Japanese killing whales.

I certainly don't see Watson as accomplishing anything near that valient.

Not sure why you are stuck on that analogy.

No. And, more precisely, it would be quite offensive to suggest that the Magnitude of events are at all comparable. I am not suggesting that in any way. But the analogy is illustrative of how "right" and "wrong" can get blurred in a fray. Extreme analogies can help make a point sometimes, ... or confuse the reader.
Ooops.

The civilian foreigners in Nanking put themselves in harms way to interfere with the progress of the Japanese military, which right or wrong, was the prevailing authority once the city was taken. The civilian foreigners believed they were on a transcendent mission of good and needed to confront that authority to protect innocent lives. The Japanese military authority thought the civilian foreigners were a pain in the arse, indeed criminals for their despicable acts of defiance and interference.

Paul Watson and crew seem to believe they are on a transcendent mission of good and need to confront the whaling fleet to protect innocent lives (yes, whales, not humans, but still lives worthy of protection). And for their acts, they are accused of being a pain in the arse, indeed criminals for their despicable acts of defiance and interference.

The magnitudes may be very different, but the finger-pointing politics are the same.

Unless you have actually hung out with whales in a non-confrontational (no guns, no harpoons), natural setting, it may be quite difficult to understand why some people take such a hard line against whaling. For many people who have been in the water with whales and have had an opportunity to study and observe them in the wild, whales are intelligent, social beings capable of complex and highly endearing behavior, and are therefore worthy of unwavering protection - and certainly worthy of a right to life. In that context, Paul Watson's direct action approach is perfectly rational.

[Asshat]

Unless you have actually hung out with whales in a non-confrontational (no guns, no harpoons), natural setting, it may be quite difficult to understand why some people take such a hard line against whaling. For many people who have been in the water with whales and have had an opportunity to study and observe them in the wild, whales are intelligent, social beings capable of complex and highly endearing behavior, and are therefore worthy of unwavering protection - and certainly worthy of a right to life. In that context, Paul Watson's direct action approach is perfectly rational.

You are new here and do not know me. This subject and my views on it have been discussed ad-nauseum.

I have been involved with the ocean in every way for many years. There is absolutely nothing natural about humans interfacing with whales in the ocean. It is extremely disruptive to them. Moreover, with so many self-proclaimed animal lovers paying money to hire boats to run them down for "encounters" it causes an interruption of their breeding and calving.

I've seen that first-hand and it disgusts me.

Having read much of Watson's writing, I find him a boorish individual who gets off on being controversial, and getting away with as much violence as he possibly can.

Please spare me the "pet the mammal" crap. I don't buy it. I do agree that whales are endangered and are no longer required by humans as a food or oil source and that hunting them should be stopped however.

If these enviro-terrorsts want violence, I suggest they grab rifles and go after hunters killing cougar, and maybe try petting them.

[whyisitso]

You are new here and do not know me. This subject and my views on it have been discussed ad-nauseum.

I have been involved with the ocean in every way for many years. There is absolutely nothing natural about humans interfacing with whales in the ocean. It is extremely disruptive to them. Moreover, with so many self-proclaimed animal lovers paying money to hire boats to run them down for "encounters" it causes an interruption of their breeding and calving.

I've seen that first-hand and it disgusts me.


Soooo, you are disgusted by silly eco-tourists/operators occasionally distracting whales from getting it on, but you are not equally disgusted by whales being slaughtered? How does that work?

What defines "interfacing," anyway? I, too, am down on idiots trying to get close to whales. But what is wrong with hanging way back and watching them (assuming adequate visibility)? Are you suggesting every whale researcher who hangs back and observes is a ham-fisted idiot? That would be a rather silly assertion.


Please spare me the "pet the mammal" crap. I don't buy it. I do agree that whales are endangered and are no longer required by humans as a food or oil source and that hunting them should be stopped however.


Whales didn't start out being "required" for food or oil. They were simply one source that became very easy to exploit, and commercial whalers ended up entrenched in the market, giving them market force and the appearance of necessity.

Why do you assume that everyone who would protect wild animals from death and related exploitation wants to have wild animals as perverse snuggle-pets? The best thing humans can do for most animals is leave them well alone - and hopefully on/in some remaining scrap of natural habitat.


If these enviro-terrorsts want violence, I suggest they grab rifles and go after hunters killing cougar, and maybe try petting them.

Obviously, violence is Not the goal. Preventing whales from being slaughtered is the goal. And, despite your assertions to the contrary, violent means is not an option either - otherwise we'd be seeing violence. Even when two Sea Shepherd crew foolishly boarded a whaling ship last year, they were unarmed, save for a piece of paper (yeah, I'm shaking in my boots over that paper). While boarding another vessel at sea is frowned on, there was no pretense or indication of harm to the crew or vessel. And, more importantly, no violence was involved - except for the violence inflicted ON the two who boarded the whaling ship.

[Asshat]

Soooo, you are disgusted by silly eco-tourists/operators occasionally distracting whales from getting it on, but you are not equally disgusted by whales being slaughtered? How does that work?

You are not qualified to gauge or comment on my level of disgust of anything. In addition to creating strawmen, you are forgetting the fact that whale hunting is decried the world over, while "hanging out with whales in a non-confrontational, natural setting" is accepted. Thus, few environmentalists have the termerity to point out the error of this practice since the end justifies the means.

What defines "interfacing," anyway? I, too, am down on idiots trying to get close to whales. But what is wrong with hanging way back and watching them (assuming adequate visibility)? Are you suggesting every whale researcher who hangs back and observes is a ham-fisted idiot? That would be a rather silly assertion.

Your definition: "hanging out with whales in a non-confrontational, natural setting" I did not mention a thing about whale research. I stated "self-proclaimed animal lovers paying money to hire boats to run them down for "encounters" causes an interruption of their breeding and calving."

Whales didn't start out being "required" for food or oil. They were simply one source that became very easy to exploit, and commercial whalers ended up entrenched in the market, giving them market force and the appearance of necessity.

That is an opinion based on centuries of hindsite. During specific periods and with specific peoples, whales were considered a necessary food source. Historians state this may have evolved from humans finding them stranded on beaches initially.

Why do you assume that everyone who would protect wild animals from death and related exploitation wants to have wild animals as perverse snuggle-pets? The best thing humans can do for most animals is leave them well alone - and hopefully on/in some remaining scrap of natural habitat.

Again, your words about hanging out with whales prompted my statement about cougar which by the way are endangered. Again, please, "hang out with them in their natural setting." Or are they too difficult to exploit? Not nearly as easy to run down the cats as it is to fill a party boat full of idiots and go chase whales for 50 bucks a head.


Obviously, violence is Not the goal. Preventing whales from being slaughtered is the goal. And, despite your assertions to the contrary, violent means is not an option either - otherwise we'd be seeing violence. Even when two Sea Shepherd crew foolishly boarded a whaling ship last year, they were unarmed, save for a piece of paper (yeah, I'm shaking in my boots over that paper). While boarding another vessel at sea is frowned on, there was no pretense or indication of harm to the crew or vessel. And, more importantly, no violence was involved - except for the violence inflicted ON the two who boarded the whaling ship.

Again, Watson has a history of violence. He uses animal rights as a shield to foment his stated views that humans are lower than earth worms.

It's apparent that you have no experience with crewing or captaining vessels on the high seas- nor the laws which apply. I do. Boarding is not "frowned upon" it is cause for deadly force. I have friends who have been in that situation and who did use deadly force. To say that ramming ships is not violence is just plain ignorant.

In other posts, it is apparent you are no stranger to google. Finding evidence of Watson's crimes, his disregard for human life, his distain for humans, and a long litany of crimes he has committed are easy to find. Maritime documentation and protests of his piracy are also out there.

[whyisitso]

You are not qualified to gauge or comment on my level of disgust of anything. In addition to creating strawmen, you are forgetting the fact that whale hunting is decried the world over, while "hanging out with whales in a non-confrontational, natural setting" is accepted. Thus, few environmentalists have the termerity to point out the error of this practice since the end justifies the means.


No environmentalist worth their salt accepts harassing whales, trying to touch whales, or running down whales. Certainly none that I know. Zero. You are painting with an overly broad brush here. But I see no problem photographing, video taping, or otherwise observing whales at distance. Are you stating some sort of opposition to that?


Your definition: "hanging out with whales in a non-confrontational, natural setting" I did not mention a thing about whale research. I stated "self-proclaimed animal lovers paying money to hire boats to run them down for "encounters" causes an interruption of their breeding and calving."


Where did the self-proclaimed animal lover thing come from? I certainly didn't bring up that type of crazy person. Nor am I an advocate of people harassing whales. Most research observers pretty much observe, aka, hang out at distance. Perhaps you disagree with my use of terms here, but there is no functional difference.


That is an opinion based on centuries of hindsite. During specific periods and with specific peoples, whales were considered a necessary food source. Historians state this may have evolved from humans finding them stranded on beaches initially.


I was not referring to subsistence hunting of whales by indigenous people, although even that practice is pointless today.


Again, your words about hanging out with whales prompted my statement about cougar which by the way are endangered. Again, please, "hang out with them in their natural setting." Or are they too difficult to exploit? Not nearly as easy to run down the cats as it is to fill a party boat full of idiots and go chase whales for 50 bucks a head.


Why are you trying to pin that pointless practice on me? I already stated my opposition to harassing whales. And how are cougars related to whales? I have photographed both in the wild - and they are very different. The whales are substantially indifferent to having a few divers at distance; by contrast, you shouldn't even try to get close enough for a cougar to see you - they can be quite wary and easily disturbed. You need a fast 500mm to have any kind of shot. I wouldn't be in a hurry to touch a whale and I wouldn't be in a hurry to pet a cougar; and I'd think anyone who would want to do either a fool. Where do you come up with these assumptions?


It's apparent that you have no experience with crewing or captaining vessels on the high seas- nor the laws which apply. I do. Boarding is not "frowned upon" it is cause for deadly force. I have friends who have been in that situation and who did use deadly force. To say that ramming ships is not violence is just plain ignorant.


I have hired boats/ships to take me places, but no - I have not bothered to secure a captains credentials, nor have I had the time or interest to do so. And, no, we didn't allow the small crew of an apparently distressed vessel on board the one time I encountered one - we towed them to a harbor where they could secure help from local authorities. That decision was quite obvious. Did I feel potentially threatened? Absolutely. But, there is a world of difference between a random unmarked, rusty old beater approaching you asking to board (WTF?, no way!), and a very well-known bunch of publicity hounds trying to get on board with an envelope - cameras rolling, radio contact in place, where said hounds boarding your vessel are offering nothing but public humiliation in the very worst case. THAT is not grounds for deadly force. You are being quite silly. So, no, I'm not a high-sea's captain, I'll give you that one, but I do have enough experience being out and about to tell you there is a world of difference between threatening and non-threatening scenarios.


In other posts, it is apparent you are no stranger to google. Finding evidence of Watson's crimes, his disregard for human life, his distain for humans, and a long litany of crimes he has committed are easy to find. Maritime documentation and protests of his piracy are also out there.

I'm not sure where you got that, but sure, why not - doesn't Everyone use google every now and then? Or some reasonable substitute?

[Asshat]

Whyisitso, you do not have the experience with which to hold a discussion with me on maritime law, nor are your assertations of what constitutes piracy valid.

Please leave the whales alone, you are not a whale researcher. You are a photographer, and I would be interested in seeing any photos you have taken of Cougar in the wild.

The only photo I took of one was in the bed of my father's truck after the Fish and Game killed it. It had mauled and eaten a child the previous day.

I do have numerous old photos of pilot whales I have taken in this area (Ishigaki, Tokashiki and Taiwan) while out on my boat over the years. In every case it was happenstance, as I refuse to purposely get close enough to photograph them.

Anon.

[Sex Wax]

Do that many Japanese eat Whale? It must be a Mainland Japan thing, because i've only seen one can of it here in like 12 years. I heard it tastes like re-fried crap. Or are the using it for other reasons? I know there are some West Coast Indain, and eskimo tribes that hunt it, but they only kill a few, and use every part of it. More like a tribal thing.

[Asshat]

Do that many Japanese eat Whale? It must be a Mainland Japan thing, because i've only seen one can of it here in like 12 years. I heard it tastes like re-fried crap. Or are the using it for other reasons? I know there are some West Coast Indain, and eskimo tribes that hunt it, but they only kill a few, and use every part of it. More like a tribal thing.

No, they don't. They also didn't bring their fishing boats to the West Coast US and rob all of the salmon.

They DO run 40 mile long lines baited with frozen squid near the Mariannas, then run the boat back around to gather 13 hours later. The catch results in everything, much of which is tossed back dead into the water.

In the US, salmon trolling is about done for ever. I was amazed that fishermen were tossing 40 pound dead salmon in the water, because they didn't have the correct Coho/Chinook ration on their boats. If the US Fish and Game or USCG catches them with anything but a 1:1 ratio, they get fined and/or loose the boat.

But it's the Japanese fault..not the destruction of watersheds by timber companies in the US.

(end rant)

[whyisitso]

Whyisitso, you do not have the experience with which to hold a discussion with me on maritime law, nor are your assertations of what constitutes piracy valid.

Please leave the whales alone, you are not a whale researcher. You are a photographer, and I would be interested in seeing any photos you have taken of Cougar in the wild.

Anon.

Well, I regret to inform you that despite your abundant maritime experience, you may need a little refresher about the actual maritime laws.

I don't claim to have your perfect memory on legal matters, so I had to dust off my old law books to dig this up - and I have typed for your benefit, verbatim, THE internationally accepted definition of "piracy" on the high seas (aka international waters), according to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (aka, UNCLOS), ratified in 1982, and accepted as the universally accepted international law:

Article 101. Definition of piracy
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation,
committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private
ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons
or property on board such ship or air-craft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the
jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

From your legal training, you should recollect that the word "consists" is used to define a "closed" set - that is a set that explicitly includes listed items, and explicitly excludes non-listed items. So, your experience in these matters will enable you to recognize that the careful wording of this closed definition of "piracy" excludes any thing not listed, leaving little to interpretation outside the scope of this Article 101. Had the framers of this law intended additional potential definitions for "piracy" outside of Article 101, they would have used the word "comprises" instead of "consists."

You may ponder the phrase "for private ends" at this point. But you will either recollect from your law school days or find in your library that this phrase is almost universally held to mean "for profit," especially by theft or plunder.

Now then, in state jurisdictional / territorial waters (aka, not international waters), a broader definition has been adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) about a decade later:

"An act of boarding or attempting to board any ship
with the apparent intent to commit theft or
any other crime and with the apparent intent or capability
to use force in the furtherance of that act."

A careful reading of the above, broader, definition of "piracy" in territorial waters actually excludes boarding (yes BOARDING) a vessel obviously unarmed and without intent or capability to use force. SO, even this broader definition of "piracy," which technically doesn't apply in international waters doesn't apply to the two Sea Shepherd knuckleheads who boarded a whaling ship last year in international waters ... In fact, had that event qualified under the broader IMO definition, then any complaint to that effect would require an acknowledgment by a plaintiff that the whaling fleet was actually ILLEGALLY operating in Australian territorial waters instead of international waters! DOH!

There is no legal basis for a complaint against Sea Shepherd because (at least in the last many years) Sea Shepherd has done nothing illegal.
Why do you think the whaling interests can't actually take legal action? Don't you think they would WANT to??!!

I could see a few feeble civil arguments against what Sea Shepherd does, but nothing supported explicitly by maritime law.

Sorry, but your statements are not consistent with Actual maritime law...
Why not just say you think Paul Watson is a jackass and you find him disagreeable, without making stuff up and claiming experience instead of facts to back you up? That would be totally legit by any standard. But invoking words like "piracy" and "criminal acts" is simply name calling.

[whyisitso]

Interesting little update.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-090201-2.html

Glad to see things are remaining so very cordial down there.

[P_chan]

Interesting little update.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-090201-2.html

Glad to see things are remaining so very cordial down there.

I'm glad to see the whalers are defending themselves:thumbup:. They should be thankful those aren't long range RIFLES!

[whyisitso]

I'm glad to see the whalers are defending themselves:thumbup:. They should be thankful those aren't long range RIFLES!

... so, you're glad to see the whalers are in violation of more and more
Different international laws? Nice. Go Whalers!! Wooo-Hooo!

[P_chan]

... so, you're glad to see the whalers are in violation of more and more
Different international laws? Nice. Go Whalers!! Wooo-Hooo!

Hey they're right up there with sea douches in terms of international law breaking huh! Like I said, be thankful it's not high powered rifles instead of acoustic devices.

[whyisitso]

Hey they're right up there with sea douches in terms of international law breaking huh! Like I said, be thankful it's not high powered rifles instead of acoustic devices.

I suppose thanks should be given all around then - it's easier to sink a big,
lumbering commercial factory ship with the right, easily fabricated munitions,
than a fast attack vessel. But violence against other humans is clearly NOT
Sea Shepherd's goal. They just want to stop the whaling, not visit harm on
the whalers. The other way 'round is not true - the whalers are more than
happy to try to injure (throw stuff at, SHOOT at, etc... ) Sea Shepherd crew.

BTW, I have offered specific references to international law refuting, beyond
any interpretive creativity, the claim that SS is even breaking international
law whatsoever in their activities chasing the Japanese whaling fleet in
Antarctica. I challenge you to site any law - international or sovereign
that they have broken down there.

[P_chan]

I suppose thanks should be given all around then - it's easier to sink a big,
lumbering commercial factory ship with the right, easily fabricated munitions,
than a fast attack vessel. But violence against other humans is clearly NOT
Sea Shepherd's goal. They just want to stop the whaling, not visit harm on
the whalers. The other way 'round is not true - the whalers are more than
happy to try to injure (throw stuff at, SHOOT at, etc... ) Sea Shepherd crew.

BTW, I have offered specific references to international law refuting, beyond
any interpretive creativity, the claim that SS is even breaking international
law whatsoever in their activities chasing the Japanese whaling fleet in
Antarctica. I challenge you to site any law - international or sovereign
that they have broken down there.

:rolleyes: It's not really worth the effort. IIRC asshat already cited those laws and how seadouches have broken them. I guess your fingers must have been in your ears:rolleyes:.

[Asshat]

:rolleyes: It's not really worth the effort. IIRC asshat already cited those laws and how seadouches as broken them. I guess your fingers must have been in your ears:rolleyes:.

Yeah, I have posted specifics and links to violations of maritime law here before as well to TP.

Moreover, I have had conversations with members of the Oz maritime community, and they are very vocal in their opposition to Sea Sheppard's tactics.

That's about it for me though. I don't suffer fools for very long. I learned that when TP was here.

Here. For the research-challenged:

U.S. WHALING COMMISSIONER DENOUNCES SEA SHEPHERD'S CLASH WITH JAPANESE WHALERS (http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2007/feb07/noaa07-r-iwc.html)

IWC/59/16 Agenda item 11.2 (http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC59docs/59-16.pdf)

Some vidoes of piracy and unlawful conduct. (http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=798770&site_id=1#import)

Lots more

[whyisitso]

Yeah, I have posted specifics and links to violations of maritime law here before as well to TP.

Moreover, I have had conversations with members of the Oz maritime community, and they are very vocal in their opposition to Sea Sheppard's tactics.

That's about it for me though. I don't suffer fools for very long. I learned that when TP was here.

Here. For the research-challenged:

U.S. WHALING COMMISSIONER DENOUNCES SEA SHEPHERD'S CLASH WITH JAPANESE WHALERS (http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2007/feb07/noaa07-r-iwc.html)

IWC/59/16 Agenda item 11.2 (http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC59docs/59-16.pdf)

Some vidoes of piracy and unlawful conduct. (http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=798770&site_id=1#import)

Lots more

HAHAHAHAHA! If that's the best you can do?

In the most potentially damning piece - the video:
"Sea Shepherd's 'Robert Hunter' rams Kaiko Maru, Feb. 12, 2007"
on keyhole.com, I would suggest you watch the very strait wake of the
Robert Hunter as the _Keiko_Maru_ veers into a collision path by cutting
off the SS vessel. Did you see the video from the Sea Shepherd's side -
showing the dangerous maneuver of the Kaiko Maru? I'm not sure if you
offer this research in earnest or as a joke. Even the girl video taping
sounded like she was about to laugh when she said called out her 'warning.'

There is a whole lot of name calling and finger pointing - but in the end,
you have a group of commercial whalers trying to protect an illicit harvest,
and some pushy media hounds trying to stop them. Allegations of piracy
and high crimes on the high seas are very silly indeed, so it's really just a
push and shove at this point.

A.H., you're pretty cool, but you can be very silly too.

Cheers.

[dk]

Cheers. Another Canadian?

[Asshat]

Cheers. Another Canadian?

LOL, all one need to is change their ISP right? Log on once a week or so from a kiosk?

[P_chan]

Cheers. Another Canadian?

Maybe we should just ban environmental threads all together?:D:D:D

[dk]

Maybe we should just ban environmental threads all together?:D:D:D
**** that, let's just ban Canadians. \:-)

[Asshat]

Maybe we should just ban environmental threads all together?:D:D:D

No, we need to keep them. How else will we keep luring the neo-environmentalists who once pet a caged dolphin on vacation?

[retributionnk]

HAHAHAHAHA! If that's the best you can do?

In the most potentially damning piece - the video:
"Sea Shepherd's 'Robert Hunter' rams Kaiko Maru, Feb. 12, 2007"
on keyhole.com, I would suggest you watch the very strait wake of the
Robert Hunter as the _Keiko_Maru_ veers into a collision path by cutting
off the SS vessel. Did you see the video from the Sea Shepherd's side -
showing the dangerous maneuver of the Kaiko Maru? I'm not sure if you
offer this research in earnest or as a joke. Even the girl video taping
sounded like she was about to laugh when she said called out her 'warning.'

This calls to mind another international incident, from back in '01. A US EP-3 recon plane was run into by a Chinese fighter over international waters, and forced to land on Hainan Island. The Chinese maintain that the slow, lumbering, 4-propped EP-3 intentionally 'rammed' the faster, smaller, much more maneuverable fighter plane. That raises 2 questions. 1. why didn't the fighter pilot move? He obviously could've moved out of the way.
So maybe you answer that question with, "maybe he was too close to react at that point." My retort to that would be: What the **** is a Chinese fighter doing that close to a US aircraft? I find it hard to not draw the parallel here.

[Asshat]

The Chinese maintain that the slow, lumbering, 4-propped EP-3 intentionally 'rammed' the faster, smaller, much more maneuverable fighter plane.

The news stated that the collision was unintentional. That the jet accidently bumped the P3. Like at a traffic light and stuff. "Oops." LOL.

You'll waste time responding to this guy. Another "Bruce Lee" on the internet posting from a cyber cafe. One can hang out on the teeny-bopper "drifter car" websites and get the same thing all day from 14 year olds.

[whyisitso]

This calls to mind another international incident, from back in '01. A US EP-3 recon plane was run into by a Chinese fighter over international waters, and forced to land on Hainan Island. The Chinese maintain that the slow, lumbering, 4-propped EP-3 intentionally 'rammed' the faster, smaller, much more maneuverable fighter plane. That raises 2 questions. 1. why didn't the fighter pilot move? He obviously could've moved out of the way.
So maybe you answer that question with, "maybe he was too close to react at that point." My retort to that would be: What the **** is a Chinese fighter doing that close to a US aircraft? I find it hard to not draw the parallel here.

There are Some parallels here. The Chinese have been harassing US
recon planes for years. And the fighter pilot who whacked into the US
plane fancied himself to be one of the best. Ooops.

And, yes, Sea Shepherd harasses the Japanese whaling fleet on a regular
basis. It's their thing.

In the video offered up by AH as evidence of naughty behavior on the
part of Sea Shepherd, the Japanese ship was actually the one performing
a reckless maneuver by cutting off SS's ship, which attempted to slow or
hault. Watch the video. The Japanese ship was a fast, nimble spotter,
not a slow lumbering factory ship - so the analogy between a big ol' prop
plane and a nimble fighter doesn't hold up. Watch the wake of SS's ship -
strait as an arrow. Find some points of reference for direction - wave
motion/white caps on swells for example - and notice the Japanese ship
is the one turning into the SS ship. Who's the Big-Bad-Pirate, interfering
with proper navigation of another ship on the high seas now? Funny how
the experienced sea faring professionals in the audience didn't (or chose
not to) spot these GLARING discrepancies between the whaler's allegations
and visible facts in the whaler's video.

My assessment of the video: just an anemic attempt at generating some
sympathy for the whaling fleet. This is pure PR drivel and has nothing to
do with the law, international, high seas, or otherwise.

[whyisitso]

**** that, let's just ban Canadians. \:-)

Sooo, a discussion forum is at its best when everyone just sits around and
agrees with each other?

[DougP]

Sooo, a discussion forum is at its best when everyone just sits around and
agrees with each other?

I'm pretty sure he was joking.:) Actually, this place can be quite interesting when people don't agree with each other. :D

[P_chan]

Sooo, a discussion forum is at its best when everyone just sits around and
agrees with each other?

http://www.slowleadership.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/unusual_sarcasm_notice.jpg

[socalheart]

I wonder if it'd be such an issue if the whalers did it the way the Aleuts, Athapascans and Eskimos... in umiaks with spears. I say leave it to the "tribes" who still practice "the old ways" in Alaska and vicinity.

[Asshat]

I wonder if it'd be such an issue if the whalers did it the way the Aleuts, Athapascans and Eskimos... in umiaks with spears. I say leave it to the "tribes" who still practice "the old ways" in Alaska and vicinity.

Present day ecologists also decry the "old ways" and some indiginous peoples are still allowed to hunt whales.

What the Japanese are doing is horrendous, but only as it applies to endangered species.

The problem is that anti-whaling folks are against "all" whaling because "whales are intelligent." I am not sure what the IQ of a mammal needs to be for it to be "okay" to use them as food sources.

It's all about promotional campagnes. We don't see the same activism being applied evenly across the board to endangered species. Pathetic really- "envouge activism."

[P_chan]

Present day ecologists also decry the "old ways" and some indiginous peoples are still allowed to hunt whales.

What the Japanese are doing is horrendous, but only as it applies to endangered species.

The problem is that anti-whaling folks are against "all" whaling because "whales are intelligent." I am not sure what the IQ of a mammal needs to be for it to be "okay" to use them as food sources.

It's all about promotional campagnes. We don't see the same activism being applied evenly across the board to endangered species. Pathetic really- "envouge activism."

Very well said and exactly how I feel on this subject. I've always thought that animals (and the environment) need to be taken care of and treated better. However I'm a realist and understand that it's not always possible and in some cases animals have to be "used" and there is nothing wrong with that. It's that whole "envouge activism" mentality that really pisses me off. It pisses me off something fierce when I see a commercial for that stupid sea douches show or dumb little girls like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3chsx1gpyjA

Oh he soooo struck out with that boat hook :rolleyes:and if you listen closely you can almost hear her "friends" kissing her ass. Her little fake cry at the end was entertaining as well.....freakin' tool.

:edit: I also love how in another video she "calls for change" in Japan. Who does this little bimbo think she is that other nations and cultures should just change becuase they do something she deems to be wrong. Don't get me wrong I don't really agree with what Japan does but demanding they change so it aligns with her way of thinking is just plane asinine and is what really pisses me off when it comes to people like her.

[Carl]

Doesn't Japan have a warrant out for her arrest? I don't think she'll be coming back any time soon. But, if she wants, she can stay at my place :thumbup: I'll save the cheerleader!

[DougP]

I'll save the cheerleader!

And save the world? :D
http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/magazine/1505/FF_raves_heroes1_f.jpg

[retributionnk]

There are Some parallels here. The Chinese have been harassing US
recon planes for years. And the fighter pilot who whacked into the US
plane fancied himself to be one of the best. Ooops.

And, yes, Sea Shepherd harasses the Japanese whaling fleet on a regular
basis. It's their thing.

In the video offered up by AH as evidence of naughty behavior on the
part of Sea Shepherd, the Japanese ship was actually the one performing
a reckless maneuver by cutting off SS's ship, which attempted to slow or
hault. Watch the video. The Japanese ship was a fast, nimble spotter,
not a slow lumbering factory ship - so the analogy between a big ol' prop
plane and a nimble fighter doesn't hold up. Watch the wake of SS's ship -
strait as an arrow. Find some points of reference for direction - wave
motion/white caps on swells for example - and notice the Japanese ship
is the one turning into the SS ship. Who's the Big-Bad-Pirate, interfering
with proper navigation of another ship on the high seas now? Funny how
the experienced sea faring professionals in the audience didn't (or chose
not to) spot these GLARING discrepancies between the whaler's allegations
and visible facts in the whaler's video.

My assessment of the video: just an anemic attempt at generating some
sympathy for the whaling fleet. This is pure PR drivel and has nothing to
do with the law, international, high seas, or otherwise.

I really didn't want to watch that video... but your post forced me! So first of all, I'll take on the rationality of the Japanese Vessel actually getting in the way of the SS boat. Why would the Japanese do that? I'm sure they know it would only be bad press. They don't need to video record something like that, Sea Shepherd does a great job of incriminating itself. Now onto the video...

Of course the wake is straight, you only see about 50 feet behind the boat (max). If you notice the large swath of wake on the port side of the boat, and that the bow of the boat was almost in line with the far right side of that wake, indicating a turn to the port side. I'm no regular seafarer, but I think your hopes for whale saving skewed your viewing of that video.

[whyisitso]

I really didn't want to watch that video... but your post forced me! So first of all, I'll take on the rationality of the Japanese Vessel actually getting in the way of the SS boat. Why would the Japanese do that? I'm sure they know it would only be bad press. They don't need to video record something like that, Sea Shepherd does a great job of incriminating itself. Now onto the video...

Of course the wake is straight, you only see about 50 feet behind the boat (max). If you notice the large swath of wake on the port side of the boat, and that the bow of the boat was almost in line with the far right side of that wake, indicating a turn to the port side. I'm no regular seafarer, but I think your hopes for whale saving skewed your viewing of that video.

Interesting/good point. I thought the swath coming off the bow looked
rather symmetric port side to starboard once the camera came about for a
head-on view, but it is somewhat difficult to judge.

Anyway, so much for pleasantries and kind gestures down there - it appears
the gloves are off on both sides now. Both sides have rammed into each
other a few times, both sides have thrown prop traps at each other to little
effect; the SS folk have thrown rotten butter and sticky smokers and the
whaler crew have returned the favor by hurling chunks of metal and whale
blubber at the SS crew.

I'm not so sure turning that LRAD on the helicopter (with Animal Planet
camera person on board) was such a bright idea from a PR or LEGAL
perspective, especially since the helicopter posed no credible threat to
the whalers - but knocking out the pilot would have been fatal for both
people on board and posed a serious, unwarranted threat. I don't think
there is any way to defend using the LRAD on the helicopter.

I guess the whalers are being more aggressive than ever and Paul is
reverting to his more aggressive methods of the past. Bummer.
But at least a few whales get to swim another day as a result.

[commando]

Obama toughens US line against whaling

US President Barack Obama's administration has admitted it would firmly oppose whaling, delighting environmentalists ahead of a key international meeting with pro-whaling Japan.

Anti-whaling campaigners said Obama was signaling a tougher US stance leading into the meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) opening Monday in Rome which is set to look at a controversial compromise proposal.

Japan hunts hundreds of whales a year in the Pacific and Antarctic using a loophole in a 1986 IWC moratorium that allows "lethal research" on the ocean giants. Norway and Iceland defy the moratorium altogether.

"The United States continues to view the commercial whaling moratorium as a necessary conservation measure and believes that lethal scientific whaling is unnecessary in modern whale conservation management," said Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality.

She said the Obama administration would wait and see the proposals on the table in Rome but stressed: "It is our view that any package, to be acceptable, must result in a significant improvement in the conservation status of whales."

The devil is in the details... (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hjjDQrirseBYupaLILby8UadT_Dg)

[commando]

Sea Shepherd gets “spaceship” boat (http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=11078)
http://www.japanprobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/earthrace.jpg

[dk]

Sea Shepherd gets “spaceship” boat (http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=11078)
http://www.japanprobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/earthrace.jpg

Damn, I want one.

[commando]

Yup, cool as they have always been, Sea Shepard just got a little cooler...:cool:

[CPOCPO]

I think I'd be okay with the whaling ships and the eco-terriorists ships ramming each other and BOTH sinking.

[Lucinacia]

....I'm rather against whaling. :/

...But I'm also against a lot of senseless killing of animals and am waiting for the day us crazy little human buggers get our comeuppance. Cause really....they say that the birthrate is going down for us and I say GOOD. Earth is too overpopulated as it is.


...8D;; But please...just ignore my ramblings.

[DougP]

The spaceship boat just got pwned! :ohmy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brw6JN0lQXY&feature=player_embedded

[dk]

Hahaha pwn3d

[gtlm2000]

Don't they eat animal?

[Crazysix]

Don't they eat animal?

dont care......hopefully the Steve irwin will up grade and send those Japanese bastards to a watery grave


http://joecarr.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/uss-nc.jpg

[gtlm2000]

Japanese should make Z-GOK

http://3k-hobby.deci.jp/gampla/pic/FMG072-01.jpg

[dk]

dont care......hopefully the Steve irwin will up grade and send those Japanese bastards to a watery grave

Papapapokaface papapokaface! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSEST-oQH68

[Crazysix]

Since I dont like japanese........it will be funny when the tree hugging hippies do this to the whaling fleet
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/nuclear-arms-race-3.jpg:-|:-|:thumbup:

[Crazysix]

Papapapokaface papapokaface! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSEST-oQH68

?????????????????

[dk]

Damn, how quickly you forget. And you say you watch South Park...

[P_chan]

It would be awesome if they treated them like real pirates! Sink those Sea Sheppard douche bags!

[gtlm2000]

Since I dont like japanese........it will be funny when the tree hugging hippies do this to the whaling fleet
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/nuclear-arms-race-3.jpg:-|:-|:thumbup:

Don't you like me!? :D

[I Am Luna]

I will continue to slaughter the whales for their sweet, sweet oils.

[Crazysix]

Damn, how quickly you forget. And you say you watch South Park...

Oh i watch but just nothing to do with lady gaga:barf:

[CPOCPO]

I think I'd be okay with the whaling ships and the eco-terriorists ships ramming each other and BOTH sinking.




Nice, I want more videos of sinking ships.

[SnaFu]

Nice, I want more videos of sinking ships.

Who needs video? We're living it.

[acousticlinux]

Don't you like me!? :D

We like you gt, you're a cool guy.

[TheLastDon]

Mmmmmm Whale in a can!

http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/photoplog/file.php?n=697&w=l

[DougP]

Japan arrests anti-whaling activist (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.whaling/index.html?hpt=Sbin)

Japanese authorities arrested an activist from New Zealand on Friday for illegal trespassing after he boarded a whaling ship last month in waters off the Antarctic.

Peter James Bethune, 44, is accused of jumping from a Jet Ski onto the Shonan Maru 2, the security ship of a Japanese whaling fleet, after the Ady Gil boat, of which Bethune was captain, sank.

Bethune belongs to the activist group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The group said the New Zealander was attempting to make a citizen's arrest of the Shonan Maru 2 skipper for the collision that sank the Ady Gil, a futuristic vessel used to intercept and block harpoon ships, in January.

Hirotaka Akamatsu, Japan's minister of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, said Japan would take a firm stance against Bethune. He said Sea Shepherd's acts were not acceptable.

[P_chan]

They should have made him walk the plank:thumbup:

[Jolly Roger]

If "they" take away Japan's fishing industry, it might force Japan to feel backed in a corner without resources to survive.

Didn't that happen sometime back in the 1940's? :scratchchin:

Better keep an eye on the "JSDF" conducting "training"

[Richard Burns]

It did. Thanks to FDR doing everything in his power to anger the Japanese.

[uriel]

It did. Thanks to FDR doing everything in his power to anger the Japanese.

so it didn't in actuality have anything to do with an attempt by Japan to claim most of asia as their own? so FDR didn't take a whole slew of non-violent measures against Japan in order to try to get them to stop doing crazy shit? hmm, must have been a different history i've read about...:scratchchin: besides, wouldn't want to anger them japanese.

[gtlm2000]

Mmmmmm Whale in a can!

http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/photoplog/file.php?n=697&w=l

I haven't seen that. :w00t:

[Richard Burns]

so it didn't in actuality have anything to do with an attempt by Japan to claim most of asia as their own?

That was America's business? Nope.
so FDR didn't take a whole slew of non-violent measures against Japan in order to try to get them to stop doing crazy shit?

Not exactly. It was more angering them and pushing them into attacking first so that they looked like the agressors.

The U.S. declared neutrality but then froze Japanese assets in the US, placed embargos and offered aid to the Chinese who were enemies of Japan.

The central banks (Fed Reserve, Bank of England etc etc) had a lot to do with this as well.

[gtlm2000]

We like you gt, you're a cool guy.

Thank you!! Thank you!! We should go to Matuyama in next time!! :D