Paul Watson (Sea Shepherd) needs to man up!!!!

[Sas]

I do not stand corrected on any of your points on whaling, and the conviction in Norway had questionable motives.

You said he had never been convicted of a crime. This is not the case. He has been convicted of a crime whether you disagree with this or not.

You have frequently evaded answering many of my points, have side-stepped just as many by firing a question back at me and have even admitted being a hypocrite.

Please repeat the questions I have side stepped and I will answer.

Everyone is a hypocrite about something, I'm just honest about it.

I'm simply not willing to carry on arguing the same points for the rest of my life.

Ok.

The warrant that is outstanding for his arrest in Japan is a joke, but again, I'm not going to tread the same water for another year.

But this does not change the fact that there is a warrant out for him.

The attempted murder charge is also highly suspect. Watson claims he was invited to escort that boat back to port in Costa Rica, and then double-crossed by the president over the price of shark fins.

Again, this does not change the fact that he fled the country in order to escape prosecution for a crime he was charged with.

Why did the Dutch refuse to hand Paul Watson over to the Norweigian authorities by the way?

Don't know, heard it was for safety reasons. Do you know?

Any chance that their motives were ominous? I'd suggest so.

What do you think was ominous about them?

Unfortunately, regardless of how barbaric/illigal a government's activities are, he can be arrested within 12 miles of that Nation's coast. At least he can't be approached in international waters where he's effectively free to fight pirate whaling/shark finning/tuna fishing/seal culling.

Yes it is a pity he cannot be approached.

I noticed how you skipped straight past my point on 'eco-terrorism' by the way. Continuing to pick what you can and attempt to turn it my way again.

I didn't understand it. Perhaps you could go into more detail?

Somebody asked the question whether Bin Laden wasn't a terrorist because he'd never been convicted. My answer to him is... isn't he 'Allah's Soldier'? I wonder if you asked that question in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Syria which answer you'd get. My point being of course, that it's a matter of opinion.

Sure.

 

[Tigerman]

"Questionable motives" for the conviction of Paul Watson in Norway?
Amongst other things he sank a boat at the dock and it was only random luck nobody was actually onboard to be sunk with it. (Norwegian fishers are often onboard the boat even when its at dock)

If I did the same in the US at this time it would probably be considered an act of terrorism and Id be sent to some dodgy detention center for an undefined ammount of time.

If its "questionable" to convict someone for destruction of property and endangering lives then Id like to know what is NOT questionable..

As for why he was not extradited from the Netherlands, he was in Dutch prison for 80 out of the 120 days sentence while the extradition was being processed and the sentence is considered served. Unfortunately its fairly common to be let out after 2/3rds of the sentence has been served as long as you have behaved well and arent considered an imminent danger to society.
The reason why the processing took so long or if/why the Netherlands for some reason didnt want to extradite him is not really clear from any of the sources Ive seen.

I think Lisa Distefano who was his accomplice still has not served her 120 day sentence.
The man who left his knife onboard the ship in order for Sea Sheperd to get credited for the terrorist act, James Dwight Yorker I think got away by a silly technicality during the delivery of his sentence (something about the court that convicted him didnt accept the way it was delivered in the US) and since he has no effectuated sentence and its been too long since the sentence was decided hes off the hook.

 

[D_B]

If I were to see this thread without any foreknowledge of whales and whaling (and I admit that I am biased ) I think I would side with the idea that hunting of some species of whale can be done ..

One side of the debate has posted figures that support this
Other side has posted that it can not be done but have posted no figures to support it

am I wrong ?

 

[ScubaFeenD]

I don't think I am arrogant. Arrogance is only applicable to someone who has more pride in themselves than they should. Also I am not ignorant about whaling. I have corrected many incorrect assumptions that various posters here have made.



I posted the numbers already as well as what is being caught. How is catching 500 whales a year out of at least 500 000 unsustainable?



Not by Japan or a few other nations. The agreement is not law.

First, you are arrogant, because you pretend to KNOW exactly the numbers of whales there are, their breeding habits, and that everyone who is against whaling is wrong.

Second, as mentioned, you have no way to know the numbers of whales available, let alone the actual number of whales taken every year. Are you a cetacean biologist? Are you out there in the field researching the numbers? Perhaps you have an agenda and you pick and chose the numbers that support your position.

Lastly, agreement is as good as law, but there are no police to actually enforce it. But yes, the entire country should be held accountable for it's countries companies, just as every other country should be.

And I am concerned about my backyard (the US shares an ocean with Japan) and I claim no moral superiority. I dont want whales hunted. Period.

Again, I am erring on the side of caution, but you seemed to have missed that point.

 

[Scott L]

If I were to see this thread without any foreknowledge of whales and whaling (and I admit that I am biased ) I think I would side with the idea that hunting of some species of whale can be done ..

One side of the debate has posted figures that support this
Other side has posted that it can not be done but have posted no figures to support it

am I wrong ?

It is common sense that if whales are culled which would otherwise have breed you are reducing the ability for their number to increase. No figures are required with a concept so simple...

Hunting drove their numbers down to near extintion. Not hunting, will allow them some chance to survive...

 

[D_B]

yes, just like doing the same with deer or elk , so hunting them are unsustainable by that argument

 

[ScubaFeenD]

If I were to see this thread without any foreknowledge of whales and whaling (and I admit that I am biased ) I think I would side with the idea that hunting of some species of whale can be done ..

One side of the debate has posted figures that support this
Other side has posted that it can not be done but have posted no figures to support it

am I wrong ?

Figures are irrelevant. It is accepted knowledge that Whale numbers are mere fractions of what they once were. The specific numbers are generally irrelevant because Whale research is nowhere near where it should be to be able to predict with certainty what will deplete the numbers and what will not. The peak of human arrogance is to assume we KNOW what our actions will do.

Maybe numbers make you feel better, but its only a false sense of security.

 

[D_B]

is that true reguarding Minki whales ?
I do not know, do you have some links for more info? (that's not biased ether way) I do not have anything to go on besides what has been posted here and similar threads

 

[Scott L]

yes, just like doing the same with deer or elk , so hunting them are unsustainable by that argument

An apples and oranges argument. Deer and Elk now have limited space and resources in which to exist. No such limitations with whales.

 

[Sas]

First, you are arrogant, because you pretend to KNOW exactly the numbers of whales there are, their breeding habits, and that everyone who is against whaling is wrong.

No I am not arrogant. I am simply supplying data that other people have collected.

Where is your data?

I actually think it is more arrogant to think that one's gut feel is more important than evidence.

Second, as mentioned, you have no way to know the numbers of whales available, let alone the actual number of whales taken every year. Are you a cetacean biologist? Are you out there in the field researching the numbers? Perhaps you have an agenda and you pick and chose the numbers that support your position.

I have ways to find out this information from cetacean biologists.

My only agenda is to make people actually look into what they are arguing against, not just quote blindly from things they hear from SS and also to make people look at their own backyards before casting blame at other people.

I have stated: I do not eat seafood. I would choose no whaling or fishing of any kind if it were up to me but I am also realistic (I'd also choose no taxes and a salary of $1billion if I had the choice too). I think if Japan is allowed to resume commercial whaling and given smaller quotas this enables them to save face, as well as reduce the number of whales they catch.

Lastly, agreement is as good as law,

No, it is not.

but there are no police to actually enforce it. But yes, the entire country should be held accountable for it's countries companies, just as every other country should be.

That is completely impractical and unrealistic.

And I am concerned about my backyard (the US shares an ocean with Japan) and I claim no moral superiority. I dont want whales hunted. Period.

Are you a vegan? If not you are claiming moral superiority wrongly.

Again, I am erring on the side of caution, but you seemed to have missed that point.

No I have not missed it. I think it is the only valid reason you have raised in support of being anti whaling. I still think it is hypocritical though...

Figures are irrelevant.

Figures and data are everything. Your opinion about what you think is going on, is irrelevant.

It is accepted knowledge that Whale numbers are mere fractions of what they once were.

Yes, this is accepted knowledge and applies to most marine animals that most anti whaling people gobble up happily actually.

The specific numbers are generally irrelevant because Whale research is nowhere near where it should be to be able to predict with certainty what will deplete the numbers and what will not. The peak of human arrogance is to assume we KNOW what our actions will do.

No, the peak of human arrogance is to think that gut feel and opinion should determine policy, not research and evidence.

Maybe numbers make you feel better, but its only a false sense of security.

I do not agree.