Sea Shepherd condemned by International Whaling Commission.

[D_B]

Taking the law into your own hands is a slippery slope ...
... the end does not justify the means ...

 

[Mr.X]

Taking the law into your own hands is a slippery slope ...
... the end does not justify the means ...

The actions of the Sea Shepherds and Greenpeace resulted in greater PR for the plight of the Antarctic whales and a major disruption of "scientific" catch numbers. I would imagine that in a few years the Japanese whalers will cease their operations due to the futility of moving product that no one needs, the cost of operations and the political fallout from pursuing an activity that almost every nation abhors.

You talk about slippery slope...historically, people have acted against forces they felt were wrong. A parallel being political activism in the United States during colonial times, or the recent events in Tibet. You can't always sit around and mull over legislation when you find something of value slipping away right before your eyes.

X

 

[bubba105]

Exactly. Which makes it all the more amazing that their fishing boats still have plenty to catch!

Why do you think that they can do that?

Because they manage their resource so it doesn't become exhausted - unlike the West.

You really don't have a clue do you? If you over-fish you can destroy stocks - like cod and tuna in the N.Atlantic, and problems like the herring in the North Sea. That doesn't happen here. They do deals with the Chinese and the koreans, and while they sometimes fight a bit about it, there's still plenty of fish out there.

Uh, talk about not having a clue. The reason the US went from a 3 mile to a 200 mile limit for International fishermen is due to the Japanese. Sorry to say but the Japanese fishing fleet are like a swarm of locust. They strip fish an area, then move to the next. I worked a lobster boat out of Cape Cod many years ago & we would see the Japanese factory ships, too many, too close together. The radio was buzzing with reports of "no fish, the japs were here". The big blue fin tuna schooled up inside Cape Cod. At the time there was no market in the US except for cat food, so the netters from Cape Cod would drive right over the tuna school. There were times when a Japanese boat would come in at night, drop a net & be gone by morning. They'd get caught sometimes, but, the money they'd make was worth the risk of heavy fines. So, as far as the Japanese knowing about over fishing, they're the masters.

It makes me laugh that the thinly veiled "research" whaling can be defended by anyone. Whether or not whaling is right, to defend this as research is beyond ridiculous.

 

[D_B]

I was just referring to taking the law into your hands is dangerous .. how many people do you need to make it "right" ... who says? ... which cause is it OK to do so .. why not this cause, or that? ... if It's a legal operation, what button needs to pushed so it's OK to break the law? .. is it OK to put someone out of work that is feeding his family?

Edit: ... this is just a general question and not necessasarily directed at at Sea Shepherd

 

[deeper thoughts]

Uh, talk about not having a clue. The reason the US went from a 3 mile to a 200 mile limit for International fishermen is due to the Japanese. Sorry to say but the Japanese fishing fleet are like a swarm of locust. They strip fish an area, then move to the next. I worked a lobster boat out of Cape Cod many years ago & we would see the Japanese factory ships, too many, too close together. The radio was buzzing with reports of "no fish, the japs were here". The big blue fin tuna schooled up inside Cape Cod. At the time there was no market in the US except for cat food, so the netters from Cape Cod would drive right over the tuna school. There were times when a Japanese boat would come in at night, drop a net & be gone by morning. They'd get caught sometimes, but, the money they'd make was worth the risk of heavy fines. So, as far as the Japanese knowing about over fishing, they're the masters.

It makes me laugh that the thinly veiled "research" whaling can be defended by anyone. Whether or not whaling is right, to defend this as research is beyond ridiculous.

I saw a documentary about Japans shark finning off Palau, the narrator said pretty much the same thing you said about just risking the heavy fines.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I was just referring to taking the law into your hands is dangerous .. how many people do you need to make it "right" ... who says? ... which cause is it OK to do so .. why not this cause, or that? ... if It's a legal operation, what button needs to pushed so it's OK to break the law? .. is it OK to put someone out of work that is feeding his family?

Edit: ... this is just a general question and not necessasarily directed at at Sea Shepherd

Simple. If you take the law into your own hands you have to be willing to accept the consequences or completely take over so that you are the one making the law.

Mr X mentioned the US in colonial times. That resulted in a war and the victor got to make the law from then on. Law itself is force. Note that laws are, in the end, always enforced at gun point.

Protest or political activism is one thing. That's excersizing free speach and working within the system for change. Laying hands on people or property is another. That's just starting a fight.

I'm not one of those sweetness and light types and I think there are some things worth fighting for. What I hate is people who want to start a fight but somehow don't expect their victim to fight back. Like a nasty little dog who bites you in the knee and then runs whimpering to hide under a couch. I think that's SS. They want to push folks around but they don't expect anybody to push back. You can tell that by the way they whine when they get shot at a little. Not exactly comparable to the situation between the American colonies and the British.

 

[Mr.X]

Simple. If you take the law into your own hands you have to be willing to accept the consequences or completely take over so that you are the one making the law.

Mr X mentioned the US in colonial times. That resulted in a war and the victor got to make the law from then on. Law itself is force. Note that laws are, in the end, always enforced at gun point.

Protest or political activism is one thing. That's excersizing free speach and working within the system for change. Laying hands on people or property is another. That's just starting a fight.

I'm not one of those sweetness and light types and I think there are some things worth fighting for. What I hate is people who want to start a fight but somehow don't expect their victim to fight back. Like a nasty little dog who bites you in the knee and then runs whimpering to hide under a couch. I think that's SS. They want to push folks around but they don't expect anybody to push back. You can tell that by the way they whine when they get shot at a little. Not exactly comparable to the situation between the American colonies and the British.

In my eyes the whales and critters at the Antarctic sanctuary are global resources/property. Some political wads decide they want to start fishing there under a guise of "scientific" research amounts to pure bullocks. It's really poaching, with a nice convenient handshake attached saying "OK". BTW - I also think the UN is a useless organization.

Personally, a nation should have the cahones to say I am doing it plain and simple -because I want to make a few bucks from my rust bucket of a fleet. Which is exactly what Norway and Iceland say. They also don't fish in a sanctuary.

Whatever anyone thinks of the Shepherds, or Watson at least they're making a difference and a tangible one this year. You irritate an entity enough they start to listen and react. In this case, the negative PR for Japan is HUGE. Economically and environmentally it makes zero sense. Some new CEO will make the decision to can this charade soon, probably after the old men running the project of defiance die off.

You mention little dogs that bite and run...Watson is not that. He's taken many pummeling, and whatever PR was extracted from the latest incident is used for anti-whaling propaganda...fine by me. The whalers do the exact same thing with their thinly veiled Cetacean Institute of malarky.

I reiterate that in some instances you have to take a stand, and this latest one was effective.

X

 

[aquaman_06]

Actually Mike I have to disagree. I don't think SS resembles a whimpering dog at all. I think the only thing that holds SS back is that they know if they take their methods much farther they will be under prosecution likely in both Canada and the U.S. Currently SS has never killed anyone or seriously injured any people. Also I don't feel that SS was whining about getting shot. I think Paul Watson was making a point by saying that his fleet was throwing rancid butter and spraying water and Japanese authorities were using marksmen to shoot people in the chest. The shot Watson took could have been fatal had he not been wearing the bullet proof vest.

Personally I think if someone gave SS the authority the Japanese and SS would be practically at war. I can see Paul Watson and his crew strapping on 50 cal. machine guns, carrying MP5's and having snipers on deck to pick off Japanese whalers. I think the only thing that keeps SS on the level they currently are is that they are able to bend the rules but if they totally broke them off they know the consequence would be the end of their conservation action.

Personally I would like to see navies from all across the country defend conservation laws and treaties with the same vigor we defend other things. IMO, especially in Australia's case Japanese fishermen and whalers robbing you of your natural resources is a risk towards national security and if the UN had any guts there would be gunships in these whale sanctuaries not SS with some stink bombs and inflatable boats.

 

[MikeFerrara]

In my eyes the whales and critters at the Antarctic sanctuary are global resources/property.

In my eyes, the money I earn is mine but the IRS sees things differently. LOL

Some political wads decide they want to start fishing there under a guise of "scientific" research amounts to pure bullocks. It's really poaching, with a nice convenient handshake attached saying "OK". BTW - I also think the UN is a useless organization.

Personally, a nation should have the cahones to say I am doing it plain and simple -because I want to make a few bucks from my rust bucket of a fleet. Which is exactly what Norway and Iceland say. They also don't fish in a sanctuary.

I agree. If they want to go whaling, they ought to just do it and tell everyone to go scratch...and I don't have any use for the UN either.

Whatever anyone thinks of the Shepherds, or Watson at least they're making a difference and a tangible one this year. You irritate an entity enough they start to listen and react. In this case, the negative PR for Japan is HUGE. Economically and environmentally it makes zero sense. Some new CEO will make the decision to can this charade soon, probably after the old men running the project of defiance die off.

You mention little dogs that bite and run...Watson is not that. He's taken many pummeling, and whatever PR was extracted from the latest incident is used for anti-whaling propaganda...fine by me. The whalers do the exact same thing with their thinly veiled Cetacean Institute of malarky.

I reiterate that in some instances you have to take a stand, and this latest one was effective.

X

I guess I never react the way advertisers and PR people intend. Watson's antics just about make me want to take up whaling.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Actually Mike I have to disagree. I don't think SS resembles a whimpering dog at all. I think the only thing that holds SS back is that they know if they take their methods much farther they will be under prosecution likely in both Canada and the U.S. Currently SS has never killed anyone or seriously injured any people. Also I don't feel that SS was whining about getting shot. I think Paul Watson was making a point by saying that his fleet was throwing rancid butter and spraying water and Japanese authorities were using marksmen to shoot people in the chest. The shot Watson took could have been fatal had he not been wearing the bullet proof vest.

There is the old saying that says "Don't start no chit and there won't be any"...not to mention the one that recommends against bringing rancid butter to a gunfight.

Personally I think if someone gave SS the authority the Japanese and SS would be practically at war. I can see Paul Watson and his crew strapping on 50 cal. machine guns, carrying MP5's and having snipers on deck to pick off Japanese whalers. I think the only thing that keeps SS on the level they currently are is that they are able to bend the rules but if they totally broke them off they know the consequence would be the end of their conservation action.

ok. Now we get down to it. Let the fight commence and may the winner have his way with the whales.

Why would anyone give SS any authority and do we really want the fate of the whales left up to whoever can perform better in a fight?

Personally I would like to see navies from all across the country defend conservation laws and treaties with the same vigor we defend other things. IMO, especially in Australia's case Japanese fishermen and whalers robbing you of your natural resources is a risk towards national security and if the UN had any guts there would be gunships in these whale sanctuaries not SS with some stink bombs and inflatable boats.

I don't know what laws there are in the open sea of who enforces them but in this country, conservation laws are enforced by law enforcement agencies including DNR, police and the BATF. Of course those same agencies have also had to protect sportsman from the antis.