PDA

View Full Version : Sea Shepherd and Japanese Whalers at it some more



Pages : [1] 2

George.
02-06-2010, 09:32 AM
They collided again today, this time a large SS vessel against one of the "Research" vessels. Damage to both ships...

JimD
02-06-2010, 09:51 AM
... Damage to both ships...

No kidding? So is this the new strategy? Just keep ramming one another until one or both are no longer willing to leave port?

J P
02-06-2010, 09:55 AM
video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9_6oTZ_fgs)



nuts
.

Scot L T
02-06-2010, 10:14 AM
I don't agree with the Japanese whaling practices by any means but I also do not agree with the "tactics" used by the protestors.

I have to say that my respect for the Sea Shepherd gang goes down each time I see this kind of behavior. They are becoming just another gang of arrogant thugs and bullies not unlike the whalers they are trying to stop. How does it help ones cause by becoming that which you oppose? There has got to be a much more creative way to deal with this issue of illegal whaling.

JimD
02-06-2010, 10:20 AM
... How does it help ones cause by becoming that which you oppose?...

I can't agree with that. They oppose whaling. They are not whaling. Ergo, they are not what they oppose.

rbgarr
02-06-2010, 10:38 AM
Next up, arms merchants with Exocets.

Ian McColgin
02-06-2010, 10:48 AM
I take it they were trying to ruin the market value of that whale tied on.

I don't automatically draw the line where the law would - there's a role for civil disobedience - and I'm not an absolutist against politically pointed vandelism but this ramming seems to me way too risky to the whaling crew that were down on that flensing deck. It's wrong to put others' lives at a risk they can't control.

George.
02-06-2010, 11:01 AM
This time the Japanese catcher boat was the stand-on vessel, unless they had just maneuvered.

Ian McColgin
02-06-2010, 11:15 AM
Absolutely a little vandalism, however misspelled, can be fun and do good. Like when I was twelve and a bunch of us caused some delay in the filling of a wetland for a proposed development, enough delay that the adults got the legal machinations going enough to halt that horror. We'd swim across on the night high tide and remove the survey stakes. Later on, we just moved them around a bit.

When someone escalates to spiking random unmarked trees in the forest, they put sawyers at such great risk that I'd say that's wrong.

Protest often involves a bit of situation ethics, risk analysis, and clear thought. That ramming did not appear to have hurt any of either crew but to my eye the risk was too high to justify the attemp to deny the whaler the profit of the dead whale.

J P
02-06-2010, 11:20 AM
I take it they were trying to ruin the market value of that whale tied on.

I don't automatically draw the line where the law would - there's a role for civil disobedience - and I'm not an absolutist against politically pointed vandelism but this ramming seems to me way too risky to the whaling crew that were down on that flensing deck. It's wrong to put others' lives at a risk they can't control.

Ian, you might be referring to a different incident with the SS boat Steve Irwin ramming a Japanese whaler. The more recent event involved the SS's Bob Barker ship. I had mixed up some video links in my post above. My apologies if anyone clicked on that before I could fix it. This is the other video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXQq78lvKrU) of the incident with the Steve Irwin that I think you might be referring to.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2010, 02:58 PM
I take it they were trying to ruin the market value of that whale tied on.

I don't automatically draw the line where the law would - there's a role for civil disobedience - and I'm not an absolutist against politically pointed vandelism but this ramming seems to me way too risky to the whaling crew that were down on that flensing deck. It's wrong to put others' lives at a risk they can't control.

have you posted on the castle demolation thread...demanding that laws be worshiped?

Krunch
02-06-2010, 03:35 PM
Sooner or later, somebody's gonna get real hurt with that nonsense.

Personally, I hope it's the Sea Shepherds. They're as much as begging for it. If they want to be martyrs, well, martyr away!

The crabs and hagfish gotta eat, too, after all.

Boatsmith
02-06-2010, 05:03 PM
I can only see the sea shepherds actions as either terrorist or piratical. I consider myself an envirormentalist and think we should let the whales be. I also think that the Japanese would be totatly within their rights to protect themselves with what ever means necessary. What would you think if some terrorist rammed your car as you were leaving Mickydees because he thought killing cows was wrong? Maybe this is what sea shepards want, maybe they want some martyrs. How is that any better than sunnis blowing up shiites or catholics blowing up protestants? David

BarnacleGrim
02-06-2010, 05:16 PM
Another question, why would the Jap whale boats not simply show fishing markers and always have the right of way?

Not if their manoeuvrability isn't restricted.

COLREGS:

(d) The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manoeuvrability.Spotting and preparing to harpoon a whale does not restrict manoeuverability, but once they have it on tow or taking it on board the Nisshin Maru it certainly would.

Moving packaged whale meat to the Bluebird would fall under definition (g)(iii):

(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway

Ian McColgin
02-06-2010, 05:50 PM
Yes, I was responding to the Steve Irwin incident.

Post 13 looking for an inconsistancy between my remarks here and my remarks on the guy who hid his castle behind the hay manages to miss both points, but they could come together were the castle guy making a civil disobedience point.

We still don't know enough about the castle bit to be sure. We certainly do not know if there are reasons of code violations that made the builder's belief that the local planning agency would not permit the build a reasonable assumption. These could include a deliberate build with non-conforming (maybe dangerous maybe not) construction, design or size problems, or maybe he just hates planners and wanted to rather blatantly thumb his nose at them. I thought from my posts it was clear I did not know. Guy looks like a sanctimonious jerk but I don't know enough to be really settled in that judgement.

I certainly acknowledge the role of civil disobedience, just as I acknowledge the social and often moral utility (John Stuart Mill meaning) of following the law. To imagine that one worships one or the other is to profoundly miss the point. Most people who practice some civil disobedience are, like myself, generally and profoundly law-abiding. Unlike criminals who do crimes for personal gain and without (this is why they get caught) much thought, people who do a civil disobedience are making a point that really depends on the fact that they and their intended audience respect law in general.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2010, 05:56 PM
oooh...I"m getting dizzy...

Ian McColgin
02-06-2010, 06:05 PM
Then stop spinning. This is actually pretty simple. I've not a firm position on the castle builder. I suspect he's a jerk but more information could change my mind. I know that there are capricious planning regulations - I've tangled with more than one Hysterical District Commission myself - but that does not mean one should risk many thousands of dollars or pounds or whatever just to say "Nah nah."

Regarding Sea Shepherd: I recognize the role of disobedience in making a public point. Part of that is that like Thoreau one might end up in jail. It's important not to feel to sorry for oneself when that happens. I happen to have a number of tests I apply in the situation ethic of a civil disobedience. I believe it always wrong to do violent harm to another person. Along that line, it's usually wrong, my opinion, to run a high risk of causing that harm. Not often wrong to run a risk of being harmed. So - OK to lay down in front of a bulldozer. Not OK to fire a home made rocket at it.

Is that so hard?

WX
02-06-2010, 06:10 PM
I can only see the sea shepherds actions as either terrorist or piratical.

1 They are not terrorists, as they are trying to disrupt the whaling not instil terror.
2 They are not pirates because they are not trying to steal or seize command.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2010, 06:13 PM
"king's X"

Duncan Gibbs
02-06-2010, 07:28 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the Japanese whalers are in the the wrong AGAIN. I've watched the video a few times and it appears that the whaler in on a parrallel course then alters course to port. You can see the BB begin to respond by bearing off to port as well. But the whaler just keeps on coming.

The Japanese whaling (and deep water fishing fleet in general) are a bunch of thugs and environmental vandals and their fleets deserve all the scuttling in port they can muster. Pernicious pricks! :mad:

Phillip Allen
02-06-2010, 07:31 PM
something tells me your mind was made up before the event...

GaryK
02-06-2010, 07:39 PM
Sea Shepherd donation collectors were all over Fremantle last weekend. I was going to contribute, give em a fiver, just for entertainment value, as in the antics they get up to in the Southern ocean. But in the end, I guess i was too much of a tightwad..

Duncan Gibbs
02-06-2010, 07:42 PM
Prolly right Phillip. Facts such as the Japanese taking 200,000 tonne more Southern Bluefin Tuna than their quota allowed start to mount up against any kind of favourable judgement for the Japanese fleets. But just a cold viewing of the video should show that the whaler was the clear aggressor in this case. Even if they are the stand on vessel the fact of the matter is they are still up for the charge of negligent navigation. In such close quarters, and so far from a safe port, they should communicate their intention to bear to port to the BB, CLEARLY! Unless they can produce tape that that's what they did then they can only be culpable by assuming that the skipper of the BB was somehow capable of mental telepathy in reading the whaler's intentions. Bunch of truckulent runts!

seanz
02-06-2010, 07:52 PM
something tells me your mind was made up before the event...

Don't you hate it when people are like that?
;):p

Phillip Allen
02-06-2010, 08:35 PM
Don't you hate it when people are like that?
;):p

I don't even like it when I catch myself doing it :)

Rob Stokes, N. Vancouver
02-06-2010, 10:51 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the Japanese whalers are in the the wrong AGAIN. I've watched the video a few times and it appears that the whaler in on a parrallel course then alters course to port. You can see the BB begin to respond by bearing off to port as well. But the whaler just keeps on coming.


Look again Duncan, but this time, reference the Bob Barkers bow to the ship in front.

If you assume the ship in front is holding a steady course (and I think it is), the Bob Barker veers to stbd towards the Yushin Maru 3 and the Yushin Maru 3 then takes evasive action by swinging the wheel hard to stbd themselves. this causes the stern to move to port and the collision ensues.

I don't think the Bob Barker tried to hit the Yushn Maru 3, but I think they put themselves in a position where they knew they were going to get hit themselves and could claim they were "rammed".

Not defending Sea Shepherd and what they do (I would never do that - I disagree completely with their methods and think they're incredibly hypocritical) - just stating what I see.

purri
02-06-2010, 11:49 PM
They'd be better off targeting Japanese, Korean and "flag of convenience" vessels that overfis, and those particularly doing so in EEZs.

Pugwash
02-07-2010, 12:09 AM
Seems to me this "conversation" has been gone over before.

This is how it's going to play out..

The right will always preface any statement with " I disagree with whaling" or words to that effect , and then tell everyone how direct action by leftys is abhorrent.

Those of us on the left will try to convince our brothers on the right , that there is no other way to publicise the rape of the oceans other than by direct action.

Those on the right, as usual, will be oblivious to the fact that we are only discussing this because of direct action.

And we rinse and repeat.

The only difference here is that everyone, and I mean everyone, pefaces what they say with "I am against whaling...." and then they justify their viewpoint.

It's the bilge.

:rolleyes:

Duncan Gibbs
02-07-2010, 12:40 AM
Look again Duncan, but this time, reference the Bob Barkers bow to the ship in front.

That was my datum point.


If you assume the ship in front is holding a steady course (and I think it is), the Bob Barker veers to stbd towards the Yushin Maru 3 and the Yushin Maru 3 then takes evasive action by swinging the wheel hard to stbd themselves. this causes the stern to move to port and the collision ensues.

The Bob Barker's course alters very little in comparison to the YM3. With what I understand about naval architecture a ship turns about it's CLR whether it be under sail or power. The YM3 comes right up alongside the BB at speed and then turns hard to starbord. The result is the YM3's stern cracks into the side of the BB with force. If the YM3 had any desire to avoid a collision with the BB it would have a). hailed the BB on the radio with its intention to come about to port b). not come right up alongside the BB at speed and c). not turned hard to starbord.

I personally think the Japanese whaling fleet SHOULD be sunk and if the Sea Shepherds do it before anyone else does I will lead the applause.

Does anyone who disagrees with the Sea Shepherd tactics have any other suggestions as to how we can get the World to focus on, and stop the ill-gotten gains of the Japanese fleets? I'm all ears!

PeterSibley
02-07-2010, 01:04 AM
Seems to me this "conversation" has been gone over before.

This is how it's going to play out..

The right will always preface any statement with " I disagree with whaling" or words to that effect , and then tell everyone how direct action by leftys is abhorrent.

Those of us on the left will try to convince our brothers on the right , that there is no other way to publicise the rape of the oceans other than by direct action.

Those on the right, as usual, will be oblivious to the fact that we are only discussing this because of direct action.

And we rinse and repeat.

The only difference here is that everyone, and I mean everyone, pefaces what they say with "I am against whaling...." and then they justify their viewpoint.

It's the bilge.

:rolleyes:

Spot on ...perhaps a polite letter would work ?:(

TimH
02-07-2010, 01:11 AM
They need to make the whaling less profitable. If sinking the whaler helps then do it:)

Pugwash
02-07-2010, 02:02 AM
Spot on ...perhaps a polite letter would work ?:(

I'm working on it, so far I have...

Dear Sir,

Stop killing the f^%king whales




Yours Sincerely,
Pugwash

xoxoxox




I have to fill in some bits that are missing, but I think as a rough draught it has merit.

:)

mmd
02-07-2010, 10:11 AM
I disagree with Duncan on the 'who did what when' analysis of the collision. I back this opinion up with my degree in naval architecture (knowing how ships behave in a seaway), my degree in photography (knowing how camera optics work), and my Captain's license (knowing Rules of the Road and shiphandling). If anyone is interested in my analysis of the video presented here, I'll explain; otherwise, please continue to bash each other with your ideologies. But here's a hint: What is the intent of each vessel prior to the collision?

Paul Pless
02-07-2010, 10:14 AM
If anyone is interested in my analysis of the video presented here, I'll explain; otherwise, please continue to bash each other with your ideologies.okay... out with it Michael.

mmd
02-07-2010, 10:19 AM
I'll prepare the write-up & post it later today, Paul. I'm about to have brunch with my daughter ad her friends right now...

Phillip Allen
02-07-2010, 10:22 AM
go fer it...please

Phillip Allen
02-07-2010, 10:25 AM
while Michael's doing that perhaps we could have a poll on who is in favor of aggressive boating when they don't like what someone else is doing? (we can discuss what the "other" boat is doing on a case by case basis)

WI-Tom
02-07-2010, 11:14 AM
who is in favor of aggressive boating when they don't like what someone else is doing?

That question seems to imply that the only reason for Sea Shepherd interference is that they "don't like" what someone else is doing. That implies a belief in moral relativism--who are we to judge someone else's actions?

I don't buy that argument. Our responsibility as human beings is to recognize right and wrong and act accordingly. Some things are morally indefensible. In my opinion, commercial whaling is one of them.

And protecting those unable to protect themselves--even if it takes a certain amount of violence to do so (though I think Sea Shepherd has never harmed a human, true?)--is not terrorism or piracy. I believe it's usually called heroism.

Tom

George.
02-07-2010, 11:26 AM
If anyone is interested in my analysis of the video presented here, I'll explain; otherwise, please continue to bash each other with your ideologies. But here's a hint: What is the intent of each vessel prior to the collision?

I am interested. Please proceed. For the record, it looks to me as if the Jap is trying to pass ahead of the SS and approach its mother ship, and the SS is deliberately holding its course trying to force the Jap to veer off. A game of chicken gone bad.

George.
02-07-2010, 11:30 AM
while Michael's doing that perhaps we could have a poll on who is in favor of aggressive boating when they don't like what someone else is doing?

If I came across a boat trying to spear a whale, and I could somehow interfere with Dalia, you bet I would. And I would be supported by the authorities, since under Brazilian law I would be attempting to prevent a crime.

OTOH I concede Japan's right to do as it pleases in its own waters. ;)

George Jung
02-07-2010, 12:01 PM
Perhaps some 'in the know' might tell us - what, exactly, are Japans' waters? I recall seeing their factory ships off the coast of Alaska, Kenai peninsula, running trawling nets and scooping up so many salmon they had to close the Kenai river to fishing - not enough salmon making it for the spawn. I'm unsure why they are allowed to fish so close to the US (I'm talking within a few miles, at most, of shore.)

From what I recall (could be wrong) the Japanese push catch limits more than most other nations? And don't respond to calls for conservation? Anybody? Buehller?

mmd
02-07-2010, 12:34 PM
OK, back from lunch with just enough time to type & post this. Replies to questions or expressions of outrage will have to wait until later tonight - I'm about to hop in the car to take the girls back to university.

Firstly, let me point out that all discussion of Rules of the Road is pointless in considering actions between the whaling fleet and the Sea Shepherd fleet – that little bit of legal nicety has been abandoned long ago in these conflicts. What you are witnessing is repeated games of high-seas “chicken” wherein each party tries to force the other off its game plan by intimidation. The only time navigational rules are invoked is when the aggrieved parties try to win the hearts and minds of the gullible and uninformed public.

In the initial few seconds of the video, both the Bob Barker (BB) and the Yushin Maru 3 (YM3) are on convergent collision courses and steaming at what appears to be flank speed. In the distance is what is presumed to be the whaling factory ship. The YM3 does not appear to be engaged in, nor preparing for, hunting a specific whale. This leads one to the question of, what are they racing toward, and for what purpose?

It is a tactic of the Sea Shepherd vessels to try to cut the towlines attached to whales about to be brought on-board whale processors, thereby denying the whaler of their catch. A common response to this by the whalers is to position their catcher boats between the whale carcasses and the Sea Shepherd vessels to deny the Sea Shepherds access to the towlines. It appears that the BB and the YM3 are racing to get to the processing boat to perform their respective tasks.

There does not seem to be any speed advantage by either vessel, at least not enough to gain a decisive lead over the other. Both vessels are converging on a single point – the whale processor ship – and will eventually collide unless courses are changed. At about 12 seconds into the video, the BB initiates a change of course to starboard, presumably in an attempt to force the YM3 away from the processor boat, in an overt signaling of her intent to ram the YM3. Watch for the change in the heading of the BB relative to the processing ship, as sighted along the BB rail. The YM3 responds three seconds later by turning away to starboard, as evidenced by the change in position of the small boom off the bow in relation to the clouds in the sky in the background. The BB continues its turn into the YM3, as evidenced by the disappearance of the processor ship behind the BB bridge superstructure.

By the eighteen-second mark of the video, the YM3 is fully committed to turning away from the BB, as evidenced by the continued arc of her bow across the horizon clouds and the swinging of her stern toward the BB. That the BB continues her turn into the YM3 is clearly visible by her rail sweeping the horizon to starboard. By twenty-one seconds into the video, the inevitable has happened and the two ships have collided, apparently making contact on the BB’s starboard forward quarter and the YM3’s port aft midships or aft quarter. As the videographer has stepped back from his initial position, it is impossible to see if the BB has taken any evasive manoevers, but the point is moot – her captain knows full well that there is not enough time to effect any course change and is aware of, and fully committed to, the collision.

This at-sea collision is fully intentional by the Bob Barker by the BB attempting to drive the YM3 off her catch. This is in evidence on the video as the precise mechanics of the collision were instigated by the BB by turning into the YM3 at the twelve-second mark of the video. In the larger picture, the blame for such collisions at sea are also the fault of the Sea Shepherd organization because they go looking for such confrontations and, as shown in this video, initiate the sequence of events that lead up to such collisions. As unpalatable as whale-hunting may be, the Japanese fishing fleet does not go to sea searching for Sea Shepherd vessels to ram, as the Sea Shepherd organization does to whalers. The whalers are merely responding unreasonably to unreasonable assaults on their hunting efforts. Basically, two outlaws duking it out on the streets. The only difference is that, if left to their own devices, the Japanese whaling fleet is not deliberately risking the lives of other seamen. It will be inevitable that someone will die because of the actions of Paul Watson. When it happens, I have no doubt that Mr. Watson will say that it is justice and he is only the instrument of Gaia…

So there it is – my studied opinion of this particular collision: The Bob Barker intentionally rammed the Yushin Maru 3 in an attempt to drive it away from its catch. It this particular punch-up between the Hell’s Angels and the Outlaws, the Hell’s Angels threw the first punch.

Phillip Allen
02-07-2010, 12:46 PM
thank you Mike...it is much the same thing I observed but with more credentials and certainly better said...because of that I get really pi$$ed off when I'm right and am told that I am wrong because of who I am not...

I am perfectly capable of seeing the same things...those who claim they do not are not telling themselves the truth

Phillip Allen
02-07-2010, 12:49 PM
If I came across a boat trying to spear a whale, and I could somehow interfere with Dalia, you bet I would. And I would be supported by the authorities, since under Brazilian law I would be attempting to prevent a crime.

OTOH I concede Japan's right to do as it pleases in its own waters. ;)

okay...expanding on the justified aggressive boating:

ram a stink pot for spilling oil?

cut the anchor line of a boat running a gen set late at night?

more?

TimH
02-07-2010, 09:47 PM
Have the Japanese published any papers in the last 20 years on the scientific research that they have amassed from all the whales that they have killed in the name of scientific research?

No, but they published a book on what parts make the best aphrodisiacs and a cook book.

mmd
02-07-2010, 09:56 PM
Certainly a valid question, Rum Pirate, but what does it have to do with the validity of using ramming at sea and jeopardizing human lives as a method of protesting whale hunting? I don't think that you'll find many here on the WBF who condone hunting whales, but participating in a hunt for marine mammals is hardly an excuse for abrogating the laws of the seas and basic common sense, does it? In other words, you don't have to convince us that hunting whales is bad, you have to decide whether one form of lawlessness is justified in attempting to end another form of lawlessness. Personally, I think not; and feel that a method of enforcing international shipping and whaling laws needs to be found that will put a stop to both groups. Paul Watson is as much a criminal as the Japanese whaling captains, regardless of whether his cause is just or not. It is vigilantism, pure and simple.

rufustr
02-07-2010, 10:02 PM
Fascinating Mike.

You must be watching a completely different video from the one posted above.

:confused::confused:

Captain Blight
02-07-2010, 10:05 PM
okay...expanding on the justified aggressive boating:

ram a stink pot for spilling oil?

cut the anchor line of a boat running a gen set late at night?

more?

Well, perhaps we could just confine ourselves to what we know about the data on hand before we go ginning up conjectural hypotheticals.

JBreeze
02-07-2010, 10:22 PM
..............

Also, this was not a "collission." It was an "allision."

Please explain....I thought an allision descibes a vessel making contact with a stationary object, such as a pier, aid to navigation, or a vessel at anchor. Here both vessels are moving.:confused:

Captain Blight
02-07-2010, 10:29 PM
I just did a little pokin' around. It would seem I am wrong, and you are right. I was misinformed, and now I am not, and I thank you for it!

Rob Stokes, N. Vancouver
02-07-2010, 10:36 PM
'zactly :)

(referencing MMD's "explanation" post)

WX
02-07-2010, 10:36 PM
The way i see it the Jap ship steered to port then brought the helm over to starboard with the intention of a close approach or a glancing blow.

WX
02-07-2010, 10:40 PM
The SS ship appears to veer slightly to starboard but that could be due to the proximity of the Jap ship.

Duncan Gibbs
02-07-2010, 11:07 PM
I would add that Brad seems to support the efforts of the Sea Shepherds as well... And he is on the right spectrum of most political discussions.

Gotta say though Brad, Pug's letter is purdy good! :D

I had typed a detailed response to MMD's post but I lost it when I pressed submit. I'll try again later.

Duncan Gibbs
02-07-2010, 11:29 PM
Pug's alright mate! He's just English! :D

George.
02-08-2010, 06:42 AM
Thanks for the analysis. I watched the video again and I largely agree with MMD, although it seems evident that there would have been a collision even if both vessels had maintained course. Still the BB's fault, for it was the vessel to port, and should have maneuvered to avoid.

This, however, is where you lose me:


In the larger picture, the blame for such collisions at sea are also the fault of the Sea Shepherd organization because they go looking for such confrontations and, as shown in this video, initiate the sequence of events that lead up to such collisions.

"In the larger picture," the blame belongs to the Japanese whaling fleet. They initiate the sequence of events by engaging in illegal whaling. They persist in their illegal activity even in the face of confrontation. If they stayed in their home waters, rest assured there would be no collisions.

Two outlaws ducking it out in the street, yes. But one of them is a mugger, and the other is a vigilante. The cops have been bought off and don't patrol that street. I know whose side I am on.

Duncan Gibbs
02-08-2010, 07:09 AM
Okay, without going back and re-doing the lengthy reply to Michael I lost earlier, the essence was this:

1. I respect his qualifications but no real evidence of their use were apparent in his analysis.

2. A vessel, whether under power of sail turns about on its CLR and we could assume that the YM3's CLR is roughly amidships. Any hard turn to starbord would cause the stern to swing out to port. (If I'm wrong on this point I will acceed, but even the video shows the YM3's amidships being the axis of the turn.

3. The factory ship is in view up to the 17 second mark when the camera operator steps back into a doorway, a natural reaction to avoid being thrown of the side to avoid the impact. This does not automatically mean the BB has also turned to starbord.

4. The time from the camera operator stepping back into the door and the YM3 hitting the BB is just under four seconds which is hardly time for the BB to have responded with a following turn to avoid the YM3's stern slamming into the BB.

5. I still stand by my analysis that the YM3 came up alongside the BB with a strong port bearing without any warning as well as making a hard starbord turn with a similar lack of indication.

Taking into account all the above, even though the YM3 is the stand on vessel in this scenario it still has a duty to indicate its intention to manovour in such close quarters at such speed. Mind reading is not an option in these kinds of scenarios.

And no-one (aside from Peter and Pug) have any other suggestions as to how the international community can force Japan to halt its hunt (in Australian Antartic Territorial Waters declared and recognised by the majority of the International community as a whale sanctuary) other than with direct action to harrass, slow down and if possible halt this rape and pillage of the ocean.

Popeye
02-08-2010, 07:50 AM
hunting whales is bad what's bad about it ?

what whale hunting is bad and how bad is it ? are there some underlying facts and figures at hand , or is this simply a value statement ?

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 09:36 AM
Popeye, I am shy of all ;market hunting

it has been the end of the passenger pigion
the Do Do
eastern elk
eastern buffalo
I'm less knowledgable of lost fishes but I know there have been
near losses like the green sea turtle and manny more

market hunting/fishing is not sustainable as practiced

Popeye
02-08-2010, 09:40 AM
..market hunting/fishing is not sustainable as practiced

both true and false without any qualifiers

the kind of misdirection what happens , when you make blanket statements

why would anyone make a blanket statement ?

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 09:49 AM
both true and false without any qualifiers

the kind of misdirection what happens , when you make blanket statements

why would anyone make a blanket statement ?

I do NOT give blankets to the Injuns!

actually...if you re read, I said I was shy of market hunting...SHY! I will listen to the possibility of exception but I also believe exceptions are just that...exceptions!

Popeye
02-08-2010, 10:00 AM
I also believe exceptions are just that...exceptions!

as are inclusions , here are two things which are bad ..

..overfishing
..endangering species

is 'whaling' both of these things , all the time ?

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 10:17 AM
I know only what I hear on the tube...plus...the knowledge that the inefficient methods used in the whale fishery of the past failed utterly until modern, mechanized methods revived that fishery.

What I mean to convey is that wooden catch boats and hand thrown toggled harpoons and lances could certainly lower the number of free ranging whales but failed to eradicate them with the exception of the write whale (sp). After steel ships, radar/sonar and power head harpoons made their appearance, the whale population all but disappeared…whales not considered useful before (because they were hard to catch by wooden ship methods) became tempting targets and the slaughter rate moved up a notch. After WWII we took a vegetarian culture and converted it to meat eaters and gave em sharp knives and turned em loose with plausible denial in the form of scientific “credentials” (remembering those here who worship “science“ while telling me I may not challenge it because I‘m just an uneducated fat bricklayer with a failed career)

Think, people!

TimH
02-08-2010, 10:21 AM
If an alien space ship came to earth would you look at them as a food source?

Is all of the earth merely for our raping and pilaging?

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 10:23 AM
If an alien space ship came to earth would you look at them as a food source?

Is all of the earth merely for our raping and pilaging?

dunno...what do the preachers instruct?

TimH
02-08-2010, 10:24 AM
dunno...what do the preachers instruct?

Exactly.

Popeye
02-08-2010, 10:27 AM
Is all of the earth merely for our raping and pilaging?does earth really have enough arable land to feed 6 come 9 billion souls ?

your turn

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 10:28 AM
:) .

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 10:29 AM
does earth really have enough arable land to feed 6 come 9 billion souls ?

your turn

so...move the fulcrum a little bit one way or another but the teeter totter still has finite limits

Popeye
02-08-2010, 10:34 AM
If an alien space ship came to earth would you look at them as a food source?

from the planet vegeron.. ? no

planet porkbane may offer some incentives

George.
02-08-2010, 10:42 AM
dunno...what do the preachers instruct?

When all Europe was Catholic and could not have meat on Fridays, they used to instruct that whales were fish, so that the nobles could have their red meat and the Basques could have their income. The same obfuscation seems to work for Japanese Buddhists.

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 10:47 AM
yep...the truth is always negotiable

Rob Stokes, N. Vancouver
02-08-2010, 11:02 AM
Duncan - do you agree that the BB moved to starboard as referenced from what we are now calling the factory ship forward of it's position? If no - watch the video again and look at nothing else other than the forward rail of the BB lined up with the stern of the factory ship. See the factory ship disappearing to the BB's port? Only one reason for that - the BB is swinging to stbd. It's possible that the factory ship is moving to port, but it's wake shows a straight line.

If you do (now) see that, do you agree that the collision course the two ship were on prior to the move by the BB just got a whole lot more iminent?

And do you agree that the YM3 swung to starboard with the stern of the YM3 moving to port and contacting the BB?

I'm really not sure how "what happened" could be interpreted in any other way. I'm equally as sure though, that the skipper of the BB did not take any evasive or corrective action at all...

George.
02-08-2010, 11:22 AM
Here is a question: the YM3 seems to be overtaking the BB. It is almost abeam of the camera at the beginning of the video, and at the end it is the stern of the YM3 hitting the near the bow of the BB, forward from the camera position. So: does the vessel-to-starboard rule still apply when the vessel to starboard is overtaking? Shouldn't all overtaking be on the port side of the slower vessel?

None of this excuses the BB from not laying off the power and turning to port, of course. As MMD says, eventually someone will be killed, and I hope it is one of the Sea Shepherds. If it is a Japanese crewman, the whalers will have their martyr and SS will be finished.

Ian McColgin
02-08-2010, 11:59 AM
I'm in complete agreement with Michael's analysis. It appears that both vessels were racing for position. You can see BB's turn to starboard. YM3's turn does of course kick the stern closer which was the right move, making the collision a more scraping side to side rather than hitting BB's side with YM3's port bow.

Bumper boats.

I remain of two minds here. Various attempts to interpose between whalers and their prey and to disengage them from their catch have been met with escalating violence from the whalers, predictably enough, which has led over the years to escalating risk in efforts to stop them.

I thought the Steve Irwin example was a bit more reckless, placed whaler's crew at unacceptably greater risk, than this one, where it looks to me as if both captains were playing at a reasonably equal level. In a gladitorial sort of way, it might even be fun.

Whatever, it's making for some great TV.

Breakaway
02-08-2010, 12:08 PM
I dont like whaling. But what I like even less is disregard for the rights of others. They only hunt whales because people demand whale products. The sea is everyone's resource. I derive great pleasure in viewing a finback, minke or humpback when I'm offshore. But that doesn't supersede those other peoples rights to consume whale products.

As for the collision they are both at fault. While BB rammed Maru, the COLREGS state that all available means must be taken by both vessels to avoid collision and these means or actions must be made " in good time." The whaler could have altered course way sooner, unless we are to presume the master of the Maru only noted the BB's course and intent at the last second. I'm no admiralty judge, but I bet that's the way one would see it.

J P
02-08-2010, 12:10 PM
And no-one (aside from Peter and Pug) have any other suggestions as to how the international community can force Japan to halt its hunt (in Australian Antartic Territorial Waters declared and recognised by the majority of the International community as a whale sanctuary) other than with direct action to harrass, slow down and if possible halt this rape and pillage of the ocean.

Are you sure about that part in parenthesis (bold)?

Here’s my suggestion: Re-write the Antarctic Treaty.


All countries abandon all territorial and maritime claims, permanently.



Include everything (water, ice, land, air, critters) south of the 60th parallel an international zone under protection of The Treaty and designated as a ‘natural reserve devoted to peace and science’.



Clearly define what can and can’t go on down there.



Establish an international system of authority and jurisdiction free of political/economic strings (yeah, right).



Define and enforce penalties for violations. Serious can of whoopass at the ready for repeat offenders.

TimH
02-08-2010, 12:16 PM
The sea is everyone's resource. I derive great pleasure in viewing a finback, minke or humpback when I'm offshore. But that doesn't supersede those other peoples rights to consume whale products.



So even though you enjoy watching those deer graze in your back yard i should have the right to come onto your property and shoot them?

Breakaway
02-08-2010, 12:20 PM
So even though you enjoy watching those deer graze in your back yard i should have the right to come onto your property and shoot them?

No. You would need my permission to hunt on my property. This is not an opinion, this is the law.

George.
02-08-2010, 12:38 PM
This is absurd.

There is a lively and fast-growing whale-watching industry in Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and South Africa. Far more people make a living from this than from Japanese whaling. The whales in question winter in the Southern Ocean.

Why the hell should a nation from the northern hemisphere be allowed to come down here and kill those whales?

TimH
02-08-2010, 12:47 PM
So even though you enjoy watching those deer graze in your back yard i should have the right to come onto your property and shoot them?

No. You would need my permission to hunt on my property. This is not an opinion, this is the law.

Well the law says you cannot hunt whales in Aussie waters nor the marine sanctuary.

Breakaway
02-08-2010, 12:59 PM
Good! I didn't know that. But enforcement shouldnt be private and it should'nt violent. What authority has purview over the areas where whaling is illegal?

switters
02-08-2010, 01:01 PM
The Japanese point of view, as I understand it.

1. Whale meat is a cultural touchstone.

They perceive this in the same way that apple pie is an american touchstone, despite the fact that both are untrue. It is the perception that counts, and a lot of WWII vets don't think you have been Japanese until you had to live off of whale meat.

2. The fishing industry, which is very important because if you have been there you know that you don't see many cows or pigs out driving around, or on the menu. And the fishing industry wants to keep the loophole open in case another fishery dies, crashes or is otherwise denied them by war or natural disaster. They see it as a strategic food reserve and they don't want to lose the ships and the men and the loophole to access that reserve in case of an emergency.

3. Having someone like PW come in large and in charge pissed them off culturally, so many who don't like whale meat, still support whaling because of Watson, they don't need some rude white guy telling them what they can and cannot do. In short, resentment.

Lastly, Watson keeps saying he is making it unprofitable for the japanese whalers, hey Paul, read some press other than your own, the government subsidize all of it including the whale scientists they have on board to analyze the age and diet etc of the whales. Everytime they dont get a whale, it is one more live whale, but you are not bankrupting them. Until both sides stop lying I see the whole thing as a spectator sport with whale lives as the ball and not the goal.

Popeye
02-08-2010, 01:03 PM
the law says you cannot hunt whales in Aussie waters nor the marine sanctuary.

then call the cops

logically

WI-Tom
02-08-2010, 01:33 PM
the law says you cannot hunt whales in Aussie waters nor the marine sanctuary. then call the cops

logically

But what happens when the cops don't respond? Don't ordinary citizens have a responsibility to intervene in that case? Isn't that what's happening?

If you were being assaulted, would you want someone to stand by and wait for the cops to interfere, or would you want them to help you out on their own if the police were not responding? An imperfect analogy, of course, since we're talking whales and not humans in this case. But what do you think?

Tom

Popeye
02-08-2010, 01:42 PM
But what do you think?well ,to follow along timhs' logic , its like someone is hunting deer in your garden , so i might leap over the fence and return fire to protect the deer

keep your kids and pets inside and stay low to avoid crossfire and errant gunshots

ok rambo ?

TimH
02-08-2010, 01:46 PM
The difference is whales are intelligent creatures. Deer are not.

mmd
02-08-2010, 01:47 PM
How much unlawful, uncontrollable vigilantism is too much? If Paul Watson becomes successful at ending whale hunting and then takes on the lumber industry in Wisconsin by spiking trees, sabotaging sawmills and forcing log trucks off the highway at speed, will he still be your hero? If unlawful vigilantism in the name of ecological protection is good, then is PITA a noble organization?

Vigilantism is fine as long as it isn't your ox being gored, or if it isn't happening in your neighbourhood and to your friends and family...

WI-Tom
02-08-2010, 01:57 PM
its like someone is hunting deer in your garden , so i might leap over the fence and return fire to protect the deer


Well, Popeye,

around here at least, deer don't need protecting. They're really nothing more than big rats with antlers and hooves. Pretty destructive, actually, especially if human controls weren't in place. Whales, though, are on the verge of extinction. Does that change your equation at all?

It does mine. The problem Sea Shepherd is trying to tackle is a bigger issue than saving individual whales. It's about saying no to rampant greed and preserving the biodiversity that everyone's survival depends on.

Then, too, if Sea Shepherd were doing things Rambo-style as you suggest, the body count would be far higher. Truth is, they've shown some restraint. Maybe not enough to make everyone happy, but they're not out there shooting.

Tom

p.s. If you've seen a Wisconsin hunting season, you know that you're in more danger from the hunters than you are from the vigilantes!

Popeye
02-08-2010, 01:59 PM
Whales..are on the verge of extinction. Does that change your equation at all? yes it does , lets write the equation ..

the whales near extinction .. name them

TimH
02-08-2010, 02:00 PM
if mmd?

we arent concerned with "if". We will cross that bridge when (if) we come to it.

TimH
02-08-2010, 02:01 PM
If I had whales bouncing off of my car as I drive down the road the way deer do then we would have to re-think things. But the whales mind their own business.

Popeye
02-08-2010, 02:07 PM
the whales mind their own business

so it's really a question of values

mine Vs yours .. correct ?

mmd
02-08-2010, 02:16 PM
If you come to that bridge, TimH, it will be too late. The fox will already be in your henhouse and you will have the devil's own time to get it out. You are playing about with elastic morals by advocating illegal activities in support of an outcome that you approve of, but I doubt that you would be so supportive if the target were to accomplish an activity that you disagreed with.

Many years ago, the Rolling Stones gave a concert in California. They needed security around the stage. They thought it would be a good idea to have the Hell's Angels as the security detail - big guys, big reputation, nobody would defy them, etc. The fact that they were criminals with a history of violence didn't enter into the equation - they may be bad guys, but they're our bad guys, right? Well, look at how that turned out. It was at the Altamont Speedway, if I recall...

Edit to add: If mental ability and population numbers is the defining line for what can be hunted and what can't, why do you oppose seal hunting? There's lots of them and they're pretty stupid...

WI-Tom
02-08-2010, 02:17 PM
the whales near extinction .. name them

I'm no expert, but a quick google search yielded:

In 1975, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) gave full protection to several species including the blue, grey, humpback and right whales. International pressure on the IWC continued and in 1986 it finally put a limitation on whaling.

from http://www.ypte.org.uk/environmental/whales-saving-the-whales/100

and in August 2008:

A quarter of whales, dolphins and porpoises are threatened with extinction, with one in 10 species endangered to the very highest levels, a study by conservationists will reveal today.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reports a change in the conservation status of a third of all marine mammals, with the majority said to be at a greater risk of extinction than before. Critically endangered species include the Antarctic blue whale, Maui's dolphin, the Pacific grey whale and the Baltic harbour porpoise.

from: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/whales-under-threat-of-extinction-891490.html
Tom

Breakaway
02-08-2010, 02:19 PM
Everytime they dont get a whale, it is one more live whale,

I'd take this thought a step further: Every time a dead whale is rendered umarketable by Sea Shepherd means one more whale will be killed to replace it.

switters
02-08-2010, 02:24 PM
I'd take this thought a step further: Every time a dead whale is rendered umarketable by Sea Shepherd means one more whale will be killed to replace it.

Very true, but a dying whale on camera is worth it, or was, until ship crashing started to garner more press.

Its all smoke on the water....

Popeye
02-08-2010, 02:31 PM
In 1975, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) gave full protection to several species including the blue, grey, humpback and right whales. International pressure on the IWC continued and in 1986 it finally put a limitation on whaling.

Critically endangered species include the Antarctic blue whale, Maui's dolphin, the Pacific grey whale and the Baltic harbour porpoise.very good , my data suggests the japanese , norwegian .. boats are chasing minke , bryde's and sperm whales

the quota numbers are around 500 , 50 and 10 respectively

WI-Tom
02-08-2010, 02:44 PM
You are playing about with elastic morals by advocating illegal activities in support of an outcome that you approve of

Yes, that's why this is such a tough question. I respect your views on the danger of vigilante action a lot. But can you imagine a circumstance where you would defend vigilante action as the lesser of two evils? Is vigilante action better, in some circumstances, than no action at all?

In other words, how long do you try to achieve your goals through the system before deciding the system is broke and if anyone is going to do something, it has to be you? I can respect Sea Shepherd for not wanting to stand by and let this happen.

Tom

TimH
02-08-2010, 02:53 PM
So they respect the US exclusive economic zone but not the Australian one?


Given the lack of any evidence that Japan is bringing its whaling activities into conformance with the recommendations of the IWC, I am directing the Secretary of State under the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to withhold 100 percent of the fishing privileges that would otherwise be available to Japan in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Japan has requested the opportunity to fish for 3,000 metric tons of sea snails and 5,000 metric tons of Pacific whiting. These requests will be denied. In addition, Japan will be barred from any future allocations of fishing privileges for any other species, including Pacific cod, until the Secretary of Commerce determines that the situation has been corrected.

U.S. President Ronald Reagan, 1988

We, if we cannot resolve this matter diplomatically, will take international legal action. I'm serious about it, I would prefer to deal with it diplomatically, but if we cannot get there, that's the alternative course of action.

Australian PM Kevin Rudd, 2009

WI-Tom
02-08-2010, 02:56 PM
my data suggests the japanese , norwegian .. boats are chasing minke , bryde's and sperm whales

Well, there you are; sperm whales are on the endangered list. The Bryde's whale is reported at http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/search as "data deficient" by which I take to mean, no one knows enough to know how they're doing. Seems to make sense to protect them until we do know.

What do you think?

Tom

Popeye
02-08-2010, 03:00 PM
sperm whales are on the endangered list. .nope ..

from the sea shep website ..


"They are targeting endangered whales in a whale sanctuary in the Australian Antarctic Territory," Mr Watson said wrong

Popeye
02-08-2010, 03:04 PM
every sperm whale is sacred

numerous whales (http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/spermwhl.htm)

TimH
02-08-2010, 03:05 PM
Increasing pressure against Japanese whaling will stop it. The more people see what is going on ane are aware of it the more pressure the Japanese will be under.
That is the purpose of the Sea Sheperds. Public awareness.

From Wikipedia:

Japanese fisheries companies have expanded abroad and endured pressure from partners and environmental groups. Five large fishing companies transferred their whaling fleet shares to public interest corporations in 2006.[100] (http://woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-99) In 2007, Kyokuyo and Maruha, two of Japan's four largest fishing companies, decided to end their sales of whale meat (http://woodenboat.com/wiki/Whale_meat) due to pressure from partners and environmental groups in the US.[101] (http://woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-100)

TimH
02-08-2010, 03:06 PM
every sperm whale is sacred

numerous whales (http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/spermwhl.htm)

Did you know that 50% of the whales killed in the southern ocean are pregnant?

J P
02-08-2010, 03:17 PM
So they respect the US exclusive economic zone but not the Australian one?

They don't recognize/respect the Australian Antarctic claims. I don't think they are whaling in the Australian EEZ of the mainland.

BarnacleGrim
02-08-2010, 03:23 PM
The sanctuary applies only to commercial whaling, not scientific. And as long as the Japanese whaling is considered scientific by the IWC it will remain legal.

Ban scientific whaling and Japan leaves the IWC in protest and start doing as they please.

seanz
02-08-2010, 03:44 PM
Ah, go back to the Northern Hemisphere, the lot of ya!


Japanese whaling is not scientific, it's commercial......and they're a bunch of fascist pirates.



The sanctuary applies only to commercial whaling, not scientific. And as long as the Japanese whaling is considered scientific by the IWC it will remain legal.

Ban scientific whaling and Japan leaves the IWC in protest and start doing as they please.

OK......what part of 'sanctuary' don't you understand?

BarnacleGrim
02-08-2010, 04:41 PM
I didn't say it was scientific. I said it was considered scientific by the IWC.

If say, Canada for instance, wanted to commercially hunt whale in any of the two sanctuaries they would be perfectly free to do so, as they have no obligation to the IWC.

seanz
02-08-2010, 04:53 PM
Canada?
WTF has this got to do with Canada?

Countries involved (officially), to date, in this season's Southern Ocean whale fiasco.......Japan, Australia, New Zealand.......look a complete lack of Canada.

Breakaway
02-08-2010, 05:22 PM
What I m confused about is that if its illegal and an issue of sovreign territory, why isnt one of these babies steaming to the whaling grounds right now?
http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/HMAS_Anzac.jpg (http://www.navy.gov.au/Image:HMAS_Anzac.jpg)

J P
02-08-2010, 05:29 PM
What I m confused about is that if its illegal and an issue of sovreign territory, why isnt one of these babies steaming to the whaling grounds right now?



Is that a UN ship? :rolleyes:

TimH
02-08-2010, 05:45 PM
What I m confused about is that if its illegal and an issue of sovreign territory, why isnt one of these babies steaming to the whaling grounds right now?
http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/HMAS_Anzac.jpg (http://www.navy.gov.au/Image:HMAS_Anzac.jpg)

They are afraaid of the Japanese.

Rich VanValkenburg
02-08-2010, 06:00 PM
The whole thing, over-harvesting of whales and fish, to meet public demand, is unsustainable. The more the population increases, the more demand there will be to the point where extinction is the next step. Then, it will be on to another species. The Atlantic Cod fishery is no where near what it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago.

The only way to end over-harvesting is if there is a sudden reduction in demand i.e. sudden reduction in population, which isn't likely to happen.

Duncan Gibbs
02-08-2010, 06:37 PM
as are inclusions , here are two things which are bad ..

..overfishing
..endangering species

is 'whaling' both of these things , all the time ?

It has been in the past and all species of whales have been at or near a critical point at one time over the last 100 years. As far as overfishing goes one only needs to read the history of the Scottish Fifies - lovely boats - that decimated the North Sea herring fisheries to the point that it will probably never recover (WBM #212).


does earth really have enough arable land to feed 6 come 9 billion souls ?

your turn

Tosh and nonsense. The Japanese don't need whale meat any more than you or I need a Big Mac with extra fries.

Your turn!


Duncan - do you agree that the BB moved to starboard as referenced from what we are now calling the factory ship forward of it's position? If no - watch the video again and look at nothing else other than the forward rail of the BB lined up with the stern of the factory ship. See the factory ship disappearing to the BB's port? Only one reason for that - the BB is swinging to stbd. It's possible that the factory ship is moving to port, but it's wake shows a straight line.

The change in course (if deliberate at all) is a matter of a degree or two at most and hardly constitutes a major manoveur such as the YM3's hard to starbord.


If you do (now) see that, do you agree that the collision course the two ship were on prior to the move by the BB just got a whole lot more iminent?

No I don't.


And do you agree that the YM3 swung to starboard with the stern of the YM3 moving to port and contacting the BB?

This is my original point, so yes I agree: The hard to starbord by the YM3 brought the stern to port ultimately causing the impact. Whilst one may argue that the BB should have acted more responsibley and made a strong bearing to port as the YM3 came up nice and close, it was the YM3's turn to starbord that was the real cause of impact.


I'm really not sure how "what happened" could be interpreted in any other way. I'm equally as sure though, that the skipper of the BB did not take any evasive or corrective action at all...

No, he gave the YM3, what is commonly called, "enough rope!"


very good , my data suggests the japanese , norwegian .. boats are chasing minke , bryde's and sperm whales

the quota numbers are around 500 , 50 and 10 respectively

As I stated earlier the Japanese have exceeded their quotas for Southern Bluefin by 200,000 tonne last year. I would trust 'em as far as I could throw 'em.

Here's a little bit of history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan):



However, at the start of the 20th century local traditions conflicted with modern whaling practices. In 1911 the conflict turned violent in Same Village, Aomori Prefecture. Ocean pollution from the whaling stations, including large quantities of oil and blood runoff, angered the local fishermen and threatened their own fishing grounds. In protest the fishermen burned a Toyo Hogei facility down. The people of the Same region also did not consume whales and considered them sacred.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#cite_note-18)
The League of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_League_of_Nations) raised concerns about the over-exploitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-exploitation) of whale stocks (perhaps due to the falling price of whale oil) and called for conservation measures in 1925. This eventually led to the Geneva Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was presented in 1931 but did not enter into force until 1934 and was completely ignored by Japan and Germany.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#cite_note-19)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#cite_note-20)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#cite_note-21)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whaling_in_Japan&action=edit&section=4)] Antarctica

Factory ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_ship) were not used by Japan until the 1930s. As whale catches diminished in coastal waters, Japan looked to Antarctica. Toyo Hogei K.K. purchased the Norwegian factory ship, Antarctic, renaming it the Tonan Maru in 1934. Refrigerator ships were sent along to freeze and transport the meat back to Japan. By capitalizing on both the meat and oil of whales Japanese industry continued to out-compete other whaling nations. Improvements in technology such as the world's first diesel-powered catch boat, the Seki Maru, also increased the capacity to take whales. In the years building up to World War II, the Germans purchased whale oil from Japan and both nations used it in preparation for war.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#cite_note-22)
In 1937 London, the International Conference on Whaling, which Japan did not attend, led to additional limits on pelagic whaling in order to prevent excessive exploitation (and specifically the extinction of the Blue whale) creating the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling. Regarding voluntary acceptance of restrictions:

This is the more important in that Japan, who has not yet acceded to the 1931 Convention is largely increasing her whaling fleet in the Antarctic... [24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#cite_note-23)
Regardless of efforts to establish limits, in part due to Japan ignoring an 89 day season limit and continuing for 125 days, a record 45,010 whales were taken in a single season. The Protocol to the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, signed in 1938, established additional restrictions on whaling.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#cite_note-24) Despite the attendance of Japanese representatives, Japan did not sign the agreement and violated it by taking Humpback and undersized whales beginning five weeks prior to the defined start of the season.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#cite_note-25) By 1939 Germany and Japan accounted for 30% of the world's whale take.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#cite_note-bh-whaling-17)

Breakaway
02-08-2010, 07:11 PM
Is that a UN ship?

I pasted that from Australian Navy website


The Atlantic Cod fishery is no where near what it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago.

Actually, codfishing has been getting better and better the last several years--best in my lifetime and I'm 47. Fisheries management is as much an art as a science, with respect to population estimates especially.

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 07:41 PM
lets broaden this out a bit and try to see the bigger picture...

how about using ivory for piano keys again?

how about eletists using trumpeter swan feathers in some fashionable way?

would the ladies like a sea otter coat for some special occation?

as popeye has said (seemingly), there's nothing wrong with market hunting

Captain Blight
02-08-2010, 07:51 PM
When you talk about elitists, you mean Andover and Yale grads like Dubya, right?

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 07:57 PM
When you talk about elitists, you mean Andover and Yale grads like Dubya, right?

any of em...including from Martha's Vinyard

tiger parts anyone?

want some really good rhino horn?

how about a nice pet orang?

Duncan Gibbs
02-08-2010, 08:00 PM
how about using ivory for piano keys again?

No!



how about eletists using trumpeter swan feathers in some fashionable way?


No!



would the ladies like a sea otter coat for some special occation?


No!

What on Earth made you think THAT would make a good argument.

I maintain the position that we, as a species, consume FAR too much of the Earth's resources as it is. The notion that we are not to blame for all of the environmental woes that face the planet right now and that we should just continue on our merry way same as ever is one of the most ridiculous notions since the RC Church told Gallileo he was wrong.

We are obese on our conspicuous consumption of the planet and should start a radical diet now!

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 08:02 PM
Duncan...please re read my post and try to not assume my position ahead of time

Duncan Gibbs
02-08-2010, 08:28 PM
Duncan...please re read my post and try to not assume my position ahead of time

You'd should do a better job of explaining said position before time then Phil' me ol' china! ;)

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 08:34 PM
You'd should do a better job of explaining said position before time then Phil' me ol' china! ;)

I dowanna...


I think the confusion is because I think Watson's actions are piracy pure and simple...the whales are a seperate issue for me

If I accept his actions as acceptable in this "one" circumstance then I must accept his judgment as trumping my own in other circumstances...I do not

Captain Blight
02-08-2010, 08:38 PM
Watson might be doing things you see as illegal, but the mere act of illegality at sea DOES NOT make it "piracy."

And you would have to accept his judgement as trumping you own if you were aborad; he is the captain, after all.

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 08:39 PM
semantics, blighty ole chum

Duncan Gibbs
02-08-2010, 08:45 PM
So, I repeat my question: If the tactics of the Sea Shepherds are not to your liking, what tactics should be used to halt the Japanese whale hunt and other forms of overfishing by that nations fleets?

By the way Phillip, the law can be an ass sometimes. Martin Luther King sed so!

Phillip Allen
02-08-2010, 08:48 PM
I don't have any tactics in mind that don't require more typing than I want to do

mmd
02-08-2010, 09:36 PM
"what tactics should be used to halt the Japanese whale hunt and other forms of overfishing by that nations fleets?" - Duncan

It has to be a political solution backed by military enforcement. This will only happen if you make your government (and this a global 'you'; all of you) as concerned about whale protection and fisheries administration as you are. If whales are placed under global protection and a sufficient number of national governments demand action so that a UN mandate is decreed, then policing of the ban on whaling can be undertaken by select navies of the world, much the same as piracy in the Persian Gulf is being policed by an international consortium of navies. With the plethora of spy satelites in the world, tracking rogue whaling ships shouldn't be a problem.

The IWC is a joke - it is toothless. They have no means to enforce their decrees. Member states comply only by personal consent, and some members manipulate the rules to suit their own ends, as the Japanese are doing.

Want to end whaling? Make your local politician as concerned as you are. Have him join his colleagues in making your government anti-whaling. Make it a political issue. Stop criminal activities at sea such as piracy, whaling, and self-appointed vigilantes such as Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd organization.

J P
02-08-2010, 10:02 PM
... So, I repeat my question ...



Repeat answer:


And no-one (aside from Peter and Pug) have any other suggestions as to how the international community can force Japan to halt its hunt (in Australian Antartic Territorial Waters declared and recognised by the majority of the International community as a whale sanctuary) other than with direct action to harrass, slow down and if possible halt this rape and pillage of the ocean.


Are you sure about that part in parenthesis (bold)?

Here’s my suggestion: Re-write the Antarctic Treaty.


All countries abandon all territorial and maritime claims, permanently.



Include everything (water, ice, land, air, critters) south of the 60th parallel an international zone under protection of The Treaty and designated as a ‘natural reserve devoted to peace and science’.



Clearly define what can and can’t go on down there.



Establish an international system of authority and jurisdiction free of political/economic strings (yeah, right).



Define and enforce penalties for violations. Serious can of whoopass at the ready for repeat offenders.

Duncan Gibbs
02-08-2010, 10:11 PM
It has to be a political solution backed by military enforcement. This will only happen if you make your government (and this a global 'you'; all of you) as concerned about whale protection and fisheries administration as you are. If whales are placed under global protection and a sufficient number of national governments demand action so that a UN mandate is decreed, then policing of the ban on whaling can be undertaken by select navies of the world, much the same as piracy in the Persian Gulf is being policed by an international consortium of navies. With the plethora of spy satelites in the world, tracking rogue whaling ships shouldn't be a problem.

The IWC is a joke - it is toothless. They have no means to enforce their decrees. Member states comply only by personal consent, and some members manipulate the rules to suit their own ends, as the Japanese are doing.

Bang on the nail Michael!


Want to end whaling? Make your local politician as concerned as you are. Have him join his colleagues in making your government anti-whaling. Make it a political issue. Stop criminal activities at sea such as piracy, whaling, and self-appointed vigilantes such as Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd organization.

The emphasis is the crux of the issue here. It's interesting to note that if were not for such "self-appointed vigilantes" the political pressure would not be there at all. It's interesting to note that since the Ady Gil was sunk by the Japanese that all of a sudden there are many cars on the roads around here sporting Sea Shepherd bumper stickers. Political pressure is growing. As are economic pressures: Australian fishermen who net for Southern Bluefin are demanding action of our governement. It will come but it requires a massive effort on the part of many. I see the Sea Shepherds doing the work they are doing as critical to the effort, both at harrassing the whalers in the same way forest protestors slow (and indeed) sometimes halt clear-felling, as well as focusing wider attention on the issue. Without them, the joke that is the IWC will remain a joke.

Duncan Gibbs
02-08-2010, 10:20 PM
Repeat answer:

Almost there on a few counts (from the same Wiki article):


New regulations from the United Nations International Maritime Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_International_Maritime_Organization ) due to take effect in July 2011 will make it illegal for the Nisshin Maru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisshin_Maru) to operate below 60 degrees south but all of the Japanese pelagic whaling is done inside the area. The new rules prohibit ships using heavy oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_oil) in the Antarctic Treaty System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System) area because of the harm a spill would cause. Furthermore, the IMO's Guidelines For Ships Operating In Ice-Covered Waters put requirements on safety and hull-strength which the Nisshin Maru does not fulfill.[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#cite_note-57)

mmd
02-08-2010, 10:31 PM
We're pretty much on the same page, Duncan, except for the Sea Shepherd thing. He is a common criminal with a cause. Though his current activities may serve to focus attention to the cause, he is not a good for the long run. If whaling stops and Paul Watson then turns his attention to Australian tuna fishing, cutting fishermen's nets and ramming their boats, will he still be your hero?

He should be prosecuted with the same gusto that the whalers should be...

PatCox
02-08-2010, 10:33 PM
I have not read a single post on this thread, I don't care what anyone says, the plain moral fact is, noone needs to be killing those creatures. There's no earthly reason. And more so, it should be avoided, with everything looking like they are the smartest creatures on earth, other than us. And forget that, even, they are a triumph of LIFE itself, the largest animals ever to live on this earth, they perform amazing feats with their migrations, ability to socialize, communicate over thousands of miles, they are magical and should be revered, the whales.

PatCox
02-08-2010, 10:34 PM
MMD, if it becomes necessary to save the tuna from extinction also, I would support these measures.

TimH
02-08-2010, 10:39 PM
Good post Pat.

rufustr
02-08-2010, 10:58 PM
Sorry Mike,

The only organization willing to stand in the way of Illegal Whaling is Sea Shepherd.

On that basis alone they have my support.

Duncan Gibbs
02-08-2010, 11:18 PM
Mike, I support any action such as those that the Sea Shepherds that would halt either illegal or unsustainable fishing practices if no designated authority acted. As it happens the Australian tuna quota WAS reduced by our own government on the back of the massive over-catch by the Japanese in order to protect the fishery.

If it were not for the efforts of Watson and his crews the devastating practice of drift-netting would probably still be widespread. They also acted as janitors on this issue cleaning up ghost nets that were catching and killing fish and other marine life having been lost or set adrift by trawlers. The Sea Shepherds have done far more good for this planet than you give them credit. Until such time as the international community can act together to stop environmental vandalism where-ever it may originate the Sea Shepherds have my full support.

rufustr
02-08-2010, 11:22 PM
Here in Australia we have a history of raping the wilderness.

If it wasn't for the small number of protesters willing to break the laws of the time to gain publicity for a cause, the result for wilderness areas could be a lot different.

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=3949

For a lot of Australians the battle in the Southern Ocean has the same importance.

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=4747

Reflections along the lower Gordon River (Photography by Steve Johnson)

PatCox
02-08-2010, 11:30 PM
Say what you will about politics, anything else, the plain fact is, there is no REASON to be killing these creatures. No reason, none, no reason at all. There is not one single morally acceptable reason on earth for anyone to be killing these creatures.

I will give one single exception to indigenous arctic peoples hunting using traditional means, the eskimos also are as magical as the whales, they are pleistocene people who lived a completely pure neolithic life right down to this century, yes, cave men, they lived among us, that is the eskimo. They were a fossil culture, a miracle of the persistence of the culture of 30,000 years ago, that survived to my lifetime. They can hunt whatever they want.

TimH
02-08-2010, 11:32 PM
If it wasnt for the active protesters the California Redwoods would be gone.

rufustr
02-08-2010, 11:36 PM
I agree Pat,

Traditional hunting using traditional means from traditional craft within traditional hunting grounds.

Breakaway
02-09-2010, 12:38 AM
I posed this question earlier, perhaps not directly enough. Let me try again: Is there a LAW against whaling, as opposed to just an aggrement or memo between political bodies.? If there is a law, why isnt it enforced? If there isnt a law, and you care about this, then get a law enacted. Protest is fine--reckless endangerment of human life is not.

purri
02-09-2010, 01:20 AM
Say what you will about politics, anything else, the plain fact is, there is no REASON to be killing these creatures. No reason, none, no reason at all. There is not one single morally acceptable reason on earth for anyone to be killing these creatures.

I will give one single exception to indigenous arctic peoples hunting using traditional means, the eskimos also are as magical as the whales, they are pleistocene people who lived a completely pure neolithic life right down to this century, yes, cave men, they lived among us, that is the eskimo. They were a fossil culture, a miracle of the persistence of the culture of 30,000 years ago, that survived to my lifetime. They can hunt whatever they want.
Don't be so frocking paternalist mugilah!

Popeye
02-09-2010, 08:00 AM
The Sea Shepherds have done far more good for this planet than you give them credit. Until such time as the international community can act together to stop environmental vandalism where-ever it may originate the Sea Shepherds have my full support.

hi dunc , i did a google search and found out a bit about some 'critically endangered species' , one , unfortunately , is the 'mediterranean monk seal '

so next i went to the sea shep dot org webpage to find out how they proposed to protect the mediterranean monk seal but i couldn't get any information

can you help me out with this one please ?

Popeye
02-09-2010, 08:05 AM
The whole thing, over-harvesting of whales and fish, to meet public demand, is unsustainable. no such animal

there is no 'public demand' for whale derived products , therefore the quotas set are not filled and therefore there is no 'over-harvest' of whales

when was the last time you ordered whale blubber a la carte ?

Popeye
02-09-2010, 08:10 AM
Did you know that 50% of the whales killed in the southern ocean are pregnant?

then why is the population increasing by 15% per year ? :confused:

Popeye
02-09-2010, 08:15 AM
all species of whales have been at or near a critical point at one time over the last 100 years.

bs


the Japanese have exceeded their quotas for Southern Bluefin by 200,000 tonne last year.

and the norwegians filled less than one half of their quota for minke

your point being ?

Popeye
02-09-2010, 08:18 AM
I took a few Cod trips last year, and contrary to popular opinion, there are lots of them out there, including some good-sized ones.

you are catching juvenile cod , it takes seven years for a cod fish to reach maturity

BarnacleGrim
02-09-2010, 08:20 AM
Canada?
WTF has this got to do with Canada?

Countries involved (officially), to date, in this season's Southern Ocean whale fiasco.......Japan, Australia, New Zealand.......look a complete lack of Canada.
Canada, Madagascar, Poland, Jordan, Indonesia, etc. are just a few of many that have no obligation whatsoever to respect any whale sanctuary. It's optional.

Popeye
02-09-2010, 08:21 AM
If the tactics of the Sea Shepherds are not to your liking, what tactics should be used to halt the Japanese whale hunt and other forms of overfishing by that nations fleets?!

whaling isn't an example of overfishing , why must it be halted ? :confused:

George.
02-09-2010, 08:21 AM
If whales are placed under global protection and a sufficient number of national governments demand action so that a UN mandate is decreed, then policing of the ban on whaling can be undertaken by select navies of the world, much the same as piracy in the Persian Gulf is being policed by an international consortium of navies. With the plethora of spy satelites in the world, tracking rogue whaling ships shouldn't be a problem.


Should we expect this to be any more effective than the anti-piracy patrol? :rolleyes:

All conservation monitoring ultimately depends on the dispersed power of concerned citizens, who are much more likely to detect and report poaching than any government agency could ever be.

Until recently, the Southern Ocean was being raped in an unprecedented scale, as it is the one major wilderness left on the planet where there are no citizens of any place to make a fuss. That there now are groups able to spend time in those regions and expose what is happening, and force a debate where previously there was none, is a great advance.

I have no sympathy at all for an industrial group, subsidized by taxpayers, which wishes to devastate a wilderness area thousands of miles from its home waters. I wish there were a Southern navy with the balls to send a shot across their bows, followed by what must follow if they don't surrender. Since there isn't, and until there is, I wish the Shepherds all the luck.

You keep calling them "criminals," and yet they are not arrested. What laws are they breaking?

BarnacleGrim
02-09-2010, 08:24 AM
You keep calling them "criminals," and yet they are not arrested. What laws are they breaking?
Ask the Japanese Ministry of Justice. Japanese vessels operating in international waters are under the jurisdiction of Japan. If the rule of law means anything, everyone else should stay out of their way.

Popeye
02-09-2010, 08:30 AM
the plain fact is, there is no REASON to be killing these creatures. No reason, none, no reason at all. then reasonably , give up your livelihood since it also has a deleterious affect on the environment


There is not one single morally acceptable reason on earth for anyone to be killing these creatures.what is the single morally acceptable reason on earth for the us defense industry ?


I will give one single exception to indigenous arctic peoples hunting using traditional means, the eskimos also are as magical as the whales, .. wiki time ..

Since the 1970s in Canada and Greenland Eskimo has widely been considered offensive, owing to folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore) and derogatory usage.


In 1977, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska, officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all circumpolar native peoples, regardless of their local view on an appropriate term. As a result the Canadian government usage has replaced the (locally) defunct term Eskimo with Inuit (Inuk in singular).

Popeye
02-09-2010, 08:48 AM
The only organization willing to stand in the way of Illegal Whaling is Sea Shepherd.

On that basis alone they have my support.you've just insulted an army of scientists , environmentalists , regulators , enforcement officers and international law experts

has it ever occurred to you how vast the oceans are and how futile it is to send out a boat to harass one of literally thousands of fishing vessels operating in territorial waters and on the high seas..

this is fantasy movie making , the sheps accept cash donations , still confused ?

Phillip Allen
02-09-2010, 08:50 AM
everybody is shouting and no one is listening...

Popeye
02-09-2010, 08:52 AM
ka'ching $$$$

Phillip Allen
02-09-2010, 08:56 AM
ka'ching $$$$

well, that's what you're doing isn't it? Ya know, at one point in your history it was someone's livelihood selling scalps

George.
02-09-2010, 09:01 AM
Ask the Japanese Ministry of Justice. Japanese vessels operating in international waters are under the jurisdiction of Japan. If the rule of law means anything, everyone else should stay out of their way.

The Shepherds are not on the Japanese vessels. When they go home after the season, their Justice systems don't arrest them. Nothing they do is within Japanese jurisdiction. If the rule of law means anything, everyone else should stay out of their way.

Popeye
02-09-2010, 09:01 AM
at one point in your history it was someone's livelihood selling scalps

yup

and at this point in history chinese and russian factory freezer trawler technology is in fully swing

go sheps go

mmd
02-09-2010, 10:37 AM
"You keep calling them "criminals," and yet they are not arrested. What laws are they breaking?" - George.

Lets see...

1983 - Paul Watson & SeaShepherd engineer Paul Pezwick tried & convicted in Canada for interfering in the annual seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

1986 - Se Shepherd claims responsibility for sinking two whaling vessels in Reykjavik, after Iceland voluntarily stopped whaling activities in accordance with IWC moratorium. Through a legal loophole, Paul Watson avoids charges, but is declared a persona non grata in Iceland.

1992 - Sea Sheperd unsuccessfully attempts to scuttle whaling & fishing vessel in Norway. Paul Watson, girlfriend Lisa DiStefano and one other commit the act. Paul Watson is charged but fails to show up for court, is convicted in absentia.

1992 - Sea Sheperd vessel Whales Forever collides with Norwegian Coast Guard vessel; Paul Watson charged with negligent navigation, refusal to leave Norwegian waters on orders of Coast Guard and transmitting false distress signals.

1997 - Paul Watson arrested in Amsterdam for attempted scuttling of Norwegian whaling/fishing vessel. He is convicted and serves a short jail term.

2002 - Watson tells Animal Rights 2002 Conference that if a person or persons dies from one of his actions, he would consider it "collateral damage".

Watson quite proudly points out the number of vessels he has sabotaged, damaged or sunk under the aegis of Sea Shepherd. It is only a matter of time before he kills someone.

Popeye
02-09-2010, 10:44 AM
last years fiasco in the gulf of st lawrence included a stunt where they maneuvered their vessel close enough to sealers so as to make the ice crack under the feet of the people working there

slipping underneath sea ice , even with flotation is certain death , you would either be crushed by moving pans , lost and therefore not recovered or succumb to hyperthermia within a matter of minutes

plain malice , somewhat evil

TimH
02-09-2010, 10:49 AM
Someone needs to sink the whalers and be done with it.
The French know how to do that, maybe we should call them in.

Popeye
02-09-2010, 10:54 AM
Someone needs to sink the whalers and be done with it..

no timh , you need to abandon your set of values and replace them with my set of values

mmd
02-09-2010, 10:55 AM
Well, if you're going to kill people to stop an abhorrent practice, might as well do the Sea Shepherd boats, too, eh? Then drift netters, then stern trawlers, then tuna seiners, then...

TimH
02-09-2010, 10:57 AM
Who said anything about killing people. The French sank the rainbow warrior at the dock I believe.

Popeye
02-09-2010, 10:58 AM
i don't happen to like suv's , they squander fuel needlessly , so me and my band of hippie friends are gonna jump in our w4d hybrid suv and then randomly pick off illegal suv drivers carelessly endangering the planet down around widdly island

righteous call , no ?

care to donate to the cause ..

TimH
02-09-2010, 10:59 AM
no timh , you need to abandon your set of values and replace them with my set of values

is cannibalism just a matter of values?

Popeye
02-09-2010, 10:59 AM
Who said anything about killing people. The French sank the rainbow warrior at the dock I believe.

nothing like a safe explosive charge when mining boats at dock

any children nearby ? :mad:

Popeye
02-09-2010, 11:00 AM
is cannibalism just a matter of values?

fair comparison :rolleyes::D

TimH
02-09-2010, 11:06 AM
any children nearby ? :mad:

Yep, lots of children hanging out on the docks. :rolleyes:

Its going to stop. Nothing you can do about it. Public opinion is more powerful that a bunch of "fisherman"

Popeye
02-09-2010, 11:15 AM
Yep, lots of children hanging out on the docks. "st johns waterfront ..

http://www.pbase.com/joecanada/image/93627536/original.jpg


over to the right is a 'fenn' a land conservatory , a great spot for kids , foreground , museums , parks canada and historic sites

i trust there will be no bombings if the sheps pull alongside

George.
02-09-2010, 11:16 AM
Lets see...

1983 - Paul Watson & SeaShepherd engineer Paul Pezwick tried & convicted in Canada for interfering in the annual seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

1986 - Se Shepherd claims responsibility for sinking two whaling vessels in Reykjavik, after Iceland voluntarily stopped whaling activities in accordance with IWC moratorium. Through a legal loophole, Paul Watson avoids charges, but is declared a persona non grata in Iceland.

1992 - Sea Sheperd unsuccessfully attempts to scuttle whaling & fishing vessel in Norway. Paul Watson, girlfriend Lisa DiStefano and one other commit the act. Paul Watson is charged but fails to show up for court, is convicted in absentia.

1992 - Sea Sheperd vessel Whales Forever collides with Norwegian Coast Guard vessel; Paul Watson charged with negligent navigation, refusal to leave Norwegian waters on orders of Coast Guard and transmitting false distress signals.

1997 - Paul Watson arrested in Amsterdam for attempted scuttling of Norwegian whaling/fishing vessel. He is convicted and serves a short jail term.

2002 - Watson tells Animal Rights 2002 Conference that if a person or persons dies from one of his actions, he would consider it "collateral damage".

Watson quite proudly points out the number of vessels he has sabotaged, damaged or sunk under the aegis of Sea Shepherd. It is only a matter of time before he kills someone.

So how come this guy doesn't get arrested and extradited? Instead, there is a TV show about him. There must be more to this. The SS seem to have at least as good legal cover under international law as the Japanese whalers. They don't spend all their time at sea, you know, and they raise funds legally for their activities. And they are not based in Somalia. ;)

Popeye
02-09-2010, 11:19 AM
Public opinion is more powerful that a bunch of "fisherman"

we can't all have more correct , noble jobs now can we ..

what do you and your family work at ?

TimH
02-09-2010, 11:20 AM
They are based right here in the San Juan islands.

Pirates of the San Juans...hmm...has a ring to it.

Popeye
02-09-2010, 11:22 AM
.. they raise funds legally for their activities. just like barnum and bailey did

TimH
02-09-2010, 11:24 AM
we can't all have more correct , noble jobs now can we ..



being a whaler is correct and noble? Tell me more.

Krunch
02-09-2010, 11:29 AM
Now they're shooting each other with water cannons.

I say bring on the Exocets. Super-Soakers are for crybabies!

Phillip Allen
02-09-2010, 11:30 AM
Now they're shooting each other with water cannons.

I say bring on the Exocets. Super-Soakers are for crybabies!

Francophile! :)

mmd
02-09-2010, 12:00 PM
George., Sea Shepherd is exploiting the same legal loopholes that the Japanese are - performing illegal acts in international waters or high-tailing it out of national jurisdictions when the heat is on their tail.

Phillip Allen
02-09-2010, 12:04 PM
George., Sea Shepherd is exploiting the same legal loopholes that the Japanese are - performing illegal acts in international waters or high-tailing it out of national jurisdictions when the heat is on their tail.

the lynch mob refuses to see their actions as wrong...that's what makes them a mob

George.
02-09-2010, 12:07 PM
George., Sea Shepherd is exploiting the same legal loopholes that the Japanese are - performing illegal acts in international waters or high-tailing it out of national jurisdictions when the heat is on their tail.

So I guess "our" analogy holds - a vigilante and a robber slugging it out in a street the cops don't patrol. At the very least, it makes the news, and may in time shame the authorities into acting. It is certainly better than the thieves operating unmolested.

That said, I wish the SS would stick to the rules of the road and used more wits and less violence, and I hope that if/when someone dies, it is an SS volunteer.

Phillip Allen
02-09-2010, 12:10 PM
So I guess "our" analogy holds - a vigilante and a robber slugging it out in a street the cops don't patrol. At the very least, it makes the news, and may in time shame the authorities into acting. It is certainly better than the thieves operating unmolested.

That said, I wish the SS would stick to the rules of the road and used more wits and less violence, and I hope that if/when someone dies, it is an SS volunteer.

George, I suspect that Watson guy is not someone any thinking adult could stand being around...no doubt he has lots of young chicks admiring his manliness though

mmd
02-09-2010, 12:11 PM
Unfortunately, if a SS crewmember dies, they will have a martyr. If a whaler dies, then maybe SS will be seen for what they are, but sadly this may also garner sympathy for the whalers in some quarters.

What will shame authorities into action is you and me and everyone else castigating our politicians publicly and shaming them into action. Government of the people, and all that...

Don't let outlaws be your messenger to your government.

George.
02-09-2010, 12:27 PM
Outlaws are not my messenger. They are part of my message. My message is: there is no governance in the high seas, and outlaws operate with impunity there. The fact that some of the outlaws post video of what is going on on the Web only makes my message easier to spread. And the fact that their particular "illegal" acts happen to be precisely what we all wish some law enforcement agency would do puts them in a different moral category from the lawlessness of the whalers.

Popeye
02-09-2010, 01:02 PM
..there is no governance in the high seas..

.. the lawlessness of the whalers..

confusing

why do you call it 'illegal' ~ lawless .. if there is no 'legal' precedent ? :confused:

Popeye
02-09-2010, 01:14 PM
being a whaler is correct and noble? Tell me more.


what do you and your family work at ?

seanz
02-09-2010, 03:37 PM
what do you and your family work at ?

I know what you are but what am I?
:rolleyes:

In a doooooomed effort to enlighten some of our Northern friends that think colonialism is still OK as long as it happens in the South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinniped


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale

Enjoy!
:)

Duncan Gibbs
02-09-2010, 03:59 PM
hi dunc , i did a google search and found out a bit about some 'critically endangered species' , one , unfortunately , is the 'mediterranean monk seal '

so next i went to the sea shep dot org webpage to find out how they proposed to protect the mediterranean monk seal but i couldn't get any information

can you help me out with this one please ?

Why the Sea Shepherds aren't there for this one I cannot tell you, other than suggesting they can only be in so many places at once. The seals' problems appear to be complex and the last few reasons listed below would certainly put more pressure on the species' survival than the first two.




Hunting for its skin prior to this century reduced the population considerably. More recently, the main threats facing the Mediterranean monk seal are deliberate killing by fishermen who perceive the species as a competitor for fish, entanglement in fishing gear, disturbance and habitat loss through development and tourism (including recreational diving), disease, and the effects of toxic algal blooms.

Read more: http://www.animalinfo.org/species/carnivor/monamona.htm#ixzz0f4f4ZRmK (http://www.animalinfo.org/species/carnivor/monamona.htm#ixzz0f4f4ZRmK)



Large tracts of the Great Barrier Reef face threats that come from on-shore: Land clearance for sugar cane being the principle one.

I love the ability of some here to reduce complex and difficult situations to simplistic notions and draw specious comparisons. "Why aren't they..." and so on. Next...

Duncan Gibbs
02-09-2010, 04:04 PM
bs

Not BS: You obviously didn't read the wiki article on the history of Japanese whaling, nor follow any of the links provided in that article. Why d'ya think the IWC was created in the first place?


and the norwegians filled less than one half of their quota for minke

your point being ?

That the Japanese have been, are and probably will continue to be rampant overfishers without direct action to stop them: What did you think my point was and why do you continue to draw specious comparisons?

mmd
02-09-2010, 04:08 PM
Seanz: OK, I'll bite; what does the Sea Shepherd organization and Wikipedia information on seals and whales have to do with colonialism?

Duncan Gibbs
02-09-2010, 04:08 PM
whaling isn't an example of overfishing , why must it be halted ? :confused:

Because whaling WAS done to excess and placed whales in an endagered position once before. A significant majority of the international community decided that the practice should be slowed if not halted altogether. Thus the IWC. Do you suggest that great fleets of Fifies should put to sea again and polish off the remaining herring fisheries in the North Sea?

seanz
02-09-2010, 06:10 PM
Seanz: OK, I'll bite; what does the Sea Shepherd organization and Wikipedia information on seals and whales have to do with colonialism?


The whale/seal thing is to remind some people from a certain country what this is really aboot.
:p
Down here.....it's not about seals.
Northern Hemisphere; Sea Shepherd = Bad.
Southern Hemisphere; Sea Shepherd = Good.
If the Japanese were coming to Canada and hoovering up seals for scientific purposes I think we'd be hearing a different tune from some of the formites here. Seriously, at what distance from the border does parochialism stop?
:rolleyes::)

The colonialism reference was a bit of honest snark. I mean, if foreigners arrive in ships, defy your customs, violate your taboo hunting grounds, ignore your protests, take whatever they want and call it 'scientific'......well it sounds like colonialism....doesn't it?
;)

seanz
02-09-2010, 06:12 PM
Because whaling WAS done to excess and placed whales in an endagered position once before. A significant majority of the international community decided that the practice should be slowed if not halted altogether. Thus the IWC. Do you suggest that great fleets of Fifies should put to sea again and polish off the remaining herring fisheries in the North Sea?

NZ 'voluntarily' stopped whaling....anybody want to guess why?

Paul Pless
02-09-2010, 08:35 PM
and other fish in the sea will have more room to grow!rofl!!!

purri
02-09-2010, 10:30 PM
NZ 'voluntarily' stopped whaling....anybody want to guess why?

"Echo-tourism" plus there was enough surplus wool to knit them a muffler each. :p

mmd
02-09-2010, 10:42 PM
Oh, I give up. If you guys want to think Paul Watson is some kind of altruistic marine Robin Hood, have at it. I hope it doesn't turn and bite you in the ass, but I fear that at some point it will.

Good luck with that, eh?

TimH
02-10-2010, 12:17 AM
Good luck with that, eh?

Thanks eh :D

seanz
02-10-2010, 12:20 AM
Oh, I give up. If you guys want to think Paul Watson is some kind of altruistic marine Robin Hood, have at it. I hope it doesn't turn and bite you in the ass, but I fear that at some point it will.

Good luck with that, eh?

Quitter.

You know these threads will keep going until the Japanese have eaten the last whale.......and then the Canadians will be all "Save us, Paul Watson, save us, The Japanese are eating all of our seals"
Just you wait.
:rolleyes:;)
This really is a Nth vs Sth thing..............:(

Purri; Echo-Tourism? I like that, can I use it?
:D

mmd
02-10-2010, 12:31 AM
No, I'm not a quitter, Seanz. I've tried to convince you that Paul Watson isn't the best of fellows to have on your side and have failed in the attempt. There's no use in continuing a conversation that has no resolution in sight. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. Time will tell which one of us is right, if either.

If you believe that this is a north vs south thing, that is, once more, your opinion. I don't see it as such. And seals, well, that is a discussion for another thread on another day. Enjoy your day, I'm off to bed. G'night.

seanz
02-10-2010, 12:47 AM
Cheers. :D

Watson not the best? OK, fine, I'd like Jaques Cousteau and the USS Iowa. Not avaiable? Right now, who else is there? Greenpeace aren't up for much and nobody seems willing to actually stand up to the Japanese.....they are the biggest trading partners of OZ and NZ, the governments here will make a few noises but if the Japanese swing into full commercial whaling, what's to stop them?

Can't convince you it's a Nth/Sth thing? Wait until Watson is back up North for the seal season, you'll call him a grandstanding cult leader and a fool....I'll say you're probably right.
;)

BarnacleGrim
02-10-2010, 06:48 AM
The Shepherds are not on the Japanese vessels. When they go home after the season, their Justice systems don't arrest them. Nothing they do is within Japanese jurisdiction. If the rule of law means anything, everyone else should stay out of their way.
A person in Dutch jurisdiction throwing a bottle at someone in Japanese jurisdiction is assault in both countries.

George.
02-10-2010, 07:36 AM
OK, why hasn't the SS crew been arrested by the Dutch?

Popeye
02-10-2010, 07:45 AM
It has been in the past and all species of whales have been at or near a critical point at one time over the last 100 years.

not even asking you for a reference on this one dunc , some data to back you up , nah , not even an old fisherman's anecdote thanks

this is plain bs

Popeye
02-10-2010, 07:50 AM
Large tracts of the Great Barrier Reef face threats that come from on-shore: Land clearance for sugar cane being the principle one. interesting observation , so there are problem for seals , so what sort of deleterious effects are there for the whales who share the same ocean with the seals ? if threats come from on shore are they discriminatory ? how does toxins , algae blooms and krill affect the welfare of whale species ?


I love the ability of some here to reduce complex and difficult situations to simplistic notions and draw specious comparisons. yes indeed :rolleyes::D

Popeye
02-10-2010, 07:54 AM
the Japanese have been, are and probably will continue to be rampant overfishers without direct action to stop them

but the actions you are witnessing do nothing , except to fill the coffers of the sea shep society , what are you missing ? :confused:

Popeye
02-10-2010, 08:09 AM
whaling WAS done to excess and placed whales in an endagered position once before.

bit of an over generalization , which helps the cause but nothing for the facts and data


A significant majority of the international community decided that the practice should be slowed if not halted altogether. Thus the IWC.

uh-huh ..

from iwmc.org ..

The International Whaling Commission (IWC), which held its annual meeting in London last week, has been the formal management body for the world’s whales since its formation in 1946. The IWC was formed as a whaling cartel, which failed in both propping up the price of whale products and preventing many of the great whale species from severely declining. By the late 1960s, world whale populations were suffering from over a century of nearly unfettered exploitation, and critics pointed out that the IWC had failed to stem this decline. When countries swayed by environmentalists and animal rights organizations wrested control of the IWC in 1982, the result was a complete ban on commercial whaling that went into effect in 1986. Today many of the world's whale species are thriving, but the highly-politicized IWC is, as ever, slow to react to political and scientific changes and realities.
In its effort to promote preservation over conservation, the IWC routinely ignores the findings of its own scientific committee. In 1993, the IWC scientific committee chairman, Philip Hammond, resigned in disgust. The whaling ban had "nothing to do with science," he said, and the work of the scientific committee was "held in ... disregard by the body to which it is responsible."
The case of the diminutive minke (the smallest of the baleen whales at only 30 feet long) is a good example. Some years ago the IWC scientific committee estimated the worldwide minke whale population at about one million animals -- more abundant than before commercial whaling began. Remarkably, the IWC still considers them threatened with extinction and bans any commercial harvest (Norway harvests some minkes under a formal exception to the moratorium, and Japan harvests some minkes under a legal scientific research regime).
Norway and Japan are maligned for their continued whaling, but their hunts hardly pose a threat to whale populations. In the 1997 whaling season Norwegian whalers took 503 minkes in the North Atlantic from a population estimated at 112,000 animals. In the Southern Ocean above Antarctica, the minke population is estimated at 760,000, and an extremely conservative harvest model developed by the IWC set the sustainable harvest level in this region at 2,000 minkes annually. In 1996 Japan harvested 440. Yet, at its 1996 meeting, the IWC adopted a resolution urging Japan to terminate its research and for Norway to cease commercial whaling altogether.
Countries like Japan and Norway who feel they have been adversely affected by unreasonable preservationist policies are getting fed up, and if the IWC does not begin to adapt, its days are surely numbered. Even the World Wide Fund for Nature’s (WWF) Australian outpost has called for some resumption of commercial whaling, because otherwise the IWC risks "collapsing into a total farce." Gordon Shepherd, WWF International’s director of international policy, said "The message ‘Just say no’ hasn’t worked with drugs, and it isn’t working with whales." If the IWC is to survive, it must respond to this new reality. Moreover, to become an effective forum for whalers and environmentalists alike, it must recognize and address the reasons why it has performed so poorly to date.
"The tragedy of the commons," not commercial harvest, is to blame for the decline of many whales. When biologist and environmentalist Garrett Hardin coined that phrase in 1968, he pointed out that a lack of ownership brought "species after species of fish and whales to the brink of extinction." Any whales that whalers left behind were likely to be harpooned by someone else, making conservation impossible. Valuable species left untended may be ripe for extirpation, but valuable species in private hands will not only be protected, they will be studied and encouraged to multiply by owners seeking to increase the value of their assets. One would expect the owners to conduct scientific research, especially regarding reproductive rates and recruitment of young into the population and to constantly adjust harvest rates to a conservative sustainable level. Scientists would monitor their health, checking for disease and parasites, and inoculate and treat sick whales. Patrol boats would watch over them to rescue stranded animals, to ward off attacks by killer whales or sharks on the young, and to prevent poaching by pirate whalers. Furthermore, throughout much of the year the owners would be able to provide whale watching opportunities for the public without the harassment and overcrowding now resulting from a commons approach to such ecotourism, as well as providing scientific study opportunities for cetacean biologists.
In the Pacific Northwest of the United States and Canada, native tribes like the Makah hunted grey whales for centuries without destroying stocks. Their harvests were only a small fraction of the population and they had a sense of proprietorship that encouraged conservation and stewardship. The good steward does not over-harvest his herds.
Allowing whales to be owned by individuals, groups or communities – especially traditional coastal fishing and whaling villages, would be the surest way to ensure their continued survival. Such small villages along the Japanese coast have sustainably harvested small cetaceans for centuries with cultural traditions and enlightened self-interest preventing over-harvest. Owners could benefit from measures they took to protect their whales, whether for hunting, whale-watching or merely for the satisfaction of knowing they were protected. Markets would allow those opposed to whaling to have the opportunity of voluntarily purchasing rights from the whalers, rather than relying upon political force. Just think of the numbers of whales that Greenpeace could ensure would never be hunted if it put all of the millions of dollars it spends on its propaganda campaigns into retiring harvest rights for whales.
Privatizing whales may seem farfetched, but in fact the technological obstacles to ownership are rapidly disappearing. Back in the heyday of whaling, it was simply not feasible to exert ownership over most whales. But today’s high-tech world offers myriad possibilities. In 1993, scientists tracked a single blue whale for 43 days and 2,000 miles based solely on its individual song. Other advanced technologies such as satellites and unmanned submersibles could be even more effective.
Today the IWC teeters on the brink of irrelevancy. It routinely ignores its own scientific advice and has turned into an overly politicized and ineffective forum. Traditional whaling nations, indigenous and native peoples, are increasingly outraged at the efforts of radical greens within the IWC to continue to ban their traditional cultural, historical and economic utilization of whales. They view it as heavy-handed eco-imperialism and ethnic and cultural cleansing. Increasingly they are on the verge of simply leaving the irrelevant IWC. To remain relevant, it must evolve, and its highest service to whales, whalers and environmentalists alike would be a legacy of some form of ownership over the great whales

Popeye
02-10-2010, 08:28 AM
The whale/seal thing is to remind some people from a certain country what this is really aboot.

oh , i see , you are here to inform me all aboot the grand banks

i guess you are saying you have never witnessed a japanese fishing fleet operating on or near to the grand banks , and you have never seen a japanese boat near to my shores

next i suppose you are willing to tell me what it is i have witnessed :confused:

...
do you know what a capelin is ?

George.
02-10-2010, 08:36 AM
Popeye, you are a one-man thread-pump...

Popeye
02-10-2010, 08:44 AM
i'm just getting warmed up ..

canada sets quota's .. recommended limits.. on fish harvests , seals included , the cull rate is typically 280,000 ~ 325,000 animals out of a population of 6 to 7 million (pop increased from last year) ..

around 2.5 to 3 %

10,000 to 20,000 sperm whales population caught at a rate of 10 whales per year is one tenth of one percent

norway takes ~ 500 minkes from a population of 112,000 animals in the north atlantic

in the southern ocean above antarctica, the minke population is estimated at 760,000

the iwc sets sustainable harvest levels in this region at 2,000 minkes annually , japan takes ~ 500

' endangered ' ? :confused:

.. get a grip .. :rolleyes:

Popeye
02-10-2010, 09:02 AM
here's another reality check for ya

it boils down to non-science (sounds like nonsense) and it looks like a bunch of ex-rocker hippies from the 70's who have found for themselves a niche market and have capitalized nicely and accumulated wealth in popularizing unreliable environmental notions and propagating falsehoods and half truths in the media .. if it happens to be done on the backs of the less affluent and voiceless japanese fishing villages , aboriginal people, and fisher familes from norway , iceland and canada , oh well

time to choose sides

TimH
02-10-2010, 10:32 AM
Popeye needs his own thread where he can talk to all who are listening to him - namely him.

People like whales.
Whales arent fish.
Fisherman arent noble.
SS is getting more powerful.
The Japanese will be run out of town.
Get over it.

Popeye
02-10-2010, 10:36 AM
get over it

i didhttp://z.about.com/d/pediatrics/1/0/4/R/tuna_fish_sandwich.jpg

Popeye
02-10-2010, 10:47 AM
question : if the science supported to be true what the sheps claim to be , how many milliseconds would it take them to get it to press ?

seanz
02-10-2010, 03:04 PM
A person in Dutch jurisdiction throwing a bottle at someone in Japanese jurisdiction is assault in both countries.

That's some throw.
:rolleyes::D

seanz
02-10-2010, 03:25 PM
oh , i see , you are here to inform me all aboot the grand banks

i guess you are saying you have never witnessed a japanese fishing fleet operating on or near to the grand banks , and you have never seen a japanese boat near to my shores

next i suppose you are willing to tell me what it is i have witnessed :confused:

...
do you know what a capelin is ?

You truly are a visionary.......and your whitebait is bigger than ours, big deal.




but the actions you are witnessing do nothing , except to fill the coffers of the sea shep society , what are you missing ? :confused:

Not much.
;)

Actions do nothing? Doesn't that break some sort of law? Good Lord, They're lawbreakers, call the authorities!
:p

I'm not sure why some people aren't getting this and still insist on talking about seals but it's breakfast time and I'm not wasting to much energy on it.

Mmmmmm, porridge.
:)

Duncan Gibbs
02-10-2010, 04:04 PM
interesting observation , so there are problem for seals , so what sort of deleterious effects are there for the whales who share the same ocean with the seals ? if threats come from on shore are they discriminatory ? how does toxins , algae blooms and krill affect the welfare of whale species ?


YOU drew the comparison between Med' Monk Seals and whales so DON'T try and turn YOUR stupid comparison around onto me.

Your last question is SO specious it's beyond reason.

as for;


from iwmc.org ..


They are a vested interests organisation masquerading as a "conservation" organisation and have no real interest in promoting any kind of truth. Lik e"scientific" whaling: It's a joke!

Duncan Gibbs
02-10-2010, 04:06 PM
not even asking you for a reference on this one dunc , some data to back you up , nah , not even an old fisherman's anecdote thanks

this is plain bs

I posted a whole wiki article and you failed to read it.

George Jung
02-10-2010, 07:27 PM
So, to summarize:

Photogenic animals / harvesting trumps Science / impartiality?

We're an emotional species.

Popeye
02-11-2010, 07:47 AM
pretty much george, it's what watson and his apostles take advantage of in their flock

Popeye
02-11-2010, 08:12 AM
I'm not sure why some people aren't getting this ..

well , no i don't get it, seanz from new zealand , but thanks for the daily advice column on the grand banks ..:rolleyes:

Popeye
02-11-2010, 08:19 AM
YOU drew the comparison between Med' Monk Seals and whales .. um no , i asked you if you could find out if the sheps had anything on their esteemed web site about 'critically endangered species notably sea mammals , med monk seal being one example , i couldn't find any mention of this or similar issues

lots of stuff about loving whales , but definitive stuff like which whales were actually endangered , not so much


They are a vested interests organisation masquerading as a "conservation" organisation and have no real interest in promoting any kind of truth. again , very confusing statement , do you mean the iwc are ignoring basic science and are shouting green poltical slogans instead ?

Popeye
02-11-2010, 08:22 AM
I posted a whole wiki article and you failed to read it.

don't need to , you fail to see the self contradiction in your statement

keep trying , let me know if you need help ..


all species of whales have been at or near a critical point at one time over the last 100 years. .. ummm .. care to revise ?

Popeye
02-11-2010, 08:41 AM
of the ~ 80 species of whales identified , which ones are hunted ?

of these , which whales have been hunted to a 'critical point' ?

what was done about it ?

Popeye
02-11-2010, 08:50 AM
dunc ,

can you provide some reasonable estimates for a whales 'intelligence' ? here is what i found so far ..

" in most species of cetaceans , the brain is neither very large nor especially complex " .. " (there is ) little evidence of behavioral complexity beyond that of a herd of cows or deer "
~ margaret klinowska , cambridge, iucn species survival commission

"...it seems improbable that an animal which propels itself mainly with its tail should need a more highly developed brain than , for instance, a monkey which uses all its limbs so skillfully "
~ e.j. slijper

Duncan Gibbs
02-11-2010, 10:14 AM
um no , i asked you if you could find out if the sheps had anything on their esteemed web site about 'critically endangered species notably sea mammals , med monk seal being one example , i couldn't find any mention of this or similar issues

I replied that I doubt that the Sea Shepherds can be in all places at once and that the Med' Monk Seal was endangered for a number of reasons and one of those was that it was larger causes such as environmental conditions that were probably more likely to be causing endangerment than the actions of individual fishermen. I draw a parrallel with the Barrier Reef being affected by systemic land practices as an example of the same scale of threat that a single organisation has little power to effect change over. I day say all activist groups of any kind pick their fights rather than have anonymous internet posters pick their fights for them.


again , very confusing statement , do you mean the iwc are ignoring basic science and are shouting green poltical slogans instead ?

You did not post a link from the IWC. Your posted a link from a third party web site unrealated to the IWC, with it's own agenda, that was making false assertions about the origins of the IWC. Read my wiki link about the history of whaling in Japan for the correct reasons for the formation of the IWC.

Duncan Gibbs
02-11-2010, 10:21 AM
don't need to , you fail to see the self contradiction in your statement

keep trying , let me know if you need help ..

I don't need help: You need to read the article and follow the related links. If you don't you will remain uninformed. Missinformed actually, since you insist that the IWMC is actually the IWC.


.. ummm .. care to revise ?

No! The IWC was formed to protect stocks of whales of all species since over the period since whaling was industrialised, whales generally became endangered. This is a position that has been reversed since the formation of the IWC.

Popeye
02-11-2010, 10:21 AM
Read my wiki link .. for the correct reasons for the formation of the IWC.

i did

why did canada dump the iwc in 1982 ?

Popeye
02-11-2010, 10:26 AM
I doubt that the Sea Shepherds can be in all places at once and that the Med' Monk Seal was endangered for a number of reasons .

no dunc , not 'endangered' but 'critically endangered' , i'm wondering why, issues like this don't receive even a mention .. :confused: while at the same time they focus on minke whaling ..

Popeye
02-11-2010, 10:28 AM
you insist that the IWMC is actually the IWC.

i did ? where ? quote me as such me please

Popeye
02-11-2010, 10:34 AM
.. the Barrier Reef being affected by systemic land practices as an example of the same scale of threat that a single organisation has little power to effect change over. .i see , they can send a crewed ship to antarctica but somehow not able to hire a student to move their fingers over a keyboard and do a two page write-up about monk seals

Duncan Gibbs
02-11-2010, 10:48 AM
Canada's position on whaling: (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0008542)




In the Canadian Arctic, commercial whaling had all but ceased by the outbreak of WWI. Whale stocks were depleted to the point of extinction and the demand for baleen had decreased. Along the BC coast, however, and in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, whaling continued from several land-based stations with catcher boats pursuing and killing whales and towing the carcasses to land for processing. Whaling entered a new phase internationally in 1925 with the introduction of factory ships. More recently, helicopters and SONAR (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007562) have been used, especially by the USSR and Japan, to locate whales, which are then chased by catcher boats and processed aboard factory ships. Annual catches rose dramatically: in the late 1930s more than 50 000 whales were taken annually. After formation of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1946, the killing of several species was banned completely and quotas were established to control exploitation of the rest. In 1972, the federal government ordered a halt to all whaling operations based in Canadian ports. The last West Coast company had stopped whaling in 1967; thus the government order affected only 2 shore-based operations in Newfoundland and one in Nova Scotia. The Inuit are still allowed to take whales. As a result of conservation measures, some whale stocks have shown signs of recovery. In the 1930s, the bowhead was thought to be on the brink of extinction and was declared an ENDANGERED ANIMAL (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002604). Recent studies indicate that it has survived and may be recovering slowly in some areas. Canada was a member of the IWC but withdrew from the organization in 1982. The commission had achieved some significant success; however, because member nations are not bound to conform to its recommendations, the commission can be only as effective as the whaling nations allow. Decisions have often been tempered by the desire to keep nations in the organization, where some control is possible, rather than outside, where their activities would be totally unregulated. Canada disagreed with efforts in 1980 to declare a moratorium on commercial whaling because in the absence of a clear and scientifically justified recommendation for such action from the commission's scientific committee, it felt that conservation requirements could be met under the commission's management procedure which provides for selective moratoria (zero quotas). Canada's position on the moratorium issue earned a great deal of criticism from anti-whaling groups. Nevertheless, a moratorium announced in 1982 took effect 1 January 1986. Although no longer a member of the IWC, Canada continues to ban commercial whaling in its territory and continues to co-operate with the commission's scientific committee.


Popeye, your arguments are incohenent and unfocused and you fail miserably to make any real points other than in your head. You are obviously a supporter of the practice of whaling and arging the point with you is like shovelling water.

Myself, I find the practice of whaling to be cruel and barbaric in the extreme. The Japanese are rampant pillagers of the World's oceans and require attention to be focued on the practices, which is what the Sea Shepherds are able to do.

The Med' Monk Seals' problems are far more complex than the kinds of issues that an organisation such as Watson's is able to deal with. Land practices that affect marine life, across national borders, set around a single body of water would be nigh on impossible to manage effectively. Read up on the problems besetting our own nation governement trying the manage water allocation in the Murray Darling river basin that cuts across five states and territories.

Focusing on a single practice/issue is a far better way of raising general levels of environmental awareness and dirrect action is particularly effective as a tactic.

Popeye
02-11-2010, 10:58 AM
You are obviously a supporter of the practice of whaling

nope

i simply dislike / don't trust misinformation and spin tactics , whaling is a side issue

when you or someone else is trying hard to sell me a bill of goods , i thinks it's reasonable to look under the hood to see what it is i'm buying

ignoring science is one hint , collecting money for a private enterprise is another , destroying livelihood is another , vandalism another , eco-evangelism ditto , politicizing the issue .. another .. engaging in idle bigotry one more , manipulating the media another , propgating falsehoods one more , arguing competeing values another , shall i go one ?


I find the practice of whaling to be cruel and barbaric in the extreme.

why is it 'cruel' ? just a feeling or you have some evidence ?

Popeye
02-11-2010, 11:03 AM
Canada disagreed with efforts in 1980 to declare a moratorium on commercial whaling because in the absence of a clear and scientifically justified recommendation for such action from the commission's scientific committee,

Although no longer a member of the IWC, Canada continues to ban commercial whaling in its territory and continues to co-operate with the commission's scientific committee.

thanks dunc :)

Popeye
02-11-2010, 11:06 AM
The Med' Monk Seals' problems are far more complex than the kinds of issues that an organisation such as Watson's is able to deal with.

dunc .. hello dunc ..come in dunsc ..

i didn't ask for a frick'n gunboat , i asked for a sidebar on a webpage

too much ? :rolleyes::D

paladin
02-11-2010, 11:18 AM
Capelin are those little bitty bait fish that you watch for, then turn the boat into them, run through the school, then yank upwards on your jig line to catch the cod, then gut the cod and salt them into candles for storage.
My crotch is still raw from wading in the salt.

Art Read
02-11-2010, 11:33 AM
Fascinating similarity with the whole AGW controversy....

__________________________________________________ __

"...ignoring science is one hint, (IPCC report)collecting money for a private enterprise is another, (Al Gore and the Chicago Carbon Trading market) destroying livelihood is another, Cap and Trade Bill vandalism another, (Burned SUVs) eco-evangelism ditto,MSM!! politicizing the issue .. another(Copenhagen, etc.) .. engaging in idle bigotry one more, ("Deniers")manipulating the media another, "Inconvenient Truth", Polar Bears!!) propgating falsehoods one more, Ditto "Inconvenient Truth", IPCC Reportarguing competeing values another, "Even if we're wrong about global warming, these measures STILL are the "right" thing to do..."shall i go one ?"

__________________________________________________ _

No need.

Phillip Allen
02-11-2010, 11:43 AM
keep the masses of a$$es fired up and distracted...

TimH
02-11-2010, 12:34 PM
Interesting. What Popeyes posts lack in substance they make up for in quantity. Like 3-4 Popeye posts per every other post.

Keep up the good work there cupcake :)

George Jung
02-11-2010, 02:14 PM
TimH - you disagree with the science in Popeyes posts?

I'm not a fan of whaling - but this discussion isn't (supposed to be) about that, is it?

The facts are a bit more disturbing, particularly in light of these clashes (I'm meaning between Japan/SS, not the bilge - there, you may carry on).

Most of what we see in the news is emotional 'save the whales 'cuz they're cute). This avoidance of facts - the very same response we've seen about AGW - and how these organizations have abused that weakness, should be a real eye-opener for all of us.

Is it?

TimH
02-11-2010, 02:28 PM
Problem 1: Whales are not cute, they are highly intelligent animals many of which are coming back from the brink of extiction. They dont deserve to be slaughtered for cosmetics and dog food.

Problem 2: The Japanese have already depleted their own waters, what gives them the right to go and rape someone elses waters?

seanz
02-11-2010, 02:54 PM
well , no i don't get it, seanz from new zealand , but thanks for the daily advice column on the grand banks ..:rolleyes:

We each relate to cod in our own way..........



i simply dislike / don't trust misinformation and spin tactics , whaling is a side issue

Yes, this becoming apparent. Some people are posting about whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary......some people are just posting whatever the ghost of Captain Ahab whispers in their ear.

Popeye
02-11-2010, 02:59 PM
: Whales are .. highly intelligent animals many of which are coming back from the brink of extiction. a> which whale species are coming back from the 'brink of extinction' ?

ii> give us a reference on the 'intelligence' bit

Popeye
02-11-2010, 03:03 PM
.....some people are just posting whatever the ghost of Captain Ahab whispers in their ear.

canada told 'em to pound sand back in 1982..

need a recap ?

seanz
02-11-2010, 03:11 PM
So, just as soon as TROTW agrees with Canada, we'll all be happy?

TimH
02-11-2010, 03:44 PM
ii> give us a reference on the 'intelligence' bit

Not that you could be convinced that whales are intelligent. But If you do some research you will find that they arent fish and are in fact mammals like us. Here is just one of hundreds of articles on whale intelligence:

Whales boast the brain cells that 'make us human'


15:00 27 November 2006 by Andy Coghlan (http://woodenboat.com/search?rbauthors=Andy+Coghlan)
Whales may share our kind of intelligence, researchers say after discovering brain cells previously found only in humans and other primates.
They were touted as the brain cells that set humans and the other great apes apart from all other mammals. Now it has been discovered that some whales also have spindle neurons - specialised brain cells that are involved in processing emotions and helping us interact socially.
Spindle cells, named after their long, spindle-shaped bodies, are the cells that are credited with allowing us to feel love and to suffer emotionally. Their discovery in whales will stimulate debate both on the level of whale intelligence and on the ethics of hunting them.
The cells occur in parts of the human brain that are thought to be responsible for our social organisation, empathy, speech, intuition about the feelings of others, and rapid "gut" reactions (see The cell that makes us human (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224526.000)).
Anthropomorphic angle

Now it turns out that these spindle cells also exist in the same brain areas in humpback whales, fin whales, killer whales and sperm whales.
What is more, whales appear to have had these cells for at least twice as long as humans, and early estimates suggest they could have three times as many spindle cells as us, even accounting for the fact that whale brains are larger than ours.
"It's absolutely clear to me that these are extremely intelligent animals," says Patrick Hof of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and co-discoverer of the whale spindle cells with Estel van der Gucht of the New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology, both in the US.
"We must be careful about anthropomorphic interpretation of intelligence in whales," says Hof. "But their potential for high-level brain function, clearly demonstrated already at the behavioural level, is confirmed by the existence of neuronal types once thought unique to humans and our closest relatives."
"They communicate through huge song repertoires, recognise their own songs and make up new ones. They also form coalitions to plan hunting strategies, teach these to younger individuals, and have evolved social networks similar to those of apes and humans," Hof says.
Express trains

As with humans, the spindle cells were found in whales in the anterior cingulate cortex and frontoinsular cortex - two brain regions vital for "visceral" reactions. Such reactions require fast but emotionally-sensitive judgments, such as deciding whether another animal is suffering pain, and the general feel of whether an experience is pleasant or unpleasant.
In addition, unlike in humans, the researchers also found spindle cells in the frontopolar cortex at the back of the brain, and they were sparsely dispersed elsewhere. Hof says he does not yet know the significance of spindles found in areas other than those that contain the cells in humans and great apes.
Exactly how spindle cells function in whales is still under investigation, but Hof believes the long, high-speed connections may fast-track information to and from other parts of the cortex. "The velocity of the signal is faster, and they miss out junctions on the way," says Hof. "They are like the ‘express trains' of the nervous system" that bypass unnecessary connections, enabling us to instantly process and act on emotional cues during complex social interactions.
Hof and van der Gucht suggest that whales probably evolved the spindle cells completely independently of humans and apes - a process called convergent evolution. Moreover, they probably evolved them as long as 30 million years ago, twice as long ago as humans and apes.
Spindle cells are most likely to emerge in unusually large brains which need extra circuitry to handle increasingly complex social interactions, Hof says.

more (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10661-whales-boast-the-brain-cells-that-make-us-human.html)

Phillip Allen
02-11-2010, 03:47 PM
Not that you could be convinced that whales are intelligent. But If you do some research you will find that they arent fish and are in fact mammals like us. Here is just one of hundreds of articles on whale intelligence:

Whales boast the brain cells that 'make us human'


15:00 27 November 2006 by Andy Coghlan (http://woodenboat.com/search?rbauthors=Andy+Coghlan)
Whales may share our kind of intelligence, researchers say after discovering brain cells previously found only in humans and other primates.
They were touted as the brain cells that set humans and the other great apes apart from all other mammals. Now it has been discovered that some whales also have spindle neurons - specialised brain cells that are involved in processing emotions and helping us interact socially.
Spindle cells, named after their long, spindle-shaped bodies, are the cells that are credited with allowing us to feel love and to suffer emotionally. Their discovery in whales will stimulate debate both on the level of whale intelligence and on the ethics of hunting them.
The cells occur in parts of the human brain that are thought to be responsible for our social organisation, empathy, speech, intuition about the feelings of others, and rapid "gut" reactions (see The cell that makes us human (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224526.000)).
Anthropomorphic angle

Now it turns out that these spindle cells also exist in the same brain areas in humpback whales, fin whales, killer whales and sperm whales.
What is more, whales appear to have had these cells for at least twice as long as humans, and early estimates suggest they could have three times as many spindle cells as us, even accounting for the fact that whale brains are larger than ours.
"It's absolutely clear to me that these are extremely intelligent animals," says Patrick Hof of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and co-discoverer of the whale spindle cells with Estel van der Gucht of the New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology, both in the US.
"We must be careful about anthropomorphic interpretation of intelligence in whales," says Hof. "But their potential for high-level brain function, clearly demonstrated already at the behavioural level, is confirmed by the existence of neuronal types once thought unique to humans and our closest relatives."
"They communicate through huge song repertoires, recognise their own songs and make up new ones. They also form coalitions to plan hunting strategies, teach these to younger individuals, and have evolved social networks similar to those of apes and humans," Hof says.
Express trains

As with humans, the spindle cells were found in whales in the anterior cingulate cortex and frontoinsular cortex - two brain regions vital for "visceral" reactions. Such reactions require fast but emotionally-sensitive judgments, such as deciding whether another animal is suffering pain, and the general feel of whether an experience is pleasant or unpleasant.
In addition, unlike in humans, the researchers also found spindle cells in the frontopolar cortex at the back of the brain, and they were sparsely dispersed elsewhere. Hof says he does not yet know the significance of spindles found in areas other than those that contain the cells in humans and great apes.
Exactly how spindle cells function in whales is still under investigation, but Hof believes the long, high-speed connections may fast-track information to and from other parts of the cortex. "The velocity of the signal is faster, and they miss out junctions on the way," says Hof. "They are like the ‘express trains' of the nervous system" that bypass unnecessary connections, enabling us to instantly process and act on emotional cues during complex social interactions.
Hof and van der Gucht suggest that whales probably evolved the spindle cells completely independently of humans and apes - a process called convergent evolution. Moreover, they probably evolved them as long as 30 million years ago, twice as long ago as humans and apes.
Spindle cells are most likely to emerge in unusually large brains which need extra circuitry to handle increasingly complex social interactions, Hof says.

more (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10661-whales-boast-the-brain-cells-that-make-us-human.html)

where did the raw data for the science above come from?

TimH
02-11-2010, 03:58 PM
where did the raw data for the science above come from?

NOT Japanese whalers if that is what you are trying to say.

Phillip Allen
02-11-2010, 04:03 PM
NOT Japanese whalers if that is what you are trying to say.

I'm not trying to say anything...it was a question

TimH
02-11-2010, 04:09 PM
I'm not trying to say anything...it was a question

Do some research and find out. Its a fascinating subject.

Phillip Allen
02-11-2010, 04:10 PM
I'll be satisfied with the regooglesearch of others here