Sea Shepherd handicaps Japanese Whalers with rancid butter

[Annces]

The Japanese Government says anti-whaling protesters have hurled butyric acid onto a Japanese whaling ship off Antarctica, hurting four crew members. The whalers responded by spraying the activists with water from four hoses.

The whaling ship Nisshin Maru and the Sea Shepherd vessel, Steve Irwin, came within 10 metres of each other during the exchange, which lasted over an hour until the activists had run out of missiles. Japan's top Government spokesman Nobutaka Machimura says it is an unforgivable act and Japan strongly protests. "This is an act that tries to unfairly harm the safety of a ship and crew that is acting within the law at sea," he said.

Members of the Sea Shepherd group have confirmed they threw more than 20 bottles and packets containing foul smelling and slippery substances onto the Nisshin Maru. The Steve Irwin's captain Paul Watson says the substances are harmless. "The material that we threw onboard is non-toxic and organic, in fact it's even food grade, so it certainly hasn't injured anybody," he said. "I personally saw the impact of every container, and not one container landed anywhere within the proximity of a person."

Japan says two crew members and two coast guard officers have complained of pain after being hit with the acid, which can potentially burn the skin and eyes.

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith has condemned the Sea Shepherd's actions.

The Japanese Government says it will lodge formal protests with the governments of Australia and the Netherlands, where the ship is registered.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/03/2178466.htm

[flvegan]

1. *snicker*

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I doubt the sincerity of any injured whalers. If they had been, there'd already be pictures and video. They said the same thing last year, and it was unfounded as well.

"Acting within the law at sea" my ass, whalers.

[kristopher]

49. The whaling is legal

Before getting into the technical issues a word about the similarity to antiabortion activism.
The analogy is precise. Here is why:

-The law is clearly on the side of the Japanese.
-The law is clearly on the side of those who support the right to choose.

-The Japanese DO NOT share your "value" that killing a whale is in any sense "murder".
-Prochoice people DO NOT share the "value" of antiabortion activists that abortion is in any sense "murder".

-The Japanese are being subjected to all means of "the ends justifies the means" type of harassment, intimidation, political pressure, legal trickery, and even on occasion terrorism, under the excuse that what they are doing is "murder".
-Abortion providers are being subjected to all means of "the ends justifies the means" type of harassment, intimidation, political pressure, legal trickery, and even on occasion terrorism, under the excuse that what they are doing is "murder".




The agreement to pause whaling isn't and never was an agreement to ban whaling. It isn't and never was, an agreement to set the catch level permanently at 0.

The bulk of the scientific evidence has been in since well before the 1982 agreement to "pause whaling" (that is the actual verbiage used) but the Japanese agreed to a TEMPORARY SUSPENSION because the USSR admitted it had been underreporting the number of whales it had been taking.

When the evidence became overwhelmingly clearly, obviously, unambiguously, undoubtedly established that the minke had recovered to level that was safe to harvest, the Japanese appealed to resume whaling that species.
They were stonewalled, and stonewalled, and stonewalled.

It was obvious even before the pause that antiwhaling forces were trying to alter the mission of the IWC for considerations that had nothing to do with managing the whale as a resource. In spite of that, the Japanese, good citizens that they are, understood the uncertainty caused by the USSR's actions and went along with this.

However, when the Commission refused their repeated request to live up to their mandate and authorize resumption of commercial take of minke, the Japanese felt relieved of the obligation to act honorably with those who were acting dishonorably.

Their reasoning was that if the animal rights activists had hijacked the IWC and essentially threw its mandate in the trash through legalistic trickery disguised under the cover of "more scientific study" (sound like anyone we know related to climate change?), then they, the Japanese, were free to act in the same legalistic fashion.

And so they commenced "scientific whaling". Here is the provision in the law they are operating under:

ARTICLE VIII, Paras 1-3

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.

2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.

3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.

You will note, if you have an ounce of honesty in your body, that this provision allows the Japanese to do what they are doing.
Yes it is a loophole; so is the "pause" that has extended now to 22 years

As far as to the Australian claim to the Antarctic exclusion zone the Japanese have been operating it, it has no basis in international law. Japan isn't the only nation that doesn't recognize this claim, it is so far outside the guidelines for national sovereignty over the seas as set forth in the LAW OF THE SEA TREATY (to which Australia is a signatory) that the international community has rejected it en masse.

You (the antiwhaling activists) are making up the law as you go along and piss on anyone that doesn't like it.

Sound like any antiabortion activists you know?

[MaryCeleste]

59. Interesting post

I do not support whaling, its not required to feed people and is uneconomic at this point. However, your post does define why it is legal under the IWC and gives some history.

What I fear most is the "ends justifies the means" thinking, moral relativism, and willingness to embrace vigilantism when it could well get people killed. The Antarctic is dangerous enough without grand standers like Watson putting people in harms way.

There are better/stronger means available to stop whaling, but its not on the agenda for any nation at this time. That is how it get stopped.

[Mythsaje]

66. "That is how it get stopped."

Hmmm. What, rely on the governments, who at this point don't seem to care, and hope that someday in the future someone actually does something that might eventually stop it?

What's going on right now is that the courage and determination of a few people is turning the issue into a matter for public discussion. As people discuss it, and become emotionally involved in the debate, they start putting pressure on their governments. The governments wouldn't just put it on their agenda. It takes public pressure to make that happen. And without the press the battle generates, that pressure just wouldn't come into being.

Helping to free slaves and bring them into the North via the underground railroad was, at the time, a kind of vigilantism. It was people acting against injustice in defiance of accepted law. Sometimes doing what needs to be done requires people step over what someone else might see as a line that shouldn't be crossed.

That's very much a point of personal perception.

[MaryCeleste]

67. Because governments are the only way to get it stopped

Watson has been at this for years without making much of an impact. The whaling goes on, and is in fact increasing (Iceland). His grandstanding IMO will backfire when there is a tragedy at sea and the entire movement will take a major setback due to his ego. You are right that people need to make this a national priority, but with Watson getting all the PR, few people are doing a damn thing. Greenpeace is steering a better course on this.

Finally, your analogy was flawed. The Underground Railroad was indeed committing illegal acts, but it was not taking law enforcement into its own hands. The distinction is important.

[yewberry]

78. The whaling is not legal.

-The law is clearly on the side of the Japanese.
Um, what? No, it's not. The Japanese government is ignoring, even flouting, the law. They're pretending that this is a 'scientific' mission, and that's a huge joke.


-The Japanese DO NOT share your "value" that killing a whale is in any sense "murder".
Some do, some don't. The Japanese government doesn't, but they don't listen to their population (which doesn't accept whale meat, as evidenced by the massive surplus of whale meat in Japan.)


-The Japanese are being subjected to all means of "the ends justifies the means" type of harassment, intimidation, political pressure, legal trickery, and even on occasion terrorism, under the excuse that what they are doing is "murder".
No they're not. The Japanese government and its pet whaling companies are being subject to pressure, and for good reason.


Anti-abortion activists target private, personal, legal acts and threaten individuals seeking legal medical help. Anti-whaling activists target illegal corporate/governmental acts and threaten corporate/governmental entities who thwart international regulations.

You're full of crap, friend.

[MaryCeleste]

79. How about a point by point refutation of his points

Your response does nothing to disprove his annotated points.

His analogy is right on, Watson is as much a vigilante and the anti-choice freaks who bomb clinics.

[yewberry]

84. Are you joking? This analogy is completely off.

The Sea Shepherd and Watson are fighting for protection of whales based on international law. SETTLED INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Anti-choice idiots ignore the law and attempt to single out and harm individuals and medical providers who function within the law.

Watson and the Sea Shepherd are trying to enforce the protections of international law. Comparing Watson against anti-choice terrorists is completely inappropriate.

[MaryCeleste]

85. Its perfectly on point

Its not settled international law. Japan is whaling based on a loophole in the IWC rules. The Australian claim to that area is not accepted by most nations. Its gray at best. Iceland is no longer a member of the IWC and has no restrictions on its whaling.

According to the UNCLOS, Watson is basically a pirate. The sponsors of the laws/rules he claims to be enforcing have disavowed him. He is illegally enforcing questionable rules and claiming privledges he does not have. He is doing it in the name of Neptune etc and that it is a higher morality than current laws. He is no better that the anti-choice idiots.

[kristopher]

80. And your sources?

Besides your own biases, that is?

The original charter of the International Whaling Commission is crystal clear, it is an organization dedicated to managing a commercial resource. I suggest you reread the post you responded to.

As to my take on the Japanese position it's simple, I've personally interviewed hundreds of Japanese on the topic and I suspect I understand the feelings of the people of the country better than the average person on DU. Of course, it is still my opinion, and you don't have to accept it. But, there is no wiggle room on the point that the whaling operations are legal.

[yewberry]

81. My sources are not personal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission#The_1986_moratorium

Not withstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits.


The moratorium grants two exceptions: scientific whaling and aboriginal whaling. Japan has been whaling under the banner of 'scientific' whaling, and it's a lie.

You're right--there is no wiggle room about the legality of whaling. Japan continues to ignore international law re: whaling. It's illegal.

[MaryCeleste]

87. You are not the determining official

What is the determining authority under IWC rules about scientific whaling?

While you are at it, consider that a non member country, like Iceland is not bound by IWC rules, and may resume commercial whaling whenever it wishes.

[ellie]

101. I can't believe that there are people

on DU that are siding with the whale killers under the guise of a scientific mission. It is insane.

[MaryCeleste]

125. I dont like whaling or the loophole they are using but supporting viglantism

and "ends justify the means" thinking is worse

[flvegan]

91. Legality performed under the guise of a lie.

Sound like an occupation of Iraq?

The whalers are also "hunting" in a restricted zone. They choose to not recognize it, so it's okay.

Sound like an occupation of Iraq?

The whalers were going to take endangered humpbacks this year in violation of the ESA. They didn't really care to recognize the Act.

Sound like...oh, you get the idea.

[MaryCeleste]

95. Admitedly it is a loophole, but does that excuse vigilantism?

Australian claims to that region are unrecognized.

ESA is US only law.

[flvegan]

96. So long as you refer to it

as "vigilantism" you skew the discussion.

The claims to that region are unrecognized by the Japanese.

[MaryCeleste]

100. The claims are not recognized by many nations

[The Stranger]

2. GO SEA SHEPHERD!

Someone is doing something right in the world.

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. Watson should fricken' ram the bastards

I believe as a captain he has the right to enforce martime law in international waters. (not sure)
If the japanese are breaking martime law, and by whaling in a sanctuary they are, he should warn them to cease and desist or he will be forced to stop them.
If they don't desist, disable their ship by whatever means necessary.
that simple

[MaryCeleste]

5. Typical lubber comment

He has no authority to enforce maritime law
- The IWC is not considered maritime law
- Boarding the whalers as he threatened to do (and has now backed off from) is piracy. And can be resisted with lethal force.
- Their recent attack would also be considered piracy and the whalers would be well withing their rights to shoot them.
- Intentional ramming would put all the vessels and the souls aboard at significant risk. It would also cost him the ship.

Watson is doing his usual grandstanding, this time claiming
- Trained boarding party ready to go aboard the whalers and destroy machinery (piracy)
- That he has satellite locater beacons aboard the whalers (doubtful)
- That there are Japanese Coast Guard about one of the ships (this one is true)

Watson is apparently now sailing under a Dutch flag. If he keeps it up, he may well loose that. You should read up on the rules about unflagged vessels.

I am no friend of whaling, but Watson et al are vigilantes. He has admitted that in the past, as recently at 2/23. I try to be consistent in what I do and do not support. Since vigilantes are abhorrent, I can not support Watson or his tactics.

[The Stranger]

12. Regarding the following:

He has no authority to enforce maritime law
- The IWC is not considered maritime law
- Boarding the whalers as he threatened to do (and has now backed off from) is piracy. And can be resisted with lethal force.
- Their recent attack would also be considered piracy and the whalers would be well withing their rights to shoot them.
- Intentional ramming would put all the vessels and the souls aboard at significant risk. It would also cost him the ship.

Can you provide citations to authority supporting these?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

13. Citations

"Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft. Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state."

"The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) defines piracy as: the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act."

I hope he loses his dutch flag for this crap..

[LeftyMom]

15. Maybe they should spank the whalers instead. nt

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

18. Of course I hope they spank the whalers

However I have no stomach for vigilantism.. What was done was Piracy and the threats of 'ramming' or boarding are *defiantly* piracy..

[The Stranger]

34. You are apparently not well educated on the subject.

No one is flying the "dutch flag."

And what you post exonerates Sea Shepherd because they do not engage in any form of theft or crimes for private ends.

Not even the Japanese contend that they are robbing the Whaling ships. And, in fact, no one would want to steal whale meat.

Also, give the link for what you are cutting and pasting.

[MaryCeleste]

41. Actually the OP article specifically state that the Sea Shephard is sailing under a Dutch Flag

This has been an issue in the past since Watson has lost vessel registration in multiple countries. Where a vessel is registered does matter. Some here claimed he was sailing under an American Indian flag, which is unrecognized. An unflagged vessel is subject to search and seizure. Though not exhaustive the concept of a vessel's flag is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience Netherlands vessel registration records do not appear to be online, so it can not be verified.

Damage is enough to substantiate the charge of piracy, whether they profit from them or not is not relevant under UNCLOS.

UNCLOS can be found here: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm and summarized here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

[The Stranger]

45. Then . . .

If it is a flagged vessel, then it isn't subject to search and seizure.

I looked through UNCLOS at the UN link you provided and cannot see anywhere piracy anywhere discussed, much less anything supporting your assertion that "damage is enough to substantiate a charge of piracy." Is there a case supporting it?

[MaryCeleste]

48. Actually it is

but under much more stringent conditions?

Did you read the text of the treaties?

[Clovis Sangrail]

35. as this isn't for private ends I don't see that quote as showing

piracy.
:shrug:

[MaryCeleste]

17. See if this helps

http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/sais_review/v025/25.1dillon.html has a good excerpt on piracy definitions. Its also interesting to note that Australian officials have said that if Watson's crew forcibly boarded the whalers it would be illegal

Maritime Law is codified under the UNCLOS and other treaties. There is also acknowledgement of historical traditions as well. Then there are the historical texts such as Rocks and Shoals for the USN which was supercedded by the UCMJ. IWC is not considered by any relevant authority (including the IMB) as being Maritime Law and for that matter neither are the Geneva Accords. That does not mean a nation should not abide by them on the ocean, just that they are not maritime law.

Intentional ramming is an act of war or piracy (depending on who does it). Basically you are not allowed to intentionally damage another vessel in peacetime. There are rules of the road that determine right of way. It is incumbent upon all vessel operators to maintain safe distance etc.

What few non-sailors realize is that there is no blue water police force. What there are treaties that go back centuries on maritime law that are basically unchanged. That is where the 3 mile limit (now changed), innocent passage etc comes from.


Google can be your friend here, you might want to read up on the IMB etc.

[The Stranger]

46. Interesting that the only link you provided seeks to "re-define" it to include "maritime terrorism."

The current definition of piracy is completely inadequate as a tool for policymakers. The leading statistics and reporting systems are misleading. Most acts cited are not classic boarding and hijacking of merchant vessels on the high seas. A reformulation of the definition of piracy will help focus efforts at combating the scourge.

Current definitions of piracy are inadequate as a tool for policymakers and need to change. According to Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak, "At present the International Chamber of Commerce's International Maritime Bureau (IMB) groups all forms of piracy under one category of piracy. Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore feel that acts of piracy should be separated according to the crime committed."1 To meet his challenge to provide a useful definition for maritime crimes, the U.N. International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the IMB should revise existing definitions of piracy to include four categories of maritime crimes: corruption, sea robbery, piracy, and maritime terrorism.

Not only does that imply that what is going on is not piracy, as the definition is inadquate for the author's purposes, this group wants to expand the definition conceptually.

[MaryCeleste]

47. It is footnoted and also contains citations of current maritime law

Others have given additional citations.

[Clovis Sangrail]

37. Vigilante?

In many countries a citizen who witnesses the commission of a crime is legally justified in arresting the offending party.
Granted, they generally don't have the same legal protections as law enforcement, but it is legal for them to do so; in some cases it's a moral imperative for them to do so.

IANAL, or even particularly conversant in maritime legality, but I would be extremely surprised if there wasn't something similar to a citizen's arrest in international waters.
Else there would be no legal footing for anybody offer forceful aid in real cases of piracy.

I'm curious, would somebody engaged in a legal citizen's arrest be considered a vigilante or a good citizen?
Is the term vigilante just somebody who takes justice into their own hands, or somebody that takes justice into their own hands illegally?

All in all I've got to say that I'm really not bothered in the slightest by people like Watson ramming or scuttling whalers.... regardless of legality.
Working within existing laws is good but isn't always enough.
History has borne this out over and over again.

[MaryCeleste]

43. Yes, vigilante

There is no citizen arrest concept within maritime law. Vessels can help one another.

He has scuttled vessels and damaged others. Attacking the vessels and its crew is piracy as defined by UNCLOS

He claims to be enforcing courts and laws that are questionable in jurisdiction and without a writ from those authorities. He is not behaving legally, even according to the jurisdictions he claims to support.


If you have no problems with vigilantes, next time a cop goes rogue, or a someone shoots someone in the back while they are fleeing, I will expect you to come to their defense...

[Clovis Sangrail]

51. depending on the situation I might come to their defense

It might make you feel safe to think of the world as black and white but the reality is that it's not.
I'm actually very curious regarding the whether a vigilante is only a vigilante when he is acting outside of the law.

Regarding UNLCOS, I don't think it's nearly as clear as you'd like to believe.
If Watson was that obviously guilty of piracy somebody would have justifiably seized his ship as per Art. 105

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm

Surely if were guilty of piracy the Norwegians or the Japanese would seize his ship.
It's got to be worth a fair amount of money.

I think the fact that they haven't shows that they don't think they could make piracy charges stick.

[MaryCeleste]

52. It is a mixed bag

I abhor whaling. I also abhor the gratuitous risk of human life on the high seas. I state both as a long term blue water sailor.
I abhor vigilantism and "ends justify the means" thinking because of all the tragedy it has caused in the world.

Right now Watson is treading a thin line. He claims but it can not be proved he scuttled several whaling vessels awhile back. His current actions are right on the line. For example, the two members who illegally boarded one of the whalers could easily have been taken back to Japan for trail. Instead they returned via a deal made through the Australians. Watson has kept out of areas patrolled by the Japanese Self Defense force and is curiously leaving the Norwegians alone. My guess would be that if Japanese Coast Guard representatives are along as he claims, a major incident could result in them taking action. More importantly if Watson actually tries to live up to his hyperbole, the Netherlands will pull his flag, which would be a serious problem.

His vessels are worthless commercially. That is why he has them. They might bring a few dollars at the breakers dock, but that would be about it. Its literally not worth the bunker oil to seize them.

[Clovis Sangrail]

76. a 'few dollars' ? 0.o

As a 'long term blue water sailor' why don't you tell us all what kind of "chump change" the Sea Shepherd ships would bring?
$100? $1,000? $10,000? $100,000? $1,000,000?

If he's known to be a pirate they don't have to spend a bunch of money to chase those ships down, they can just seize them when they're docked.
Why do you suppose nobody does?

It might be tenuous, but Watson very obviously does have some legal basis for his actions.
He's been doing the same thing for 30 years and isn't sitting in jail.

[MaryCeleste]

77. Yes, as ships go

SCCS has very little funds. If the ships were worth much they could not have purchased them. Their value is basically what the breakers could get for parts and scrap. http://www.maritimesales.com/index.html is a site if you are looking at buying them a better vessel. And here for the history of their fleet: http://www.seashepherd.org/fleet/fleet.html

No formal charges at this point, though if actually does that mass boarding he has threatened, that may change. Review the videos of the prior boarding, and the clip of what purports to be an armed Japanese Coastie. If they try that again, it will be easy to corral them and take them prisoner. Then the fun and games will really begin. It was discussed in one of his recent postings. http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080229_1.html Its not clear if he will actually try it. His postings contain so much bombastic hyperbole its hard to tell what is real. The one thing that is clear is that he is drinking some of his own bathwater.

Another key item will be vessel registration. The Netherlands should pull his after this season. By his Watson's own accounts, SCCS has had vessel registrations lifted in the past and it has been a problem. http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_070214_1.html

Overall Watson seems to be ratcheting things up more in recent years. I believe he will be tolerated until someone dies from his antics. Then the boom will be lowered on him, so to speak. I also believe in the long run his actions will hurt the anti whaling movement. Not surprising since he is a classic vigilante.

[Clovis Sangrail]

90. you failed to answer the question... how much are the ships worth?

I honestly don't know and I'm looking forward to hear what you consider to be 'not worth it'.

regarding his future actions hurting the anti-whaling movement, I can't read the future so that's possible.
However, his much more 'direct' actions in the past have undoubtedly benefited the environmental movement as a whole.
(and some at that time said the same thing you are saying now)

When I was a kid whaling was never a part of the national dialog.
Later in my life I watched it become a part of that dialog, largely as a result of people like Watson.
That's a plus for the anti-whaling movement.

[MaryCeleste]

93. Cant really tell without surveys

Which is really a detail inspection. The Farley Mowatt is a older design whose mission was really a government vessel. Little to no commercial need for that kind of ship outside of maritime law enforcement. However its parts (depending what they are) could be worth something. The Robert Hunter does not have enough detail to say much one way or the other.

As for the PR thing, Watson has been ratcheting things up. Each year he has to go a bit further to stay set the press coverage he so dearly seeks. Blocking the harpoons with RTBs isn't good enough anymore, now he has to illegally board vessels. That kind of thing.

Outside of boards like this, I don't see whaling on anybody's agenda. If anything it has slipped.

[Clovis Sangrail]

104. but they are worth something

and that something is likely non-trivial to the average American.
Probably very non trivial to poorer nations.

It's not just the US, or the aggrieved nation, that can go after a pirate ship, any state can.
If he's really guilty of piracy I have a hard time believing that some nation doesn't do so.

[kristopher]

102. How old are you

Whaling has been part of the national dialogue since long, long before you were born. Have you ever heard of New Bedford Mass.? We have a very long history of harvesting whales in this country.
It has only been a recent development where some in the country have decided that this is an amoral practice, so it is possible (and I assert this to be true) that the development you've witnessed isn't a symptom of Watson, but rather that Watson is a symptom of a developing consciousness.

Personally, I think it started with the TV show Flipper.

I mean, do you really think Eric Rudolph bombing abortion clinics was positive for the antiabortion activists that propelled an otherwise stagnant movement, or do you think he was a product of people with deeply held values becoming frustrated?

And for the record- there are many similarities that can be drawn between Rudolph and Watson, but I think it fails here - Rudolph acted purely out of belief; I think Watson is more motivated by money. Without these antics performed for contributors what else does he have?

[Clovis Sangrail]

103. I should have been more clear

whaling is obviously nothing new, but the environmental and anti-whaling movements are.

In the early 70's, before the sea shepherd and in the infancy of greenpeace, the average american had likely never had occasion to consider the morality of whaling.
Out of sight out of mind as the saying goes.

By the mid 80's that was changing, and by the 90's there were few Americans who were not at least aware that there was a battle raging between pro and anti whaling forces.
This awareness came largely because of the controversy generated by Watson and others like him.

Regarding similarities between Rodolph and Watson, your contention that Watson is in it for the money is specious at best. I don't think his motivations are pure, and I think like nearly every career captain there is a certain amount of their own power trip that enters the equation.
However, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe money is the primary motivator for SSCS or Watson.

As far as I know, every violent act has been accompanied by planning or advance warning sufficient to reduce or eliminate any threat to human life.
Which is more consideration than most whalers give to the whales or to our shared environment.

[kristopher]

105. Would you answer a related question?

What do you think is the root of this new attitude towards whales?

To use fictional media as a guage, to go from moby dick to saving the planet in star trek is a pretty big leap. And I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of those who are cheering Watson on (although I do doubt him), I think their moral outrage is real and every bit as strong as the rhetoric indicates.

If you had to explain this change, this metamorphosis to a person who hasn't experienced it, what would you say to make them understand?

[Clovis Sangrail]

107. ok

What do you think is the root of this new attitude towards whales?

largely awareness

If you had to explain this change, this metamorphosis to a person who hasn't experienced it, what would you say to make them understand?

again.. awareness.
I honestly don't think there really is much of a 'metamorphosis' of opinion, at least on a personal level.
It's a matter of people becoming aware of things that they're already opposed to and of how they are involved in those things.

I honestly don't think the civil rights movement was so much of a metamorphosis of our opinion as it was society becoming aware of the fact that the opinions we believed we held (freedom, equality, etc. etc. ) were in conflict with our actions.
Our morality didn't change to suit our actions - our actions changed to try to fit our morality.

[kristopher]

110. Thanks, but

I'm not sure that fits what I've observed. We have gone from a whaling culture to a culture where a substantial percentage of the population feel comfortable considering the killing of a whale to be murder. I'm not sure there was a dormant sense of anthropomorphism towards whales to be brought to the surface by an undefined awareness.

To me, that indicates a fundamental shift in values. Certainly we possessed the prohibition against the taking of a human life, but what caused us to extend that prohibition to the whales. We see the same shift in values regarding other animals also.

If you think of anything else, I'd be interested in hearing it, but in any case, thanks for the response.

[Clovis Sangrail]

113. awareness

when whaling really was a required part of people's lives, say the 1700's, the people in society who didn't whale were aware that it was necessary and had direct positive, important influence on their lives.
That generally outweighed any moral qualms they might have had with it.

Fast forward to the future and most people see no benefit to their lives from whaling. Beyond that many more of them are now aware of what whaling really looks like and see that it is at odds with their morality.
Lacking an imperative that makes it acceptable many people are now aware that it conflicts with what they would like to think their values are.

[kristopher]

115. So it is like buying beef in the supermarket

Then making a visit to a farm, seeing a cow get slaughtered, then becoming a vegan?

I think you're nibbling around the edges, but my intuition tells me it's deeper than that.

I mean, why whales, specifically? If what you say were the entire story, it would be a value with much broader applicability, right?

[Clovis Sangrail]

118. I don't think what I said is the 'entire story'

just a good explanation for the bulk of it.

as for people becoming vegans because of what they saw at the farm... it's really the same.
They saw something that made them aware of how their food is really produced.
For some people the desire to eat meat/not be different/whatever is great enough for them to either ignore the reality, or they recognize it and make a decision.
(regardless of what that decision is)

People lie to themselves to fit things into the morality they'd like to have all the time.. and just because they become 'aware' that some of their actions regarding slaves or segregation or whales are in conflict with their morality doesn't mean that there aren't other aspects that remain in conflict with what they believe their morality to be.

[mainegreen]

4. "butyric acid". Oh noes, ACIDS! IT BURNS! ... Oh wait, you can eat this stuff.

It's in cheeses for crying out loud.
It's like crying out that vinegar hit you.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

6. What kind of a moron

Thinks throwing something described as "foul smelling and slippery" onto the deck of a ship at sea is harmless? I dont care how 'food grade' something might be! A ship at sea is a dangerous place and coating the deck in something making it even more dangerous should be criminal!

[Annces]

10. The Japanese are acting illegally

by killing whales in a whale sanctuary and lying saying they are doing it for research. The police are scared of them though (Australia).

Why don't you direct some of your righteousness at them?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

11. Speeing is also illegal,

does that make road rage ok?

[Annces]

28. If that is the equivalent for you

then you really don't support activism or conservation of whales.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

36. Its not about equivalency, its about two rights never making a wrong

Period...

I could have said child molestation is wrong but does that make shooting the per while he is being sentenced ok?

[depakid]

40. If you're a Dad- you'll be singing a different toon in the coming decades

this is just the opening salvo of what will NECESSARILY become commonplace as countries like Japan refuse to follow international law and deplete the worlds (read- your children's) fisheries.

Sorry to tell you, but your high horse arguments will have little bearing in the 21st Century.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

53. So are you advocating

Vigilante justice? What crimes is it or is it not ok to take the law into your own hands...

[MaryCeleste]

54. Check Post #49 (2nd after the OP), which makes the case that the whaling is legal

I've never looked that deeply into it, since I disagree with whaling, but the poster makes a good argument from a legal side.

[LanternWaste]

30. Those insidious bastards!

Those insidious bastards! A Flying Butter Bomb could bring down the whole worl.... um, an entire ship... oops, take off an arm... dammit- try again-- annoy the crap out of someone!

Oh the humanity!!!

(Maybe the technologies have greatly advanced since I did a season on a lobster boat-- but in my day, something described as foul smelling and slippery would pretty much describe the entire boat...)

[originalpckelly]

7. What kind of sissies are hurt by rancid butter?

:shrug:

[Igel]

33. Link

http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/n-butyric_acid.htm
Corrosive. Causes eye and skin burns. May cause severe respiratory tract irritation with possible burns. May cause severe digestive tract irritation with possible burns. Combustible liquid and vapor. May be harmful if swallowed. Harmful if absorbed through the skin.


http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Butyric_acid-9923216
Very hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion. Hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant), of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive, permeator). Liquid or spray mist may produce tissue damage particularly on mucous membranes of eyes, mouth and respiratory tract. Skin contact may produce burns. Inhalation of the spray mist may produce severe irritation of respiratory tract, characterized by
coughing, choking, or shortness of breath.... The substance is toxic to lungs, the nervous system, mucous membranes.


Yep. Watson's engaging in virtuous chemical warfare. And a bit of spin.


Vinegar doesn't hurt you either, and most people haven't been hospitalized because of skin irritation caused by Pepsi. Would you like to be hit by food-grade acetic acid? Perhaps have food-grade phosphoric acid flung at you?

Nah, thought not.

[IndianaJones]

8. Steve Irwin the Crocodile Hunter? Hunt whale bad...hunt croc good. nt.

[RedCappedBandit]

9. Uh, what?

[LeftyMom]

14. Don't mind him, he's

:crazy:

[cboy4]

16. Someone has to fight for the whales.

My only regret is they only threw 20 bottles and packets.

[IndianaJones]

19. this is why they invented the ray gun. nt.

[MaryCeleste]

20. Does the end justify the means

Watson's methods make him and his crew vigilantes. While I abhor whaling, I can not support his tactics.

To keep himself in the eyes of the press, Watson keeping doing more and more outrageous things and making truly silly claims. When (not if) people get killed because of his actions, what will happen? You are aware that the Japanese ships can shoot back for what they are doing?

[cboy4]

21. The people who fight for the whales are willing to risk

their lives.

They're that passionate about it, and I fiercely support their efforts.

But I respect your views.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. And people who believe abortion is murder

often engage in illegal and violent methods to advance their cause. They believe fervently that they are morally right, and that moral rectitude permits them to break the law and harm others.

It's wrong when they do it, and it's wrong with Sea Shepherd does it.

[cboy4]

23. If I thought the whalers were playing by the rules, I

might agree with you.

But I don't, so I have to reject the analogy.

[MaryCeleste]

24. What rules?

Not being flippant, but they have are using a loophole that gives them some legitimacy with the IWC. They could also resign from the IWC and not be bound by them at all. Note that the IWC rules are only binding on members. The economic zone and whale sanctuary are not internationally binding either, and the Australian court is nothing more than sideshow in this event. Its not nearly as cut and dried as some (including Watson) would have us all believe from a legal perspective.

I believe that Australia and other should be taking stronger stances against whaling, and not just the Japanese whaling. (For $100, name a European nation who is also whaling, and make sure you response is in the form of a question).

Vigilantes should never be acceptable or supported

[cboy4]

26. Yea I know. Norway is another pain in the ass country.

These "vigalantes" are not blowing up boats or shooting at crews.

They're making the whalers' jobs miserable.

And that's the way it should be until diplomacy works.

[MaryCeleste]

31. And some native americans as well

Watson have indeed sunk ships in the past (in port), and the Antarctic waters are dangerous enough without foreign material that reduces footing or illegal boardings. They are not just making the whalers job harder or miserable, they are making it more dangerous. That is a non-subtle distinction.

The Japanese have really been very passive and just taking it from Watson. Sooner or later, they will have had enough and RTBs with boarding parties will be sunk and illegal boards will not be repatriated but taken for trial. That is what it make take to stop this ongoing vigilantism, short of the loss of life.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Well

it's debatable whether Japan is playing by the rules or not. The IWC doesn't make maritime law, and as Mary Celeste points out, they could just leave the organization.

However, there ARE binding maritime regulations regarding piracy, and Sea Shepherd is clearly in violation of those rules.

[MaryCeleste]

25. Great Reducto Absurdum...

Vigilantes are never acceptable

[Annces]

29. Sea Shepherd is acting under the law

They are protecting whales from poachers. Why doesn't Japan sue them? Because Japan knows they themselves are the criminals.

[MaryCeleste]

32. Nonsense

They are vigilantes at best. Read some of the other posts here about maritime law and the limited scope of the IWC.

Questions for you to consider:
- What court would the sue them in
- Why is what the whalers doing illegal
- Who's undisputed jurisdiction is this occurring in

If you understand the legal situation, you would realize that there are no easy answers to those questions.

The other question is "Is what the Watson doing legal?" The answer is he is in clear violation of the UNCLOS. If he goes much futher, the Dutch should pull his flag and then he is in the soup. Unflagged vessels have no rights.

[-..__...]

98. Funny you should mention that.

Butyric acid attacks were a common tactic favored by anti-abortion groups...

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE/Butyric Acid Attacks

Butyric acid is a clear, colorless liquid with an unpleasant, rancid, vomit-like odor. Anti-abortion extremists began using butyric acid as a weapon against abortion facilities in early 1992. The goal of introducing butyric acid into a clinic is to disrupt services, close the clinic, and harass patients and staff. Depending on the amount used and how it is introduced into the clinic, butyric acid can cause thousands of dollars of damage, requiring clinics to replace carpeting, furniture, and conduct extensive cleanup of the facility. In addition, even after cleanup, butyric acid's smell leaves a reminder of the incident for months, and often years, to come.

There have been about 100 butyric acid attacks throughout the United States and Canada, causing in excess of $1 million in damages.

The table below contains fewer than 100 entries. This is because in many cases multiple clinics were targeted in the same city on the same day.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/butyric_acid.asp

[MasonJar]

38. I am sincerely appalled at the DUers who are denigrating these

honorable and brave men/women who are trying to save living creatures from unnecessary death, just so the Japanese government does not lose face. What else could it be? No one wants the whale meat. The Japanese are wrong here. The world condemns their atrocities and these brave sailors are trying to fight the wrong. I say Hallelujah! They should be commended by every conservationist in the world. Governments should have stepped up and did not. This is the equivalent of murdering innocent gorillas in the mist. It makes no sense. The Japanese had to pawn the meat off on helpless school children I am boycotting all Japanese products, unfortunately including their cars.

[MaryCeleste]

42. Their goals are laudable, their vigilantism is repugnant

unless you are going to accept that the ends justifies the means...

[Robb]

50. Clearly moral relativism is not dead on DU

...Perhaps we should start assassinating all the bad people in the world. Bound to fix things.

[Mythsaje]

56. Or maybe we should just start mocking them.

Oh, wait. We already do that.

[MaryCeleste]

62. Indeed

[Mythsaje]

64. Yeah, and so is any understanding of nuance or moral ambiguity, apparently. n/t

[MaryCeleste]

65. Clearly you are having difficulty in that area

I don't like whaling any more than you do. However, I am unwilling to accept an end justifies the means approach due to its history of tragedy. Vigilantism has a similar track record. Taking that into account is clearly the more more nuanced position vice the "sink the bastards" approach being used by many here.

The other part is I am unwilling to participate in the cheap feel goodism that many here have about Watson. He is cheered but nothing else happens. People go to bed knowing that they support the whales and Watson and somehow life is better. Maybe they even sent him a few dollars too. Watson is not the answer. There are other whaling nations he ignores. If you want to end whaling, get it on the national agenda with your representatives. Its an easy win, yet you do not see it on any national candidates agenda. There is a clue there...people are willing to cheer Watson and his vigilantes, but unwilling to work the system to reach a real solution.

[Mythsaje]

69. A few dedicated people writing letters isn't going to turn the tide...

What will turn the tide is MASS involvement, which requires publicity. To get publicity, sometimes one must go to extremes.

Ramming them is a dumb idea because it would gain us nothing. What they're doing now...well, it certainly raises their profile. People are talking about it. Which gets them emotionally invested in the outcome. Which means THEY'RE more likely to do something to make their feelings known.

Then there's the other side of it. The people out there doing what they feel is necessary because the governments aren't doing a damn thing. They're risking themselves because they can't accept the status quo, which seems to be about pretending that it's all fine and dandy, that a few people bitching and moaning can actually change anything.

The only time anything has ever changed was when people started putting themselves on the line to make it happen.

[MaryCeleste]

71. Watson is not going to either, however when he screws up big time and he surely will

given his escalations to stay in the news, the entire anti whaling movement is going to take a serious hit. Does that sound like progress to you?

Even with Watson and all of his antics, outside of DU and other political action boards, I hear NOTHING about whaling. Its not in the M$M, its not part of any campaign by any Democratic candidate I know of. Oh if asked they will say the right words, but nothing really happens.

[I work for workers]

83. "To get publicity, sometimes one must go to extremes."

"We agree!"

[flvegan]

97. Lame. n/t

[Mythsaje]

127. Cheap shot.

How impressive.

[Andrushka]

39. On Japanese TV news last night...

"The ("research vessel") Nisshin Maru was attacked with biological weapons" was basically the line.

Afterwards, the obligatory "editorial" from the "newscasters" included this curious exchange:

He (with usual furrowed brow): "Mmm. The Australian government has a lot to answer for. This is going too far."

She: "The Sea Shepherd is actually registered in the Netherlands."

He: "Yes, but, it leaves from Australia. One wonders if they actually really care about the whales at all and this isn't something else"


After which I said to my (Japanese) wife: "Yes, that's right. It's us "Jap-hating" Australians again. We secretly don't give a damn about the whales."

Good grief. x(

[Truth2Tell]

44. Recommendation for Sea Shepherd!

I wonder if they're using a "Butter Gun?"



:rofl:

[Mythsaje]

55. "Vigilantism is never justified."

Yeah, maybe we should all stand around wringing our hands at the immoral actions and attitudes of the Japanese whalers, or, better yet, send them an internet petition telling them we think they're being bad, bad people and we will not, under any circumstances, ever buy rancid whale meat from them.

I wonder if a person had the opportunity to stop a lynching, but had to resort to some level of violence to do it, those who are griping here would be so quick to condemn him or her.

Sometimes to stop something that is wrong, one has to take extreme action, whether they're condemned for it or not.

I'm on the side of the whales. This sort of butchery has gone on long enough. They've got enough to worry about, what with the water pollution, noise pollution, and everything else we're visiting upon them. We shouldn't stand by and watch them be slaughtered for no reason.

Is it murder? Dunno. It isn't "homicide." That much is certain. And who knows whether or not whales are sentient as we understand it. Not me. But they certainly can't defend themselves against these attacks, so it behooves those of us who can to stand up and do what WE can.

What's going on here may make some people uncomfortable. But the other option is to turn away and pretend it's not happening and hope that someone, somewhere, somehow, can stop it from happening. For many, that's just not enough.

Slaughter whales from ships, slaughter wolves from airplanes. Hey, it's all good if we don't have to pay attention, right?

I just don't get some people here and I suppose I never will. All things considered, maybe that's for the best.

[MaryCeleste]

57. You are making the classic ends justifies the means argument

Which is responsible for a lot of misery on this planet. Think it through. You are also using the exact same argument the anti-choice freaks use when they blow up womens health clinics and kill people. Fine philosophical company you keep

[Mythsaje]

58. Oh, right. Because inconveniencing whalers is JUST like

blowing up abortion clinics and killing people.

Much better to do nothing at all.

Glad we got that straight.

[MaryCeleste]

60. No, its vigilantism, anyway you cut it. The shoe fits, wear it with pride.

[Robb]

61. OK, how about this:

...How many times has history judged "ends justifying the means" well?

There are examples, I'm sure, and I'd like to hear your take on them.

[Mythsaje]

63. Well, we had to fight a war to free the slaves.

And we had to fight another one to stop Hitler, as well as Japanese Imperial aggression. The "means" are something we generally don't like, and would prefer to avoid, but the "ends" pretty much made up for it.

Such things are rarely black and white, as much as we'd sometimes like to think they are. One might argue that ignoring an imperative to stop something inherently wrong is in itself immoral, particularly when one has the ability to step in and actually do something about it.

There are no absolutes.

[MaryCeleste]

68. If you think that was the main reason for the Civil War, you need to retake US History

[Mythsaje]

70. Well, no shit.

That's how a lot of people around here like to paint it, though. That the people in the North fought to free the slaves and the people in the South fought to keep them. It IS the most simplistic view of it, but it makes people feel happily superior.

Regardless, sometimes the ends DOES justify the means. It depends on the ends, and the means.

[northzax]

72. what if I blow up a clinic in the middle of the jight

having given enough warning to ensure no casualties (or having made an attempt to eliminate the chance of casualties? Is that acceptable? Why not?or are you prepared to argue that violence to save whales is acceptable, but to save humans is not?

[flvegan]

92. Epic fail.

First, it's not "violence to save whales". That's a cute spin, but it doesn't work.

Second, your commission of multiple felonies of premeditated arson and destruction of property would land you in prison. This BEGS to question the fact that with all the parallels drawn to Sea Shepherds "vigilantism" and "violence" where are the authorities to arrest them? Their whereabouts are no fucking secret, yet nobody comes for them. Why is that?

Because, it's a fight they'd lose, and they can't afford it.

[lonestarnot]

73. P U

Tee hee.

[ellie]

74. Rock On Sea Shepherd!

[HuffleClaw]

75. if this criminal vandalism had been directed at say, hillary's campaign bus...

i rather suspect people here wouldn't be cheering it on. ok, well at least HALF of the people here wouldn't be ! ;-)

[LeftyMom]

82. Is her campaign bus violating at least two international agreements

and running over endangered species?

Kinda a bad analogy. Please take the campaign wars back to GD:P and close the door behind you.

[MaryCeleste]

86. Which agreements and which species

[LeftyMom]

88. CITES and the IWC ban on commercialized whaling.

All of the targeted species (after being forced to exclude humpbacks, fin and minke whales remain on the menu) are protected under CITES and fall under the IWC commercial whaling ban. Some species do not, notably any dolphins and porpoises and some smaller toothed whales, but all of the great whales are included.

[MaryCeleste]

94. Did you read the fine print?

Japan is claiming scientific research and withing the letter of the law so there is legal cover for what they are doing. Post #49 has history and Iceland or any other on-member nation is not required to abide by the IWC

CITES only restricts international trade and is not binding on non-signatories.

I don't take this position to support whaling as much as to point out this is not nearly so black and white as some think. Also I object to Watson's antics that are vigilantism at its worst which in the end will hurt the anti-whaling efforts.

[LeftyMom]

108. I'm perfectly aware that Japan claims their hunt is non-commercial.

Since they sell all of the meat, and since none of the tests performed (mostly basic measurements, observations of diet, and other things that can be looked at in a non-lethal manner) are of any interest to scientists, it's also an obvious cover for a commercial hunting program.

Japan is a CITES signatory, and the hunt is international in scope, as they are in waters which are, depending on who you ask, either international or under Australian control. Japan has also shown interest in buying whale meat from Norway, though the current economic woes of the ICR and glut of whale meat make that unlikely.

Please keep in mind that quite a few of us are perfectly aware of the legal issues involved in this.

[kristopher]

111. CITES doesn't apply to the involved species of whales - they aren't endangered.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna...

Not even close.

[LeftyMom]

112. The fin whale is listed in CITES appendix 1, as is the minke.

Please don't post things that aren't true.

[kristopher]

114. You are correct. It is listed in Appendix 1 of CITES

However, that doesn't affect their right to conduct "scientific" whaling.

Their assertion (backed up by a very large amount of data) is that the minke doesn't belong on the list and has recovered sufficient to be commercially viable. The listing in CITES isn't, unfortunately, any more authoritatively valid than the politicized science promulgated by the Bush administration.

Answer a question for me. What is the real reason you object to what the Japanese are doing?
Why aren't you equally as incensed about Iceland?

I'd really appreciate it if you could explain it to me as if I were someone that didn't know anything about whales; you know, a typical person of sometime in mankind's past that has an anthropocentric view of the world.

Perhaps that might be a more productive use of time...?

[LeftyMom]

120. The "scientific" part is a sham, and everybody knows it.

If we allow such a transparent ruse to override international law, shall we allow equally "scientific" inquiries into the effect of black rhino horn or dried tiger penis on human erections?

As for the matter of the minke, they are still WELL off of their historic highs, as scientific evidence has made abundantly clear for some time. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2003/2003-07-25-10.asp DNA evidence shows that the IWC's estimates of pre-whaling populations of minke and fin whales are 8-10 times lower than the actual population, so the IWC's 51% threshhold for resumption of whaling may represent only 5% of a healthy population. The case against sustainable whaling of any species is much stronger now than when the moratorium went into effect, and with the future vulnerabilities of whales to climate change (we know that past climatic fluctuations have killed off many thriving whale species, thanks to the fossil record) and the resultant changes in currents and food supply, erring on the side of caution is vital to protection of all whales.

As for Norway, I've posted quite a bit on that issue. I'm not posting much right now because there's very little news on that front- they're not whaling in the northern winter, but a quick scan of my past posts reveals that I've discussed quite a bit about the legality of their withdrawl from the IWC, their recent announcement of next year's quota, the proposal to sell some whale meat to Japan, and any number of related topics. There's more to discuss about the Japanese whale hunt since it's currently underway, and interest in Australia and New Zealand has led to very good press coverage for once.

So why is whaling problematic? I explained some upthread, but to continue:

- I don't think there's a fast or humane way to kill a whale for meat. The Japanese factory ships routinely average 20 minutes to kill even the minke, which are small for great whales.

-Species which reproduce slowly to low numbers are not good choices for any hunt which chooses to call itself sustainable.

-I think matters of ocean conservation tend to be given less weight than they should be. Our oceans are, sadly enough, in even sorrier states than many terrestrial environments. Whales are still at bare fractions of their historic numbers, sharks are in many cases doing even worse, and many bony fishes are also in dire shape.

[kristopher]

122. And what kind of sham is it when an organization set up to manage commercial whaling

Substitutes the goal of stopping whaling because SOME of the members develop a moral objection unrelated to managing the species as a resource.

Why do you insist on arguing a lie?

The FACT is that NO WHALING IS ACCEPTABLE TO THOSE OF HOLDING YOUR VALUES.

The science you are pointing to is a sham.

The claims about killing METHODS are a sham.

The FACT is that NO WHALING IS ACCEPTABLE TO THOSE OF HOLDING YOUR VALUES.


Stop lying about it.

You'll be much more successful if you work to establish the validity of your values instead of trying to have them honored through trickery, cultural arrogance and bullying.

[LeftyMom]

123. The numbers I posted show that there is no possibility of a viable commercial hunt at this time.

Hey, I'm not in any way dishonest about my desire to preserve the lives of all species (it's in my sig, so there's a reminder every last time I post where I'm coming from.) But now that you've made my personal opinions an issue, care to explain why you're so damned upset about the prospect of not killing whales?

As for nations opposed to whaling at the IWC? I can't speak to all of their motives or long term goals. At this point, I don't think it matters. Whether one believes that whaling should be resumed someday or that whales are deserving of human protection and always will be, there's no realistic case that whaling can be resumed for any species now, or that the day where the issue will become debatable will happen any time soon. It took generations to take so many species so close to the brink. It's probably going to take even longer to bring them back, because whales are slow breeders, and we've left the oceans in sorry shape.

The IWC has changed as what we know about whales has changed. Do I think the IWC's mission should be revised to one that emphasizes whale populations as being valuable from a conservation standpoint and because of their intrinsic worth as a species and individually, rather than as floating sacks of meat and industrial lubricant, as whalers treat them? Of course. But that's the current paradigm whether it's clearly stated in writing or no, every member country knows it, and those who object can choose to do as Norway did, or make a good case for shifting back to the resource management paradigm and try to shift the policy.

So far, what Japan is doing instead is to attack the integrity of IWC by buying memberships for cash-strapped nations with no interest in whaling but every interest in staying on the good side of a wealthy trading partner, essentially buying votes, and to use the "scientific" whaling loophole to violate agreements to which it is a signatory. THAT is deception.

[kristopher]

124. There you go questioning my motives.

Why don't you put a sock in the propaganda and LISTEN.

You (generalized to include all those who refer to killing whales as murder) are NOT making unbiased assessments of the "science" to meet the goals of the original mandate of the IWC.

You have adopted a deep seated value that is affecting your JUDGMENT.

It causes you to INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE TO ACHIEVE A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.

All your talk about "realistic case" and "erring on the side of caution" are (internal to you) justifications for cooking the books your way. They are your rationalization tools that allow you to insert your values in place of the mission statement of the organization as it was formed by group consent. Read your post -

"The IWC has changed as what we know about whales has changed. Do I think the IWC's mission should be revised to one that emphasizes whale populations as being valuable from a conservation standpoint and because of their intrinsic worth as a species and individually, rather than as floating sacks of meat and industrial lubricant, as whalers treat them? Of course. But that's the current paradigm whether it's clearly stated in writing or no, every member country knows it, and those who object can choose to do as Norway did, or make a good case for shifting back to the resource management paradigm and try to shift the policy."

That is a partisan, not an objective observer trying to find a solution to a problem.

Your complaint about Japan "buying memberships" is just one more in a long list. If you trace the evolution of the membership of the IWC you'll find the Japanese were being their usual imitative selves. We did it first and they just retaliated.

Let me repeat my central point:

You (again as a representative sample of a group) have developed a NEW value that is deep seated and real. It is so at odds with what is the historic position of our anthropocentric culture that you yourself can't come to grips with it. However it is so strong that it is demanding that you take action to correct the circumstances that are violating this value. You can't articulate the basis or nature of the feelings you have because it isn't something we've really encountered before. If you can't articulate this involuntary and compelling belief structure you've developed, how can you possibly confront those who don't share it except by indirect methods and tactics?

The use of these indirect methods and tactics may seem reasonable to you because of your need to relieve the cognitive distress you are experiencing, however to those who do not share that distress, your methods and tactics are an obvious cover for ulterior motives.

I have more but before I go on, I want to ensure we are on the same page.

Take as a given that I share your motives. Entertain for a moment that I'm not trying to box you in for the purpose of causing a continuation of your distress.

Does the analysis I've presented so far make sense?

[MonkeyFunk]

89. Individuals don't have the right to enforce

international agreements.

Vigilantism is wrong.

[flvegan]

99. Sections 21-24 of the UN World Charter for Nature

Here, I've provided a link:

http://eelink.net/~asilwildlife/wcn.html

[kristopher]

106. What do you see in this statement of principles that you consider relevant?

[MonkeyFunk]

109. Yeah

I find it meaningless. The UN doesn't have the authority to give such authority.

The fact is, I think whaling is abhorrent.

I also think vigilante violence is abhorrent.

[HuffleClaw]

117. have you no sense of humour?

i was poking fun at the hillary vs. obama sniping.

[Number9Dream]

116. Sir Anthony Hopkins on whaling

I've noticed that the posters who defend whaling often include words to the effect, "I abhor whaling, but..." or "I'm personally against whaling, but..." . They have different priorities. Some here are saying, "I abhor whaling, but not as much as potential harm to the butchers." Guess they "abhor whaling" only a little bit. Some here feel that the slaughter of sentient, feeling mammals is barbaric regardless of "legal loopholes". For many, ending the firing of grenade-tipped harpoons into baby mammals takes priority over legal hair-splitting. And stop with the abortion clinic analogies. The comparison is illogical and offensive.

Sir Anthony Hopkins on whaling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViCNl6vLH1g

[kristopher]

121. If the analogy is offensive, it isn't because the analogy fails

It is because you still have a sliver of intellectual integrity and you don't like having to look in the mirror.

Speaking of being offended. Your remarks about the motives of those who condemn the tactics of Watson as being extremely counterproductive to the goal of ending whaling are full of shit.

Your problem is that you are losing site of what it means to be a proud member of the reality based community. You want to brand those who disagree with your methods as a sort of traitor to "the cause".

That's wrong.

[MaryCeleste]

126. Its not about whalers vs whales is about supporting vigilantes and saying the ends justify the means

which is what many here are doing. The "sink em all" attitude is no better than what we see out of many of those we despise, just differently targeted.

And yes, I don't think whaling is needed or appropriate, but I am still an omnivore

[Annces]

119. Watch video of Sea Shepherd throwing stink bombs here

http://video.stuff.co.nz/assets/stuff_963518_Footage_300k.wmv




http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4425527a6479.html

[otherlander]

128. Rancid butter...

I'll keep it in mind.
:thumbsup:

Materials for the disabling of 1 bulldozer:
1 can spraypaint
1 bag cotton balls
1 container anchovie paste
1 banana