112 replies to this topic

[vincentkneefel]

To get back to the topic, two interesting articles:

Sea Shepherd on top in PR war
Pirates or crusaders? Sea Shepherd willing to do anything to save the whales.

It has even converted former Howard government environment minister Ian Campbell, now on the Sea Shepherd's board of advisers. When he was a minister, Campbell slammed Watson's verbal offensive against whalers as "deranged" and hinted at legal action against him.

Edited by vincentkneefel, 17 January 2008 - 06:30 PM.

[zippsy]

Vincent, they convinced a poitician to flip-flop on a prior stand????? That is almost earth shattering news. "Almost" being the key word. Now if they could convince some Japanese politicians to change their mind, I would be more impressed but their tactics make it much harder for that to happen. That is why I think that they do more harm than good. Winning over an Australian in this case may look like progress to some but it isn't.

[vincentkneefel]

Do you honestly believe anyone could ever convince Ice-landic/Japanese/Norwegian/etc politicians to stop doing something that is part of their culture and tradition? At least not voluntarily I think.

In this case it is easier to convince the rest of the world that what Norway, Japan, Iceland, etc are doing is wrong, than to convince these countries to stop what they are doing.

Also, one could argue that whales in general can be considered world heritage because a lot of people have sympathy and emotions for these mammals. So for Japan, Norway, etc to hunt every year approx 2000 whales, which can feed, let's say 20 million people; this only accounts for 0.003 percent of the entire global population! Because they are doing this, maybe more than 20 percent of the global population feels emotional pain because of the images shown on television. This is more than 30.000 times as many people as the ones that are eating whale meat...

Furthermore, whales also serve as an example for other threatened animal species: if there is a reluctant standpoint on whales, how are we ever going to stop sharkfinning, the seal hunt, etc?

Edited by vincentkneefel, 17 January 2008 - 07:31 PM.

[danielandrewclem]

Thought this might be another good time to link to the New Yorker profile of Paul Watson. Love him or hate him, it's good to know what's driving him.

This part is funny:

Watson spends nearly as much time writing as he does planning for campaigns at sea. He has written several books and, on a Panasonic Toughbook computer that rarely leaves his side, produces a constant stream of poems, essays, and blog postings. Much of his writing is autobiographical, and he seems unable to discuss his personal history without giving it mythic contours. In the opening pages of “Earthforce!,� a strategy manual for radical environmentalists that he self-published in 1993, he wrote, “I was born on December 2, 1950, in the hereditary lands of the Huron on the north shore of Lake Ontario,� which was his way of saying that he was born in Toronto. He went on, “I was raised in the east, in the lands of the Alquonquin Micmac on the shores of the Passamaquoddy Bay�—in other words, in the Canadian province of New Brunswick.

Anyhow, it's a much better glimpse of the guy than you'll get on CNN (which these days is about as substantive as Fox News).

[shawnh]

Hey folks,
I am very interested to hear from the anti-Sea Shepherd contingent exactly how they are bringing an end to whaling. I continue to hear character attacks on Paul and his supporters as well as challenges to each of his tactics. Fair enough.

So for the benefit of this those reading this thread, what are the ACTIONS (read not rhetoric, ideas or plans) that you are taking that are bringing and end to whaling (read not just trying). If these are proving more effective than Sea Shepherds, you have my full support.

Shawn

I would love to hear no rhetoric on this request and just a straight answer?

[Craig Ruaux]

Well Shawn, I'm going to start by saying that I'm Sea Shepherd neutral, and pull a Socratic inversion on you.

What substantive evidence do you have that the actions of Sea Shepherd, either in the past or with this more recent escalation with direct confrontation and physical attacks on vessels, have reduced whale mortality in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary?

We know, for instance, that there was a suspension of Japanese plans to take Humpbacks this year. If you believe the story of how that came about, as released by NOAA:

The concession follows several rounds of talks between the Japanese IWC vice-chairman and chairman Bill Hogarth, who is also the head of NOAA’s Fisheries Service. Hogarth has maintained a dialogue with his Japanese counterparts since the IWC meeting in June. The Japanese whaling fleet set sail on November 18.

Japanese officials told Hogarth they would postpone the harvest of humpback whales at least until after the next annual meeting of the IWC, slated for June. This year, Japan was planning to target 50 humpback whales for the first time in its Antarctic research program along with 50 fin whales and up to 935 minke whales.

(source http://www.noaanews....1_humpback.html, corroborated by the State Dept )

I see little evidence of Sea Shepherd or Greenpeace brokered diplomacy being involved. I also note that Sea Shepherd did not release any acknowledgment of this turn of events on their news release page (http://www.seashepherd.org/news.html).

Because of the extremely emotional, charged, controversial nature of any investigation into whaling practices, it is very hard to find substantive data regarding whale numbers taken each year. I have looked pretty hard, though, and I can find no evidence that Japan has failed to reach its self assigned quota in any recent year, with the possible exception of '07 due to the Nisshin Maru fire. And as both Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace are at pains to point out, they had nothing to do with that fire.

If anything, I would imagine that Sea Shepherd's actions strengthen the resolve of the Japanese whaling vessels to achieve their quotas, as to fail to do so would mean a loss of face. True, they do drum up media attention on this issue annually, but other NGO's and conservation groups also achieve this without engaging in illegal practices.

Like it or not (and, again for the record, I don't like it), the Japanese whaling activities in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary are being conducted via a completely legal loophole within the structure of the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling. Throwing acid at a ship, deliberately fouling propellers or steering gear, boarding a ship without explicit permission, nailing boards onto the sides of another ship, these are all explicitly illegal actions.

When Sea Shepherd as an organization acts outside the law, to my mind it puts upon itself a burden of proof, not only that its action are morally "correct" but that they have a measurable impact. So far I have not seen that these actions have had a measurable impact on whale mortality.

Japan was well within its rights as a member nation of the IWC to allow itself a quota of humpbacks this year via the scientific whaling loophole, abhorrent as we all find this. The decision to suspend this quota was arrived at following legal diplomatic efforts and with no input from Sea Shepherd.


One thing that I will add via an edit - I find Sea Shepherds' position that they are following the UN World Charter for Nature as a legal footing disingenuous at best. For those that are interested, the text of the UN World Charter for Nature can be found here: http://www.un.org/do.../37/a37r007.htm I can see at least six of the general principles stated in that document that Japanese researchers could use as an argument to support their "research", and I see no statements that I would like to use as an argument to support extralegal vigilante actions.

Edited by Craig Ruaux, 17 January 2008 - 11:59 PM.

[zippsy]

Hey folks,
I am very interested to hear from the anti-Sea Shepherd contingent exactly how they are bringing an end to whaling.

So for the benefit of this those reading this thread, what are the ACTIONS (read not rhetoric, ideas or plans) that you are taking that are bringing and end to whaling (read not just trying). If these are proving more effective than Sea Shepherds, you have my full support.

I spent two days of my holiday in Sydney two years ago stopping people from donating to the Sea Shepherd guys who were campaigning for money on a street corner in Sydney. I reckon that did as much to stop whaling as I could have done in two days. As noted, I think their actions hurt the anti-whaling cause more than help it so stoping them is a positive in itself.

Apart from that, feel free to criticize me for not picketing the Japan, Norway, Iceland or Inuit embassies or lobbying the International Court of Justice or throwing acid. I'm guilty as charged on those points.

[shawnh]

Interesting responses. I suppose avoiding the question is easier than admitting that one is doing nothing for the cause but criticizing (or subverting) those that are trying. I suppose if one disagrees with the actions another is taking to try and drive change, one can then take comfort in their own inaction. That approach has led to the constant "sucking sound" as our oceans rapidly empty of sea life.

I for one consider this a shame.

[Drew]

So for the benefit of this those reading this thread, what are the ACTIONS (read not rhetoric, ideas or plans) that you are taking that are bringing and end to whaling (read not just trying). If these are proving more effective than Sea Shepherds, you have my full support.

Shawn
You call going from 0 whales hunted in 86 to 1000 this year effective? Japan dropped humpbacks from the list not because someone threw acid on the whaling boats but because of the international condemnation, which SS and GP played a significant role in.
The point is there will be no end to whaling. Just managed in lower numbers so that the populations can still semi-flourish. That is the realistic goal. To expect zero hunting from anyone is the same as expecting zero emissions of whatever greenhouse gases, it's a quest that is Don Quixotesque.
While I don't like it, limited hunting is the compromise that will work in the end. It's called reality. And the only way to do that is to get all whaling nations back to the IWC stables to control their take.
In the effective short term, the Green Peace tactics are more sane if not as spectacular. Blocking and disrupting hunts, with 'non-confrontational' tactics (read Mahatma Gandhi) is something that is doesn't endanger other people's lives. It's also been effective. And the truth be known that Green Peace also supplied the coordinates for the Steve Irwin to find the whaling fleet, so they need the help. They just don't want to be associated with using assault and trespassing tactics which endanger other people. That's something I admire and support. Rhetoric is concentrating on the japanese which seems many people quickly condemn, rather than the Norwegians, St Vincent, Icelanders, Indonesians who per capita hunt more whales than the Japanese. It's easy to pick on the biggest kid on the block because of the PR factor.
Not only that, the issue of invoking nationalist pride, which stunts like these can only provoke (just as it seems Japanese whaling seems to provoke an emotive response in many of the respondents) which blind people to the issue at hand. If you pick on one nation alone, when others are breaking the same 'law' then the effects of the campaign is counterproductive, especially in that particular country. I think the results speak for themselves. It's culturally effective for every EXCEPT the Japanese.
I don't know if you remember the campaigns against the Norwegians when they started hunting again years ago. Has that brought about a stop in whaling in Norway? Or did it start nationalist pride which blindly supported the inefficient whaling industry in Norway for years? This is not rhetoric but reality. The Norwegians still take about 500 (out of 1000 planned) whales from a population of about 90-120k for 4.7 million people in the North Atlantic annually. Yet they stop on their own because they can't sell the meat or store it.
The Japanese 'plan' is 850 out of 750k-1.1million minke population for 160 million people. The whalers in Lamahera, Indonesia took out 50 whales (a mixture of pilot, sperm and bryde's) for an island of 50k, and they hunt locally only. The WWF is working with those whalers to develop a whale watching industry.

I would love to hear no rhetoric on this request and just a straight answer?

You want a straight answer. It's easy to punch a person out for being obnoxious and unruly, it's harder to convince them that what they are doing should be controlled. GP, WWF and so many agencies do that on a daily basis and get no applause or effectual support. But cater to the baser instincts of cathartic release by confrontation, and you get some cheers (even from the GP/WWF people). That's your answer. There are many programs out there working to this end. And these organizations are REALLY trying to save the critically endangered cetaceans like the Hector and Maui dolphins whose numbers are in the low hundreds. But the politicans would rather pick on foreign interests since it doesn't affect their own fishing fleets and gains them popularity, which is the biggest reason for their support.

[zippsy]

Interesting responses. I suppose avoiding the question is easier than admitting that one is doing nothing for the cause but criticizing (or subverting) those that are trying.

I didn't avoid the question and it's not my fault you don't understand why. I've double checked and I figure I'm clear enough. I think the point is that we disagree on whether Sea Shepherd is positive or negative for the cause. I certainly agree that they put in a zillion times more effort than I do - but negative work is still a bad thing, IMHO.

As an analogy, I think those Palestinians that are lobbing missiles into Israel are hurting the Palestinians cause too. I doubt they agree with me.


edited to add: Drew just reminded me. I also bought a lot of those t-shirts from a group lobbying (peacefully) for an end to whaling. You know the ones, "Save a whale. Harpoon a Norwegian."

Edited by zippsy, 18 January 2008 - 12:48 AM.

[timrock]

Nobody needs whale products anymore. Its just about selling whale meat. I was in Tokyo a few months ago and a little restaurant had it for sale. Stop the demand and you'll stop the need to supply it. Same with sharks. Its crazy that nations can't agree on a little conservation issue like this and annually resort to extortion and bribery to get whaling approved. If they can't get this obvious little lie by Japan exposed and dealt with, global warming remedies among world nations are doomed.

There's a big picture here. Saving the whales may not save the world, but it my help wake up a few dinosaurs who think in the 1800s and live in 2008.

Brazen as it is, Sea Shepard has my respect and support.

Best,

Tim

[Drew]

... Inuit embassies or lobbying the International Court of Justice or throwing acid.

That's ok... if you picket the Greenland, Canadian and US embassies, you'll have covered their 'forced' nationalities.

I suppose if one disagrees with the actions another is taking to try and drive change, one can then take comfort in their own inaction. That approach has led to the constant "sucking sound" as our oceans rapidly empty of sea life.

The floccinaucinihilipilification of inaction is often the excuse of those who wish to justify their actions for a cause. The present evidence is clear that these confrontations are not effectual in stopping the Japanese from whaling other than to disrupt a few weeks of whaling of one of 5 whaling boats.
It's also presumptuous to say that people are sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Many others have been in the frontline for environmental causes (you know who's been on SS projects in the 90s) but don't feel the need to broadcast it to justify their right to criticize dangerous behavior. I'm sure the Norwegians and Japanese feel the same way about people criticizing them for whatever they do. If anything, the feeling of inability to affect change is one of biggest motivators for activism. However there is peaceful activism and the other kind you seem to advocate.
Sea Shepherd does some good, especially in the Galapagos Marine Park. It's one thing to put yourself in front of a harpoon to show you are against what they are doing, it's another to lob acid, sink and ram ships and endangering other people's lives to prove your point. One shows resolve, the other shows lack of restraint. I can't be clearer than that.

[bartusderidder]

The floccinaucinihilipilification....

A pleasant way to learn words :-)

I am very sorry, I did not mean to be offensive in that sort of manor at all. My grandfather was in one of the Japanese concentration camps in Indonesia, so he used the word a lot. In the Netherlands it is not used used for derogatory purposes, but more in a ludicrous manor.

Anyway, I will be more careful in picking my words next time.

Nice try, Vinniespinnie,....

Edited by bartusderidder, 18 January 2008 - 04:45 AM.

[vincentkneefel]

Nice try, Vinniespinnie,....

Excuse me Bart? First of all I already offered my apologies, secondly I explicity stated that it was not my intent to use this word in a racial manor. I do not want this to be part of the discussion we are having because it is totally irrelevant.

Jap is no more than a shorter version of Japanese and I asked some Japanese friends of mine, who said that they are not offended by this word. E.g. in Latin America and the Netherlands, the words Negro and Neger are generally accepted words and do not offend black people, while in the US this is a completely different story. The only reason why some people see Jap as a bad word, is because it was also used in WWII and they rather forget about everything that happened.

[vincentkneefel]

Just to make absolutely clear: I did not mean to insult the entire Japanese race/population, it was not a derogatory remark.

My sincere apologies if I did: I should have been more cautious in putting my words together.

DISGUSTING burger.

Edited by vincentkneefel, 18 January 2008 - 02:18 PM.

[triswebb]

I would just like to come on here and add my full support for Sea Shepherd's methods. To back up another earlier point, it is easy to sit behind a computer and condemn others methods when in comparison you do very little. The whale hunt is not short of barbaric and any method used that can halt/slow down its progress is completely justified in an attempt to save this intelligent and beautiful creature. By taking more extreme methods they are once again bringing this to the forefront of world attention and ultimately, I hope a peaceful end to this.

In a closing point, I find it utterly depressing that others can get on somebody's back regarding a completely innocent use of the word 'Jap' - I mean, come on guys, how pathetic - I used to enjoy the forums as a place where the ridiculous political correctness that we are plagued with on a daily basis by politicians did not exist!!

thanks,

tristan

[danielandrewclem]

Sea Shepherd is hardly the only organization in the world that is trying to protect whales or other marine life; it's just the only one that talks about itself as though it IS all alone in its efforts to protect whales. This is Paul Watson's modus operandi. He clearly takes pleasure in being an iconoclast, an outcast from the mainstream environmental movement, and a misanthrope. He's the hero; everyone else is an ineffectual pussy, a stupid "hominid". His m.o. makes sense to him. It's satisfying, it's fun, it's romantic and dramatic and "heroic" in a quixotic way. (Really, read that New Yorker article. It's not a hit piece.) He does things "his way," like the Sinatra song.

Fine. To each his own.

And clearly there is enough legal gray area that allows for some nations to research whales to death, just as there is legal gray area (though arguably much less so) that allows Watson to do things his way. Both sides know what they are doing; nobody here is innocent. They are opponents duking it out on the high seas, each side calling the other a "terrorist" and weaving in and out of loopholes while spinning it all to appeal to their supporters and inflame their opponents.

Fine. Another battle between two opponents who are convinced they are right. (See Israel vs. Palestine.)

But it's pretty simplistic to judge one man's idea of "action" as superior to the action of others, or more effective and successful, simply because his actions are dramatic, telegenic, dangerous acts of physical confrontation. Obviously there is no gesture of whale protection that is more straightforward as ramming a whaler with a ship, and in many ways that kind of dedication is appealing in its clarity of purpose. But the most blatant or straightforward action is not necessarily the best, the most effective, or even minimally effective. In the proximate sense, yes, Watson saves nearby minke whales when he disables a whaling ship that was bearing down on a pod (at least for the time being); but in the ultimate sense, in the big picture, there's little evidence that Watson's actions are tipping the balance or skewing world opinion in favor of a complete, enforceable moratorium on whaling. On the contrary, he makes many people think, "There goes another eco-terrorist who hates people and hates the law. These environmentalists are going too far." Watson may inspire a small minority of people (some of whom have money with which to support his ways), but he also turns many people off from giving a shit about Japan's whaling because his tactics are so questionable. So what's the net outcome? And does Watson even consider this, or is he mainly concerned with tactics that are proximately effective rather than ultimately effective? Does he only care about winning battles or does he want to win the war?

As Drew has pointed out, you can work for any cause without doing it in a way that is illegal or self-destructive or self-defeating. "By any means necessary" has a certain ring to it, but if a given mean is proving to be counterproductive or the equivalent of treading water, then maybe that mean should be reconsidered. No?

Remember the image of the student dissident standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square? It hardly would've been a galvanizing, iconic image if the student had instead thrown a molotov cocktail into the tank.

The whale hunt is not short of barbaric and any method used that can halt/slow down its progress is completely justified in an attempt to save this intelligent and beautiful creature. -Tristan

Do you believe in the rule of law? One way we could effectively halt whaling would be to sink every whaling ship on Earth. Would that be "completely justified"? Would it be okay to kill the Japanese whaling crews?

By the way, keep in mind the innumerable horrors that have been committed throughout history in the name of protecting or "saving" something.

[Drew]

I used to enjoy the forums as a place where the ridiculous political correctness that we are plagued with on a daily basis by politicians did not exist!!

Tristan
WP is an international forum with readers from different cultures and walks of life. Sensitivity towards other readers isn't a bad thing. It also brings to point what this discussion has been about, points of view. The tactics of SS are definitely not universally accepted nor is the idea of whaling being barbaric. To follow Paul Watson's own philosophical guidance based of Arne Næss' Deep Ecology movement, no one species is more important than another. So based on that value system, when someone eats meat, there's no difference whether it's whale meat or chicken. Saying only certain animals have intelligence and thus should be spared being eaten is arbitrary since all living things have some sort intelligence in terms of reproduction. Anthropocentrism is also center to all species, even in commensal relationships. The issue outside of philosophical arguments is the sustainability of any sort of hunting. We can easily wipe out any resource we want to. Look at s Rapa Nui's (Isla de Pascua) history.
Who has a right to tell someone they can't do something if it's done in a sustainable way? Killing is something that occurs in the natural world. Ever see a lion kill a wildebeest? It's eaten alive and I'm quite sure that isn't fun for it. Seen orcas play with seals before they eat them? Or just eat the tongue of a whale and leave the scraps for the 'commoner sharks'?
Removing the cruelty argument, you have the sustainability argument, and that's where this issue becomes a problem. Obviously, some see everything as a resource to be used. That anthropocentic view is how the human race has proliferated. Our management (which so far has been poor to say the least) of resources will be what ensures our survival and the survival of other species. The issue of SS's tactics with regards to the Japanese whaling situation on the other hand is something else. It does not help with public opinion in the whaling nations (which really is where it's most important). Granted he Japanese probably fudge the numbers of populations a lot and there is probably quite a bit of illegal hunting in Russia, Korea etc. PR bs aside, the real solution is in the people of the countries which practice whaling. Ask yourself, would you be more convinced by someone giving you the facts or someone telling you you can't do it because they say so?
Without a doubt, Sea Shepherd has done a lot of good in Galapagos and other places. And Paul Watson's personality is what is needed to run an organization like that. However it's not already the best way to get the result, especially when it endangers others.

[triswebb]

Killing is something that occurs in the natural world. Ever see a lion kill a wildebeest? It's eaten alive and I'm quite sure that isn't fun for it. Seen orcas play with seals before they eat them? Or just eat the tongue of a whale and leave the scraps for the 'commoner sharks'?

Firstly, I am shocked that I am on a forum for divers - wow. Secondly how on earth can you compare a lion killing a wildebeest to the horrors happening out on the seas. For a start a lion MUST kill to survive or it will die - simple fact. The mouths of the Japanese or any person eating whale meat do not require it to survive - is there not already enough choice on this planet in terms of food that we have to tap an already taxed source!!

Thirdly, I hate this pathetic argument about culture, years ago people armed themselves with a simple harpoon and a rowing/sailing vessel, where the numbers of whales were quite sustainable and most probably a requirement for life in terms of oil and food! Compare this to highly advanced ships with GPS and horribly powerful and accurate harpoons - this no longer makes it a hunt, it turns it into a slaughter.

Whaling is wrong, there is no other way to look at it, I don't care if someone's great great great granddad was doing it 200 years ago, we were doing all sorts of things back then (slavery being one), but thankfully we saw the light and stopped. Cannibalism was considered an acceptable form of food in many cultures, how would you feel if people were still serving up others on a plate?

thanks,

tristan

[echeng]

Just to make absolutely clear: I did not mean to insult the entire Japanese race/population, it was not a derogatory remark.

My sincere apologies if I did: I should have been more cautious in putting my words together.

Vincent -- apology accepted, at least, by me. I know that sometimes words can come out wrong in writing (with unintentional and undesirable consequences). Let's move on...

In a closing point, I find it utterly depressing that others can get on somebody's back regarding a completely innocent use of the word 'Jap' - I mean, come on guys, how pathetic - I used to enjoy the forums as a place where the ridiculous political correctness that we are plagued with on a daily basis by politicians did not exist!!

The vast majority of the threads are still apolitical.

You can get in trouble for misusing just about any derogatory term. You'll notice, however, that there was the word, "disgusting," in front of the word, "Jap." It wasn't used just in passing, and certainly wasn't innocent. The intent may have been innocent, but the delivery was not.

Replace "Jap" with another derogatory term for any other race or skin color and see what happens. Eventually you'll get to one that offends you.