103 replies to this topic

[diverdad]

Their campaign STOPS whales being killed ... Let other org's like Greenpeace continue their 'peaceful' protests and 'hearts & minds' offensives but while the SS crew or out there they are slowing the number of whales being killed... If we had to rely on talking, these sentient beings would be being slaughtered in greater numbers. If the SS crew stops one whale being killed then thats a bonus and worth the money in my humble...

As i said the 'heroes' on board the SS vessels are grown adults making up their own minds and are much braver than most of us here (including me) for getting out there and doing something about it ...

And if old spinsters want to send their money to SS or the cats protection league thats totally up to them its funding no matter how much you look down at it...

People can sit there, type and throw facts and figures and scientific theory about what's happening, thats their views and it looks like they know what their talking about... To them But to me the SS crews direct action is what most of us have been wanting to do for years but are to scared to be 'un PC' to do it .... Look at the Soldiers shooting poachers in Africa and India wheres the uproar about that, the poachers are human are they not and some with families to feed... The poachers know the law and they try their luck some are not so lucky...

I expect we've all got a priority list of 'what should come first' and 'where peoples funds should go' as someone said earlier whales are not the shepherd's only fight, just a big one of many ...

Dive safe

DeanB

Spot on Dean

Lee

[DeanB]

Then the battle will go on ...

Dive safe

DeanB

[allen]

"Vessels at sea do not actually have any "right of way"—they are, correctly, in the position of being 'stand on vessel' or 'give way' vessel. This means that at no time should any vessel actually navigate its way into a collision situation, and the rules are clear that no one in command of a vessel should assume a "right of way" and should at all costs avoid a collision."

Two ports do not make a starboard.

[ColinMunro]

Another video you may find interesting. Taken from the Shonan Maru no. 2. It appears to be taken over the period leading up to the collision. Of interest, I think, is the Ady gil's technique of cruising alongside, then making fast passes very close under the bows of the SM. You might be tempted to argue this was an accident waiting to happen.

Sometimes these passes are done when towing lines to entangle the SM's prop and disable her. The use of laser to blind the crew is fairly well illustrated. Look out for what the projectile (an arrow?) fired at the Shona Maru.

I note also that Sea Shpherd's claims that they abandoned towing the Ady Gil because it was sinking, but that they removed all fuel and lubricants beforehand now seem in doubt. The Japanese have apparently released photographs of it still afloat and leaking fuel.

I know there are strongly opposing views here on the effectiveness or otherwise of the Sea Shepherd's confrotational approach. However, as someone who has spent rather a lot of my time working at sea on vessels large and small over the past thirty years I take a rather dim view of the crew of the Ady Gil's rather cavalier approach to the safety of people's lives in a very hostile environment.

http://www.youtube.c...Q0Ux8TI#t=1m16s

[DeanB]

[quote name='ColinMunro' date='Jan 10 2010, 08:49 PM' post='237449'

Sometimes these passes are done when towing lines to entangle the SM's prop and disable her. The use of laser to blind the crew is fairly well illustrated. Look out for what the projectile (an arrow?) fired at the Shona Maru.
[/quote]

I suppose the use of an LRAD device on the SS crew and worse the airbourne helicopter and even the throwing of bolts and other metal objects at a RIB is okay then ... All I see is the SS crew matching metal with metal ... A few stink bombs onboard at the start was not really that harmful ...

Dive safe

DeanB

[Timmoranuk]

IMO. in this event Sea Shepherd have positioned themselves alongside other extremist animal rights organisations like PETA, the Hunt Saboteurs, the Animal Liberation Front, etc. and, for me, they have removed the last vestiges of any credibility they may have had. Their stand at last year's NEC Dive Show, manned by inarticulate, emotive, incredibles typified the rationale of this organisation. No thanks Paul Watson...

[WanderingBob]

IMO. in this event Sea Shepherd have positioned themselves alongside other extremist animal rights organisations like PETA, the Hunt Saboteurs, the Animal Liberation Front, etc. and, for me, they have removed the last vestiges of any credibility they may have had. Their stand at last year's NEC Dive Show, manned by inarticulate, emotive, incredibles typified the rationale of this organisation. No thanks Paul Watson...

Sadly, I have to agree, and have said it before ... Paul Watson puts his people in a position where life or limb is the sacrifice. Would he do the same himself? Is the cause more important than the individual? Is the individual (Paul) sacrificing other's instead of himself? There has to be a better way ...

[dirtydave]

I think you're missing the point,these people are putting themselves in harms way to make a statement and to get publicity for their cause. While you are entitled to your opinion you don't seem to have too many ideas to help stop whaleing, at least none that you are sharing. Some people arer just talk, blah , blah, blah. what are we doing to prevent the senseless slaughter of these innocent animals?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against eating meat and have willingly killed animals raised on the farm back in the day when I was on the farm. Whales don't really fall into this catagory though. They are being killed to use in animal food as there is not enough of a market as human food. Even the Japanese don't eat much whale meat.

Sort of like the campaign to kill sharks for their fins. Wasteful and it is decimating the shark population. Killing sharks makes as much sense as killing polar bears. There is no reason to hunt whales.Period.
Whether or not the Ady Gil was responsible for the accident is immaterial. The Sea Shepards are taking the fight to the enemy, I'll support them all I can.

[DeanB]

I think you're missing the point,these people are putting themselves in harms way to make a statement and to get publicity for their cause. While you are entitled to your opinion you don't seem to have too many ideas to help stop whaleing, at least none that you are sharing. Some people arer just talk, blah , blah, blah. what are we doing to prevent the senseless slaughter of these innocent animals?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against eating meat and have willingly killed animals raised on the farm back in the day when I was on the farm. Whales don't really fall into this catagory though. They are being killed to use in animal food as there is not enough of a market as human food. Even the Japanese don't eat much whale meat.

Sort of like the campaign to kill sharks for their fins. Wasteful and it is decimating the shark population. Killing sharks makes as much sense as killing polar bears. There is no reason to hunt whales.Period.
Whether or not the Ady Gil was responsible for the accident is immaterial. The Sea Shepards are taking the fight to the enemy, I'll support them all I can.

Agreed ... I think its condescending and demeaning to the bravery of the crew of the SS to keep blaming PW for 'their' adult choices. If they really didn't want to carry out his orders then they would not. I get the feeling that some on here either agree with whaling, have other agenda's or don't really care. Okay human life is precious but its their own choice like its others choices in what they do to make.

But watch out DD if your messages are not 'articulate' or full of 'scientific fact' then you won't be taken seriously ...

Dive safe

DeanB

[james]

I think a more effective way to change Japanese policy is a boycott of Japanese products - I may have stated this earlier on it the thread. This was highly affective at ending apartheid (divestiture in SA) and could be effective here.

Cheers
James

[ColinMunro]

'Fraid I have this fondness for facts. If I put my car in to be serviced, and am charged £300. If I ask the mechanic what they actually what parts they replaced and I get a reply like 'Well I really feel that your car is much better vehicle than it was before, I truly believe that.' Well I'm afraid that doesn't cut that much ice.

Now the facts that are available. Sea Shepherd is a far wealthier organisation than it was say ten years ago. SS has more employees, more ships, more corporate and wealthy individual sponsors. Equally, SS has clearly spent quite a few million dollars over the past decade - on vessels, campaigns etc. Additionally, a few people have been hurt in the process. If you were going to be uncharitable you could point out that they took what was one of the least environmentally friendly vessels on the planet into the Southern Ocean and have left it there as a wreck leaking fuel.

What I don't know, and fact see any evidence of, is that during all this time, after all this money, they have reduced the number of whales being killed but Japanese or Norwegian whalers by as much as one whale. As far as I am aware the number has increased.

[Timmoranuk]

I think a more effective way to change Japanese policy is a boycott of Japanese products - I may have stated this earlier on it the thread. This was highly affective at ending apartheid (divestiture in SA) and could be effective here.

Cheers
James

Given the state of their economy and the strong Yen which is crucifying their export markets this could be a very good strategy. I'd be a poor example though. My life is full of Mitsubishi, Canon, INON, Toshiba, Pentax...

There was of course a very efficient industry which 'laundered' South African commodities to make them 'consumable' by the rest of the world. So boycotts only had a very limited effect in reality and I'm sure the Japanese would be equally inventive.

Edited by Timmoranuk, 11 January 2010 - 06:54 AM.

[DeanB]

I think a more effective way to change Japanese policy is a boycott of Japanese products - I may have stated this earlier on it the thread. This was highly affective at ending apartheid (divestiture in SA) and could be effective here.

Cheers
James

But wouldn't this be hitting all Japanese people and not just the Whaling industry ??? ... That would certainly strengthen their resentment ...

Everyones got or seen facts and figures to further their causes and I suppose we will always support the sides we truly believe in ...

Dive safe

DeanB

[tdpriest]

... Sea Shepherd have positioned themselves alongside other extremist animal rights organisations like PETA, the Hunt Saboteurs, the Animal Liberation Front, etc... Their stand at last year's NEC Dive Show, manned by inarticulate, emotive, incredibles typified the rationale of this organisation. No thanks Paul Watson...

Thanks, Tim.

I am all in favour of conservation, and question hunting potentially sapient top-predators, both on moral and ecological grounds, but I have grave reservations about Sea Shepherd. I'm not at all sure that they have achieved anything but a hardening of entrenched opinion, seeking publicity by dangerous and probably illegal behaviour.

The Ady Gil is a prime example of the Sea Shepherd strategy: a "sexy" vehicle and completely inappropriate for the job. It looked as if it was intended to be broken...

I wouldn't demean anyone's bravery, Dean, but stupidity seems nearer the mark in the publically available material released by Sea Shepherd themselves.

James is right: the only things that will work are significant economic sanctions and domestic political pressure.

It's a pity about all my Nikon lenses...

Tim

Edited by tdpriest, 11 January 2010 - 09:00 AM.

[Drew]

I think a more effective way to change Japanese policy is a boycott of Japanese products - I may have stated this earlier on it the thread. This was highly affective at ending apartheid (divestiture in SA) and could be effective here.

I think it's easier for people to give up buying De Beer diamonds and kudu meat than remove the conveniences of japanese products. The the economic (divestment) boycott of South Africa was effective because it was a civil movement. If I remember any of that book I read in 1996, the UK and US government never tried to push economic sanctions through the UN, ostensibly because the UK and US has significant holdings in SA. Of course there was no oil to worry about either (hence the thumb twiddling in Nigeria). It was civil movements that forced corporations to pull investment in companies with major SA interests.
I've tried boycotting the illegal whaling countries of Iceland and Norway. Iceland is easy since their food exports aren't something I eat often (although I think it's a beautiful place to visit and want to go back). Actually, a boycott of Iceland vacations may actually be counter productive. By supporting the whale watching industry in Iceland, you can build more economic and political clout for those who are pro whale to shape Iceland policy. By total boycott, it actually kills the whale watching industry and thus any hope of ending whaling in Iceland.
For Norway, the only thing I could boycott were the Norwegian girls, who were very happy to oblige .

'Fraid I have this fondness for facts.

Unfortunately, people hear what they want to hear. Facts can't change but interpretations (however erroneous) can differ, especially if people want to hear them that way. That's the basic principle of marketing, subterfuge and obfuscate.

The fact is more Norwegians and Japanese feel strongly against the often hypocritical (from their viewpoint) and strong arm tactics waged by organizations like the SSCS and even Greenpeace, not to mention the anti-whaling governments than they do about the morality of killing whales. So if these reactions are anything to go by to measure the effectiveness of such campaigns, I'd find it very hard to really interpret it any other way than as a failure.

[scorpio_fish]

Is the objective of the effort to:

1) Eliminate the continuation of the Japanese whaling industry?

or

2) Reduce the number of whales killed annually by the Japanese whaling industry?

If it is 1), then it can be reasonably be argued that the efforts of SS will not meet the objective since it actually hardens resistance. The actual reduction in whale kill will not alter the decision economically, since the industry is subsidized for its very existence, i.e. they will not say, "we're losing money at this, let's quit and find another job".

If the objective is 2) then the efforts of SS have been successful, as fewer whales have been harvested due to its presence. The problem with this objective is that there is no end solution other than escalating confrontation. The SS ships must be there in perpetuity (currently 6 years). The addition of the Bob Barker must be followed by the addition of the Alex Trebek, etc. . Once no whales are being processed, then what? Armed conflict? The Japanese government agrees (with whom?) to stop whaling and makes their ships go home? The ships go home and SS goes on to the next cause, which allows the whalers return the next year? It is possible that the confrontation approach is a step in some strategy that reaches objective 1), but I'm not seeing it. What am I missing?

Instead of $5million for another ship, would it better spent on billboards in Japan a la shark fins? Just an example of an alternative tactic.

[loftus]

I think Sea Shepherd may be creating more of a 'circus' then they anticipated, or they may be getting what they wished for. Now trying a doomed piracy lawsuit???????
To see how this group on Wetpixel is pretty divided on their support I think is bad news for SS. If an overall conservation minded group like this is split, surely the general public are going to be far less supportive.
I for one have limited dollars to donate to causes of any kind, so it is important for me to give where I think my money is most effective; I just can't be sure that SS qualifies anymore.

Edited by loftus, 11 January 2010 - 04:38 PM.

[echeng]

Sadly, I have to agree, and have said it before ... Paul Watson puts his people in a position where life or limb is the sacrifice. Would he do the same himself? Is the cause more important than the individual? Is the individual (Paul) sacrificing other's instead of himself? There has to be a better way ...

No one is aboard a Sea Shepherd vessel without realizing that they are putting their lives at risk, and there is a long line for the opportunity to serve the Sea Shepherd cause as a volunteer. Take a look at Paul's life history -- he has consistently put himself in harm's way as one way to fight for his beliefs. There is no debating that.

Now, the risk of injury on the other side is another issue...

[loftus]

Looking at that video Eric posted; I conclude 2 things:
The SM2 either intentionally rammed the Ady Gil, or did not care if they did.
The captain and crew of the Ady Gill appeared pretty cavalier during the few minutes leading up to the collision, and being in the faster more maneuverable boat were careless to the point of negligence in allowing it to happen. They ought to take some responsibility for that.
Irrespective of whether volunteers sign up understanding the dangers or not, that does not absolve those in charge of doing everything possible to ensure the safety of their volunteers. No different really from some of the crazy things we do as divers, we know we're putting ourselves at risk, yet few of us would voluntarily go on trips with captains that we felt were incompetent or did not care. I think the sad reality is that this hurts Sea Shepherd's cause no matter what you feel about the nobility of their cause.

Edited by loftus, 11 January 2010 - 06:03 PM.

[Drew]

I think Sea Shepherd may be creating more of a 'circus' then they anticipated, or they may be getting what they wished for. Now trying a doomed piracy lawsuit???????
To see how this group on Wetpixel is pretty divided on their support I think is bad news for SS. If an overall conservation minded group like this is split, surely the general public are going to be far less supportive.

The SS know exactly what they are doing. They intend to keep media attention on the issue as long as possible, even with inane efforts like shootings and lawsuits. They want to reach that segment of the population who desire action before thought, or for some, who want media attention and are willing to buy it.
We also have to realize in the last 2 years, with endowments drying up due to market crashes etc, the fund drives have taken it another notch. As you have mentioned, the protest organizations like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd have a finite amount of contributions to vie over, hence the public attacks on Greenpeace's effectiveness (and vice versa). I think it is amazingly resourceful of SSCS to use the media to galvanize the public to raise funds.

No one is aboard a Sea Shepherd vessel without realizing that they are putting their lives at risk, and there is a long line for the opportunity to serve the Sea Shepherd cause as a volunteer. Take a look at Paul's life history -- he has consistently put himself in harm's way as one way to fight for his beliefs. There is no debating that.

There is no debate Watson puts himself in the front line and expects his volunteers to do so. The point is whether those campaigns are effective. The Canadian seal hunts continue unabated and new laws were instituted to prevent protest. Whaling is now on the increase in terms of whaling countries quotas and overall killed. For almost all of the SS campaigns, there are trails of facts which ostensibly refute the effectiveness of the campaigns.