Sea Shepherds Ady Gil collides with Japanese whaler

[scorpio_fish 5]

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 42]

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 January 12, 2010 by loftus

[echeng 0]

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 42]

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 January 12, 2010 by loftus

[Drew 0]

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.

[loftus 42]

There is no debate Watson puts himself in the front line and expects his volunteers to do so.

Even more reason to expect absolute competence from those in charge, or are they somehow above criticism? I have contributed significantly to Sea Shepherd over the years, what concerns me is that many who support Sea Shepherd refuse to be critical even when criticism is due.

Edited January 12, 2010 by loftus

[DeanB 19]

For Norway, the only thing I could boycott were the Norwegian girls, who were very happy to oblige .

 

This is a very derogatory statement to Norwegian women, unless its based on scientific or personal 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.

 

Personally I can either sit in my living room and listen to people on the ground fighting the battles or others sat in their chairs listening to others probably sat in their offices getting info from others ... And to be honest its a great piece of Television on top of everything else ...

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

[mexwell 0]

Well, the prompt reaction of mine was placing an immediate donation!

 

The videos show (mainly the third) that they where rammed with the clear intention to sink the vessel.

[echeng 0]

Even more reason to expect absolute competence from those in charge, or are they somehow above criticism? I have contributed significantly to Sea Shepherd over the years, what concerns me is that many who support Sea Shepherd refuse to be critical even when criticism is due.

That is because everyone has different requirements for when criticism is due. For some, what Sea Shepherd is doing now is cause for immediate additional support, but for you, it is cause for criticism and concern. All points of view are totally valid (and you'll certainly find points along the entire spectrum!).

[loftus 42]

That is because everyone has different requirements for when criticism is due. For some, what Sea Shepherd is doing now is cause for immediate additional support, but for you, it is cause for criticism and concern. All points of view are totally valid (and you'll certainly find points along the entire spectrum!).

Well I guess I have to defer to you having been on board with them and seen them in action up close, and I think it's unfortunate because I do support the Sea Shepherd organization and their cause.

But I guess it still begs the question, what level of incompetence or negligence would the skipper of the Ady Gill have to exhibit to deserve criticism? In a hostile environment with the faster more maneuverable boat, would just 10 more feet to starboard and a few volunteers dead suffice? Or would that just make the SM2 more at fault and further the Sea Shepherd's cause?

Edited January 13, 2010 by loftus

[Drew 0]

Even more reason to expect absolute competence from those in charge, or are they somehow above criticism? I have contributed significantly to Sea Shepherd over the years, what concerns me is that many who support Sea Shepherd refuse to be critical even when criticism is due.

 

I agree that many people donate money for the cause without thinking about the implementation or the people behind it. I didn't mind embellishment (serious) of Watson's exploits or some facts to push along the cause and I'd thought he'd become less radical than from the 70s and 80s. However, from documentaries like 'Defenders of the Wild' and his boat ramming and ship scuttling, I realized I needed to investigate more on what and whom I was supporting financially and otherwise. SS lost all credibility with me after the Makah Tribe debacle.

Furthermore, while researching the SS, I found that many of the poster boys of change did not do as much as those who work very hard behind the scenes affecting change in policy. There may be some correlation with the garnering of public sentiment but a lot of the real work is done by people who aren't in the public eye. Those are the people whom I support now.

Something simple as removing shark fin from the Olympic menu wasn't an act of graciousness but the suggestion of nobody person to a certain doctor with influential friends in the Chinese government. That symbolic gesture sparked more positive debate than sinking some fisherman's boat because he's trying to make a living.

[dirtydave 0]

Drew, I don't think that defending a person "just because they are trying to make a living" is justified. If you had said they were ignorant or that they had a cultural reason(often the same thing) that would be a valid excuse , but justifying immoral behaviour because its yor way of making a living is indefensible. (Just ask the Saudi morality police or a Taliban fighter. Both are simply "trying to make a living".)

[JFS 0]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

.....and now Canada is pushing China to start buying seal products because the european market has dried up! Canada and Japan are the same as far as their motives for the killing of mammals....

[DeanB 19]

I agree that many people donate money for the cause without thinking about the implementation or the people behind it. I didn't mind embellishment (serious) of Watson's exploits or some facts to push along the cause and I'd thought he'd become less radical than from the 70s and 80s. However, from documentaries like 'Defenders of the Wild' and his boat ramming and ship scuttling, I realized I needed to investigate more on what and whom I was supporting financially and otherwise. SS lost all credibility with me after the Makah Tribe debacle.

Furthermore, while researching the SS, I found that many of the poster boys of change did not do as much as those who work very hard behind the scenes affecting change in policy. There may be some correlation with the garnering of public sentiment but a lot of the real work is done by people who aren't in the public eye. Those are the people whom I support now.

Something simple as removing shark fin from the Olympic menu wasn't an act of graciousness but the suggestion of nobody person to a certain doctor with influential friends in the Chinese government. That symbolic gesture sparked more positive debate than sinking some fisherman's boat because he's trying to make a living.

 

Everybody has a job in a business ... Its still the same business in the end ... Keep up the support ...

 

I agree with DD industries die over the years and thousands lose their jobs as a result. Going back to the fox hunters as a comparison on this subject our local hunt were asking for local support when the ban was being introduced as 'Jobs would be lost' if the ban was implemented. Some one queried the speaker asking where was his and the others support when the local factory faced closure with hundreds of jobs lost ... He didn't reply. Things change, industries die out, people adapt... Thats Life and I'm afraid in some cases the emotional 'tradition' plea doesn't cut it all the time.

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

[Drew 0]

Drew, I don't think that defending a person "just because they are trying to make a living" is justified. If you had said they were ignorant or that they had a cultural reason(often the same thing) that would be a valid excuse , but justifying immoral behaviour because its yor way of making a living is indefensible. (Just ask the Saudi morality police or a Taliban fighter. Both are simply "trying to make a living".)

Well, Dave, I refuse to call any other culture immoral for living the way they have done for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. In the same way many of us eat meat like chicken, pork or beef, many other cultures see whales and dolphins that way. There's hardly a case to call immoral if you actually eat meat. Then there are fruitarians who believe plants are sentient, in which case only the fruitarians are 'moral' because they truly don't kill. I don't even know how to comment on your comparison of Taliban religious extremists and making a living except that it makes very little sense.

A fishing village in the Indonesian islands with no electricity and only kerosene lights, trying to make a living catching fish (with non-destructive methods like before the Dutch and Portuguese thought them to use fertilizer and oil for fish bombs, which not many of them do anyhow) and offered pittance (compared to market price) to catch and fin sharks which would be in abundance in the area if it were not for the commercial fishermen who wiped out the area before and the fin traders are merely trying to scrape up what's leftover. These fishing villages have been fishing for hundreds and thousands of years and 80% of them will keep doing that. If that's not traditional, I don't know what is. They do not have the luxury of reeducation for another vocation in Anytown, UK or USA. A little perspective is in order here.

[loftus 42]

I agree. It all gets back to the preservation vs conservation argument brought up earlier. If you're on the preservation at all costs side, then one had better be vegan, though I'm still not sure that qualifies anyone to criticize what others eat and how they live as long as they ensure sustainability of the species.

If one is a conservationist, then eating and utilizing flesh of any kind has to be tolerated in other cultures or otherwise consider oneself a hypocrite. Clearly the conservationist approach is the most tolerant while still ensuring life is sustained for the future.

I would love it if SS would pay more attention to harassing Japanese Tuna vessels, that's a species that needs to be saved.

Edited January 13, 2010 by loftus

[Drew 0]

I agree. It all gets back to the preservation vs conservation argument brought up earlier. If you're on the preservation at all costs side, then one had better be vegan, though I'm still not sure that qualifies anyone to criticize what others eat and how they live as long as they ensure sustainability of the species.

If one is a conservationist, then eating and utilizing flesh of any kind has to be tolerated in other cultures or otherwise consider oneself a hypocrite. Clearly the conservationist approach is the most tolerant while still ensuring life is sustained for the future.

I would love it if SS would pay more attention to harassing Japanese Tuna vessels, that's a species that needs to be saved.

 

In Hollywood speak, it's the chicken of the sea! Tuna is hardly as glamorous and popular. If you followed the Nobu/Blue Fin Tuna issue that was raised after the end of the line movie, there was about 2 weeks worth of news then silence again. That is the biggest issue, that certain species are pushed to the forefront not because of their endangered status but their "cuteness" level. It's actually dumbfounding to see that.

 

I would add that tuna vessels of ANY NATIONALITY which use seine nets should be harassed. Picking on one country when 50 other countries are guilty of the same things is to me depicting a certain prejudice that can and will be misconstrued. The Japanese may consume a major portion of Bluefin tuna, but it's Japanese restaurants around the world which serve Maguro (Bluefin tuna) which are patronized by millions of non-japanese are also gaining in consumption. I believe the overseas market now accounts for over 20% of consumption of Blue Fin tuna. Let's not make the mistake SSCS has been doing and pick on one country for what is an international problem.

[DeanB 19]

I actually think Tuna are cool looking fish... I don't think SS are a massive organisation so maybe Tuna are on the list of 'to do's' ??? Or if any of you have 'other issues' you want to address maybe you should buy a boat and get out there and protest ...

 

Lucky Pike are not on the endangered list I'd be buying a Nuke Sub and going hunting ...

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

[loftus 42]

Lucky Pike are not on the endangered list I'd be buying a Nuke Sub and going hunting ...

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

Do Pike taste good??

Edited January 13, 2010 by loftus

[Deep6 7]

Do Pike taste good??

Yes, they are tasty and make for a wonderful fight on light tackle.

 

DeanB,

When you get your sub, we should nuke some asian carp. They are not cute and certainly not endangered.

 

Bob (a consuming conservationist)

[DeanB 19]

Do Pike taste good??

 

The French seem to think so ... I do not eat any fish so I honestly couldn't tell you ...

 

Asian Carp ... Those pesky little tiddlers ... Lets Nuke em !!!

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

[ColinMunro 0]

As someone who works in marine conservation - particularly collecting data to help determine appropriate boundaries for protected areas and monitor their effectiveness - I have to say that buffoons like Mr Watson do immense damage to conservation efforts. You cannot effectively police large areas of sea, let alone entire oceans. You have to built concenus and win arguments - get the fishermen on board and supportive. If you can't get that then all your grandstanding is pretty pointless. Fishermen are not stupid, and generally they know an awful lot more about the marine environment that the celebrity 'environmentalist' looking for the next photo-opportunity. You need to be able to convince them with hard facts - not self-indulgent stunts. A single act of stupidity to gain media air-time can put back negotions by years and destroy hard-won trust.

[DeanB 19]

As someone who works in marine conservation - particularly collecting data to help determine appropriate boundaries for protected areas and monitor their effectiveness - I have to say that buffoons like Mr Watson do immense damage to conservation efforts. You cannot effectively police large areas of sea, let alone entire oceans. You have to built concenus and win arguments - get the fishermen on board and supportive. If you can't get that then all your grandstanding is pretty pointless. Fishermen are not stupid, and generally they know an awful lot more about the marine environment that the celebrity 'environmentalist' looking for the next photo-opportunity. You need to be able to convince them with hard facts - not self-indulgent stunts. A single act of stupidity to gain media air-time can put back negotions by years and destroy hard-won trust.

 

Sorry Colin I didn't realise you worked with the Japanese and 'others' in whaling and whale conservation ... Why don't you email the 'buffoon' with all your data and experience on the subject. Maybe then he will see where he's been going wrong after all these years...

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

[Andy Morrison 1]

Pete Bethune who was captain of the "Ady Gill" boat, tried to make a citizen's arrest. Here is the CNN story.

[elmo 0]

Pete Bethune who was captain of the "Ady Gill" boat, tried to make a citizen's arrest. Here is the CNN story.

 

 

The Sea Shepard folks are a bunch of freaking loons bent on endangering human life. Plain and simple, game, set, and match.