Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[Checkmite]

Do you mean "traditional" as in "we've always eaten whales" or "traditional" as in "we have specific methods of catching and eating whales?

Being "a primitive" seems to have something to do with it; at least that's what I picked up.

 

[Furcifer]

The Icelandic b
oats that belong to the private company Hvalur hf?

And?

So what is the Canadian definition then?

No, you've alluded to several factors. In fact "explaining" is one of the things that you've been sorely lacking on. Trying to get these factors out of you is like getting blood out of a stone.


Perhaps you could actually provide some actual evidence to your claims instead of telling me to do your research for you.


The bold is straw. The underlined is you attempting to shift the burden of proof.

So what? You think a private company can't be commercial???

And that's personal use. The fact that it's sold or traded by the hunters is really irrelevant unless you're splitting hairs trying to legitimize the commercial Japanese whaling hunt done under the guise of "research".

I can look it up when I get the chance. Suffice to say they aren't allowed to roam the sea in a floating processing plant and call it "research". I find it hard to believe you don't understand how the Japanese are gaming the system and not just doing things "on a bigger scale".

It's not black and white I've given you numerous examples of how a critical thinking person could look at the different hunts around the world and come to some logical conclusions as to what is or isn't commercial. Like I said, only a fool could be persuaded into thinking a bottle rocket and a bazooka are basically the same thing. The same principle is in play here.

If you don't know the history of whaling you don't have any business in this discussion. I know it's a common MO but playing the fool isn't "skepticism". Commercial whaling was stopped because their numbers were decimated to the point of extinction.

The burden of proof is on you to show why the majority of countries continue to enforce moratorium on commercial whaling while a select few ignore the research indicating the practise is unsustainable.

You continue to ignore the obvious problem which is what happens if every country decides they want to do "research" on whales. Or how about this, I "traditonally" enjoy tuna so how about we let the Newfies "research" the bluefin tuna all year round? We may as well open the season up in the US for "research" too. And why bother with tags and restricting catch to single hook lines, scale it up man, throw out the old Omni-Net. What's the difference?

I think the problem is people unfamiliar with fishing or hunting don't really understand these "lines" that have been drawn. In order for them to be sustainable we impose restrictions that are intended to maintain "sport". What difference does it make if you shoot a deer with a bullet or an arrow? What difference does it make if you hook a fish in the mouth or in the tail? What difference does it make if you use a fishing pole or a spear? The answer is "a lot", one is hunting and the other is poaching (at different times in different situations etc.). Most of the World has recognized the fact the our ability to collect far exceeds the natural world's ability to compensate. It's called "overkill" and in order to maintain some balance we have to impose restrictions based on the poential capacity of the methods used in the hunt. The Japanese are clearly the most egregious example of complete and utter disregard for this principle. The fact they have self imposed quotas doesn't really absolve them of anything. Snagging is illegal even if you promise to only take 1 fish. Using a shotgun during black powder season is illegal even if you promise to take only 1 deer.

Are you familiar with this idea of "sport"? Do you see how it relates to "capacity"? Do you understand how using a net is usually considered "commercial" but maybe at certain times could be considered "sport"? Do you understand that there are people who do "research" to determine when and if or how many deer can be taken with a bow, but not with a gun and why? Becuase I get the general gist of things and I'm pretty sure what the Japanese are doing is wrong.

 

[Furcifer]

Being "a primitive" seems to have something to do with it; at least that's what I picked up.

Perhaps a topic for another thread, but yah your "right" to do something becuase of "tradition" even when it flies in face of logic is "primitive". I really don't see anyone supporting whaling hunting as being different from those that support female circumcision under the guise of "tradition". It's primitive. So is forcing your wife to walk 10 feet behind you in public, or lighting her on fire becuase she disrepected you. They might be more extreme examples of "tradition" run amok but I'm not going to pull any punches, it's primitive.
Killing whales for food? Well if I think killing domesticated cows for food is primitive, can you imagine what I think about killing whales?
We may have come a long way from the Neaderthals but a lot of what we think as a society, much of which is based in tradition is primitive.

 

[Furcifer]

Because I've read the Animal Planet Forums (along with others). There are a few pro SS people on there but nowhere as many as you would think. The vast majority of the posts were about how dumb the SS people were and that they were rooting for the Whalers to win the "War".

I also talk to people IRL (I live in the San Francisco Bay Area) and with one exception (it turns out that she used to be a crew member of the Steve Irwin for over a year (or so she claimed, she did have on a Sea Shepherd shirt on though). I called her an idiot to her face and told her why) the ones who have seen the show all prefaced with the fact that they don't like whaling then went on to say pretty much the same thing about rooting for the whalers due to the actions of the SS

Then look here on JREF. Not exactly a hotbed of neanderthals yet most of the posts are not exactly what I would call pro-SS.

Take your pick. The SS do it to themselves. Before I saw the show I was on their side. Now, not so much.

And according to YouTube posters black people are dumb thugs and women belong in the kitchen.

Call me skeptical but forums might not be the best place to gauge the collective human consciousness from. Just saying.

Mind you I wouldn't be totally surprised if most people actually felt this way. The fact is Watson is a fanatic, he falls on the wrong side of the law at times and he lends himself to the villification. Plus he has the personna of a dead whale. Still some of what he does is admirable and some is insane. You've got to take everything on a casee by case basis.

 

[Wildy]

So what? You think a private company can't be commercial???

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. You on the other hand have been all over the place when it comes to the commercial nature of whaling.

And that's personal use. The fact that it's sold or traded by the hunters is really irrelevant unless you're splitting hairs trying to legitimize the commercial Japanese whaling hunt done under the guise of "research".

Ok, this is a non-whale example but maybe asking about it this way might clear up a lot of this mess:

I went to school with someone whose parents owned a cattle station up north. It wasn't a big station, something like 400 head of cattle, but when they would send the animals to the abattoir they'd keep some of the meat for themselves and sell the rest. Would that mean that their entire operation is therefore "personal use" because they got a share of the resulting meat?

I can look it up when I get the chance.

Please do.

Suffice to say they aren't allowed to roam the sea in a floating processing plant and call it "research".

I'm guessing that might be because they are given a quota of whales by the IWC.

I find it hard to believe you don't understand how the Japanese are gaming the system and not just doing things "on a bigger scale".

Perhaps you should try re-reading my posts again for comprehension (as you would put it) because I've admitted several times that the Japanese are exploiting a loophole in order to hunt whales.

It's not black and white I've given you numerous examples of how a critical thinking person could look at the different hunts around the world and come to some logical conclusions as to what is or isn't commercial.

Perhaps in this thread in some alternate universe, but unfortunately this thread isn't in that universe. What we've got in this thread is you saying that certain hunts are commercial and others aren't based on some criteria that you steadfastly refuse to divulge.

If you don't know the history of whaling you don't have any business in this discussion.

That's your assumption. And it's wrong. Unless all these countries that are undertaking whaling are doing so because they haven't discovered that Jojoba oil is a simpler, and apparently superior, solution to using whale oil and plastics and fibreglass is a good replacement for whalebone.

The burden of proof is on you to show why the majority of countries continue to enforce moratorium on commercial whaling while a select few ignore the research indicating the practise is unsustainable.

Care to point out some of this research?

You continue to ignore the obvious problem which is what happens if every country decides they want to do "research" on whales.

And is every country going to do this? I wonder how Lesotho will be able to do so?

Or how about this, I "traditonally" enjoy tuna so how about we let the Newfies "research" the bluefin tuna all year round? We may as well open the season up in the US for "research" too. And why bother with tags and restricting catch to single hook lines, scale it up man, throw out the old Omni-Net. What's the difference?

Is this hyperbolic statement comparable to what we are actually talking about and if so, how?

Then again I would assume you would be perfectly fine with this if the people doing it were "primitive".

I think the problem is people unfamiliar with fishing or hunting don't really understand these "lines" that have been drawn. In order for them to be sustainable we impose restrictions that are intended to maintain "sport".

I thought we were talking about whaling, which the last time I checked wasn't considered a "sport". But something tells me that after you read this statement you're going to start bitching about how I'm being pedantic which is normally what you do when you butcher the English language and people have to ask you questions to try and figure out what the hell you are going on about.

What difference does it make if you shoot a deer with a bullet or an arrow?

I'd say that the bullet would probably kill the deer quicker than the arrow, but the arrow would be more "traditional" as you use the term.

What difference does it make if you hook a fish in the mouth or in the tail?

Besides the obvious?

What difference does it make if you use a fishing pole or a spear?

I'm guessing that using a rod would result in less blood than a spear.

The Japanese are clearly the most egregious example of complete and utter disregard for this principle. The fact they have self imposed quotas doesn't really absolve them of anything.

Isn't that a bit contradictory there? We have to have limits but because the Japanese have limits they're wrong?

Snagging is illegal even if you promise to only take 1 fish.

Is that true everywhere?

Using a shotgun during black powder season is illegal even if you promise to take only 1 deer.

There's a black powder season?

Are you familiar with this idea of "sport"?

No. Could you tell me which definition most matches what you're going on about?

Do you see how it relates to "capacity"?

Since I have no idea what the hell you're going on about with "sport", I can't see how this relates to "capacity".

Do you understand how using a net is usually considered "commercial" but maybe at certain times could be considered "sport"?

This seems to be a different definition of "sport" to the one you used in the ranty section above.

Do you understand that there are people who do "research" to determine when and if or how many deer can be taken with a bow, but not with a gun and why? Becuase I get the general gist of things and I'm pretty sure what the Japanese are doing is wrong.

So care to tell me what the Japanese are researching?

 

[Furcifer]

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. You on the other hand have been all over the place when it comes to the commercial nature of whaling.



Ok, this is a non-whale example but maybe asking about it this way might clear up a lot of this mess:

I went to school with someone whose parents owned a cattle station up north. It wasn't a big station, something like 400 head of cattle, but when they would send the animals to the abattoir they'd keep some of the meat for themselves and sell the rest. Would that mean that their entire operation is therefore "personal use" because they got a share of the resulting meat?



Please do.



I'm guessing that might be because they are given a quota of whales by the IWC.



Perhaps you should try re-reading my posts again for comprehension (as you would put it) because I've admitted several times that the Japanese are exploiting a loophole in order to hunt whales.



Perhaps in this thread in some alternate universe, but unfortunately this thread isn't in that universe. What we've got in this thread is you saying that certain hunts are commercial and others aren't based on some criteria that you steadfastly refuse to divulge.



That's your assumption. And it's wrong. Unless all these countries that are undertaking whaling are doing so because they haven't discovered that Jojoba oil is a simpler, and apparently superior, solution to using whale oil and plastics and fibreglass is a good replacement for whalebone.



Care to point out some of this research?



And is every country going to do this? I wonder how Lesotho will be able to do so?



Is this hyperbolic statement comparable to what we are actually talking about and if so, how?

Then again I would assume you would be perfectly fine with this if the people doing it were "primitive".



I thought we were talking about whaling, which the last time I checked wasn't considered a "sport". But something tells me that after you read this statement you're going to start bitching about how I'm being pedantic which is normally what you do when you butcher the English language and people have to ask you questions to try and figure out what the hell you are going on about.



I'd say that the bullet would probably kill the deer quicker than the arrow, but the arrow would be more "traditional" as you use the term.



Besides the obvious?



I'm guessing that using a rod would result in less blood than a spear.



Isn't that a bit contradictory there? We have to have limits but because the Japanese have limits they're wrong?



Is that true everywhere?



There's a black powder season?



No. Could you tell me which definition most matches what you're going on about?



Since I have no idea what the hell you're going on about with "sport", I can't see how this relates to "capacity".



This seems to be a different definition of "sport" to the one you used in the ranty section above.



So care to tell me what the Japanese are researching?

I've never said the definition of "commercialism" is black and white. In fact I've mentioned it isn't several times. There's no mathematical formula, it's somewhat intuitive when you begin looking different operations around the world. My point is it isn't as grey as you keep trying to fake.

It could be. It depends on whether or not they were registered as a commercial operation or as butcher shop. What did their tax number indicate? What kind of tax breaks did they get? Did they get commercial subsidy? These things are defined and while they vary from country to country they are surprisingly uniform. In the US they might be a commercial operation, but in Mexico considered a "hobby farm", but usually it's a small differemce. I don't think anywhere in the world having 4000 head of cattle could be considered "recreational".

Yes, but you've also said it's just a matter of scale. You're not moving the goal posts but you're leaning on them at every opportunity.

The criteria is divulged and you understand them perfectly, you're just feigning ignorance to maintain this "Wah? I don't get it? Wah?" You're not fooling anyone, especially me.

I can't respond to a post like this on my phone. The formatting makes it extremely difficult. If you ever narrow it down to a single cogent point post I'll try to respond. In the mean time I've got to get a new computer.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

And according to YouTube posters black people are dumb thugs and women belong in the kitchen.

Call me skeptical but forums might not be the best place to gauge the collective human consciousness from. Just saying.

Mind you I wouldn't be totally surprised if most people actually felt this way. The fact is Watson is a fanatic, he falls on the wrong side of the law at times and he lends himself to the villification. Plus he has the personna of a dead whale. Still some of what he does is admirable and some is insane. You've got to take everything on a casee by case basis.

Did you miss this part?

I also talk to people IRL (I live in the San Francisco Bay Area) and with one exception (it turns out that she used to be a crew member of the Steve Irwin for over a year (or so she claimed, she did have on a Sea Shepherd shirt on though). I called her an idiot to her face and told her why) the ones who have seen the show all prefaced with the fact that they don't like whaling then went on to say pretty much the same thing about rooting for the whalers due to the actions of the SS

The AP anf JREF forums are just two more examples of the same. Hell they were even mocked on South Park for an entire episode just for being the idiots that I described. Sea Shepherds own actions make people dislike them enough to actually root for the people killing whales when SS is around.

Sometimes the ends don't justify the means and when they don't they can backfire big time.

 

[Furcifer]

Did you miss this part?



The AP anf JREF forums are just two more examples of the same. Hell they were even mocked on South Park for an entire episode just for being the idiots that I described. Sea Shepherds own actions make people dislike them enough to actually root for the people killing whales when SS is around.

Sometimes the ends don't justify the means and when they don't they can backfire big time.

And still the Japanese whaling season has been shorter with less whales taken. As they say talk is cheap.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

And still the Japanese whaling season has been shorter with less whales taken. As they say talk is cheap.

And there is no proof that it was solely because of the SS. Remember that the Sea Shepherds have quite openly stated that they will say anything to put themselves in a good light and that the truth is not a factor when they say it. A quota is the maximum allowed and not a guarantee that you will reach it. Ask anyone who has gone hunting or fishing. That still doesn't detract from what I said about how people felt about the SS or their rooting for the whalers during that show. People tend to dislike ******** and the SS has boatloads of them. Pun intended.

 

[Korren]

I'm not sure, it could be that the use of the bigger boat is a result of whales being as big as they are.

The reason why Japan is using larger boats than other whaling nations is because Japan is doing off-shore whaling. The other whaling nations are only doing on-shore whaling where smaller boats suffice.

It has nothing to do with commercial vs. non-commercial, the size of the whales or the strength of character of the whalers of differing nationalities.

Perhaps you need to read more about whaling or read what I've already written for comprehension? The reason whales are protected is because commercial whaling was unsustainable.

That's oversimplified past the point of error. It is true that historically, the industrial hunt of whales for whale oil severely depleted many populations of whales and brought some species of whale to the point of extinction.

However, nobody is hunting for whale oil any more: modern whaling is all for whale meat, and that kind of whaling has a much lower impact -- in part because fewer whales are killed for meat than for whale oil, and in part because the hunt is more selective when it comes to which species are killed.

Again, if you're saying the critical decline in the World's whale populations wasn't due to commercial hunting, and that what the Japanese are doing is sustainable then prove it. Just remember they're doing it in international waters so "It's sustainable if the Japanese are the only ones doing it" isn't a viable answer.

Which is why we require a working IWC to actually manage whaling. Sadly, IWC is logjammed by nations with a strict anti-whaling policy who ignores the IWC's charter and scientific committee and prevents any actual management from taking place. Ironically, it's the anti-whaling nations which pose the largest threat to the long-term protection of whales.

 

[Wildy]

I've never said the definition of "commercialism" is black and white. In fact I've mentioned it isn't several times.

1. Yes you have, several times. The problem is that your definition seems to be a special one that only you know.

There's no mathematical formula, it's somewhat intuitive when you begin looking different operations around the world.

2. Except as you have shown in this thread it isn't. You've flip-flopped several times when it comes to the nature of Icelandic and Norwegian whaling.

My point is it isn't as grey as you keep trying to fake.

3. No, it's as unintelligible as you have made it.

It could be. It depends on whether or not they were registered as a commercial operation or as butcher shop. What did their tax number indicate? What kind of tax breaks did they get? Did they get commercial subsidy? These things are defined and while they vary from country to country they are surprisingly uniform. In the US they might be a commercial operation, but in Mexico considered a "hobby farm", but usually it's a small differemce. I don't think anywhere in the world having 4000 head of cattle could be considered "recreational".

(hundred not thousand)

4. I wouldn't know too much about their tax status because that wasn't something we spoke about, or subsidies.

The criteria is divulged and you understand them perfectly, you're just feigning ignorance to maintain this "Wah? I don't get it? Wah?" You're not fooling anyone, especially me.

5. Again you must be talking about that alternative universe thread. If I'm wrong, perhaps someone with a better grasp of the English language can explain it to me.

I can't respond to a post like this on my phone. The formatting makes it extremely difficult. If you ever narrow it down to a single cogent point post I'll try to respond. In the mean time I've got to get a new computer.

6. Then I hope the numbers help. You could have done that yourself, but I guess it's easier to complain that I'm not boiling down a complex discussion into a single point.

 

[Checkmite]

Still some of what he does is admirable and some is insane.

Some of his goals are admirable; none of the steps he takes to achieve them is. Like a parent who wants to keep her child safe by never letting him outside the house, ever.

And his method of choice is completely insane. Ending whaling is something that's going to require massive popular interest and support to achieve; adopting an approach that so many are repulsed by indicates either a kind of naïve shortsightedness or a goal that isn't "ending whaling".

 

[Korren]

And that's personal use. The fact that it's sold or traded by the hunters is really irrelevant unless you're splitting hairs trying to legitimize the commercial Japanese whaling hunt done under the guise of "research".

I can look it up when I get the chance. Suffice to say they aren't allowed to roam the sea in a floating processing plant and call it "research". I find it hard to believe you don't understand how the Japanese are gaming the system and not just doing things "on a bigger scale".

While it's true that Japan is exploiting a loophole and can be said to be "gaming the system", it should be pointed out that they're using said loophole to get around another loophole and that the system was already gamed by the other side.

In short: a temporary moratorium on all commercial whaling was enacted back in the eighties until the IWC's scientific committee could finish some revisions on the new management procedures. This work was finished about two decades ago, but -- in contradiction of IWC's charter -- anti-whaling nations have blocked the formal adoption of this work in order to extend the moratorium on this technicality.

It was only after this underhand tactic came into use that Norway opted to use its reservation, Iceland left the IWC (and later rejoined with a post-dated reservation) and Japan began exploiting the loophole of scientific whaling being (in essence) outside the remit of the IWC.

Be glad there was this loophole for Japan to take advantage of, because the realistic alternative is not Japan doing no whaling, but Japan leaving the IWC and doing whaling outside of any international body at all.

If you don't know the history of whaling you don't have any business in this discussion. I know it's a common MO but playing the fool isn't "skepticism". Commercial whaling was stopped because their numbers were decimated to the point of extinction.

Not true. Some species and some populations of whales were brought to the brink of extinction (but the actual moratorium came about years and decades after this had actually happened), other species and populations were reduced to the point where they were threatened, but some species and populations were never in any danger at all.

The burden of proof is on you to show why the majority of countries continue to enforce moratorium on commercial whaling while a select few ignore the research indicating the practise is unsustainable.

There exists a large body of research -- accepted and conducted by the IWC's scientific council, in particular the body of work related to the Revised Management Procedure -- which shows the exact opposite.

 

[DC]

Because I've read the Animal Planet Forums (along with others). There are a few pro SS people on there but nowhere as many as you would think. The vast majority of the posts were about how dumb the SS people were and that they were rooting for the Whalers to win the "War".

I also talk to people IRL (I live in the San Francisco Bay Area) and with one exception (it turns out that she used to be a crew member of the Steve Irwin for over a year (or so she claimed, she did have on a Sea Shepherd shirt on though). I called her an idiot to her face and told her why) the ones who have seen the show all prefaced with the fact that they don't like whaling then went on to say pretty much the same thing about rooting for the whalers due to the actions of the SS

Then look here on JREF. Not exactly a hotbed of neanderthals yet most of the posts are not exactly what I would call pro-SS.

Take your pick. The SS do it to themselves. Before I saw the show I was on their side. Now, not so much.

aah i see, you dont know it thanks for clarification.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Wasn't Captain Shave-The-Whales here a member of Greenpeace back then? Might've been him; seems to fit his MO.

If by 'member of' you mean 'founder of' then yes.

 

[Eligbak]

Some interesting statistics about 'Whale Wars' from imdb.

Girls < 18 love it, women >= 45 rate it the lowest. That's assuming a majority was truthful about their age/sex.

 

[alfaniner]

If by 'member of' you mean 'founder of' then yes.

I understand he was then banned for being too extreme in his methods.

 

[Wildy]

In news relevant to this thread it seems that Sea Shepherd did get the money together as Watson was released on bail, or if you would like a headline that is simply bad journalism "Anti-whaling activist walks free".

But it seems that I was wrong about him leaving the country since it seems he'll hang around to protest at the arrival of the Costa Rican President. Although I wonder if being sent to Costa Rica really is a "death sentence" as he put it.

 

[Checkmite]

If by 'member of' you mean 'founder of' then yes.

Curious; he seems to be the only one who recalls him being a founder.

 

[Macgyver1968]

In news relevant to this thread it seems that Sea Shepherd did get the money together as Watson was released on bail, or if you would like a headline that is simply bad journalism "Anti-whaling activist walks free".

But it seems that I was wrong about him leaving the country since it seems he'll hang around to protest at the arrival of the Costa Rican President. Although I wonder if being sent to Costa Rica really is a "death sentence" as he put it.

From what I understand, one of the terms of his bail release was he stay in the country. If he were to slip out of Germany, I'm sure the Germans would just issue a warrant for his arrest for jumping bail.