Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[Wildy]

I'd said earlier that I think he'd jump bail, but he hasn't so far.

By the way, thanks Eligbak for linking to IMDB. The discussion board for the show is pretty interesting as well.

 

[Furcifer]

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.



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.



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.

Indeed, the whales that weren't hunted weren't driven to the point of extinction.

I'd like to see the IWC research you're talking about. Of course commercial whaling is sustainable, just limit the catch to 1 whale per species per country. I don't think you need very much research to know that. The real question is what happens when every country decides they're going to allow 300 foot commercial boats to cruise the seas taking 1000 whales. Some countries won't but then there's no law prohibiting Japan or Norway from registering vessels in other countries and then counting the catch towards that countries fisheries quota. What specifically has the IWC shown in the revised management procedure?

 

[Checkmite]

Some countries won't but then there's no law prohibiting Japan or Norway from registering vessels in other countries and then counting the catch towards that countries fisheries quota.

If the host country is okay with it, why is this a problem?

The point of quotas is to limit the overall number of whales taken, then the point is still served; no more whales are taken than the total limit. The Bahamas for instance has absolutely no interest in whaling; why shouldn't they be able donate their share of the quota in exchange for taxes?

 

[Wildy]

If the host country is okay with it, why is this a problem?

Because in Furcifer's world there shouldn't be any whaling at all unless it's done by "primitives" for "personal use".

 

[Furcifer]

If the host country is okay with it, why is this a problem?

The point of quotas is to limit the overall number of whales taken, then the point is still served; no more whales are taken than the total limit. The Bahamas for instance has absolutely no interest in whaling; why shouldn't they be able donate their share of the quota in exchange for taxes?

None, this would work fine IMO. The problem right now is Japan has made their own quotas that don't take this into account. Japan should probably already be paying North Korea for fishing rights but that's another topic.

 

[Furcifer]

Because in Furcifer's world there shouldn't be any whaling at all unless it's done by "primitives" for "personal use".

Nope, you're not reading for comprehension. There's no reason whales coudln't be fished commercially IMO. But there has to be an agreement between interested parties.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

IMO, the Japanese vessel that ran into the Ady Gil (discussed upthread) was more probably than not trying to ram it.

Let's assume you're right. The captain of Shonan Maru deliberately attempted to ram Ady Gil.

SO WHAT?

Sea Shepherd is a group that openly admits it tries to sink other ships. Watch me not give two ***** when one of their targets tries to sink them.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

That's it. I really can't understand the fuss about whales. Minke whales are the cows of the sea.

And they are just as tasty*.



*this is a 100% factual statement; tastes like roast beef, with maybe an ever-so-slight fishy aftertaste - it's like surf & turf in one convenient package

 

[shuize]

Let's assume you're right. The captain of Shonan Maru deliberately attempted to ram Ady Gil.

SO WHAT?

Sea Shepherd is a group that openly admits it tries to sink other ships. Watch me not give two ***** when one of their targets tries to sink them.

I agree. I don't think it's at all clear that the Japanese purposely tried to sink the Ady Gil. But, even if they did, it's the least Sea Shepherd deserves when they fly a pirate flag and ram other ships in the Southern Ocean.

 

[theprestige]

I agree. I don't think it's at all clear that the Japanese purposely tried to sink the Ady Gil. But, even if they did, it's the least Sea Shepherd deserves when they fly a pirate flag and ram other ships in the Southern Ocean.

Seriously, this.

Noah Fence, they fly a pirate flag. How can you possibly be butthurt about any treatment they receive on the high seas?

 

[Wildy]

Nope, you're not reading for comprehension.

*facepalm*

There's no reason whales coudln't be fished commercially IMO.

Except that according to you commercial whaling is unsustainable.

But there has to be an agreement between interested parties.

And who are the interested parties?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Goodbye Ady Gil.

Too bad your captain was an idiot.

Sorry if this has been addressed (I haven't finished the last few pages)...

"Captain"? Or Admiral? Bethune was the Captain of the Ady Gil. Watson as the Sea Shepherd folk describe him is Admiral of the Fleet (I kid you not).

 

[shuize]

Sorry if this has been addressed (I haven't finished the last few pages)...

"Captain"? Or Admiral? Bethune was the Captain of the Ady Gil. Watson as the Sea Shepherd folk describe him is Admiral of the Fleet (I kid you not).

Yes, I know the guy on the Ady Gil and the guy arrested in Germany are not the same, if that's what you're getting at.

I made that comment with respect to the controversy surrounding its sinking. Given the relative difference in mass between ships, I think that the "captain" of the Ady Gil was an idiot for putting his vessel in harms way, regardless of whether or not the Japanese captain intentionally tried to hit it (which I doubt).

 

[Foolmewunz]

If Iceland and Norway are using commercial boats like the Japanese I'd like you to prove it. I've never seen any.

All the other points have been covered.

They're most definitely commercial boats - they stay out for weeks on end and process the whales on board. As Ryokan pointed out, the Norwegians enjoy whale meat, but if you counted up all the Norwegians and their consumption of whale meat from last year, it would not equal the "catch". The government approved EXPORT to..... guess where? If you answered "Japan", you would be correct. They re-implemented trading with Japan in whale meat a few years ago.

Norway is an anomaly. They do not need the industry - without the export, it's dying on its own. I'd be curious to hear from Ryokan or others... Is it a stubborn pride thing? Or is there some huge political donor who has a lot invested in whaling. (It became an election issue a few times, IIRC.)

ETA: Not that it'll necessarily dissuade you from slicing and dicing the available information to suit your own purposes, but in case the above is too subtle.... SELLING WHALE MEAT FOR EXPORT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE VERY DEFINITION OF "COMMERCIAL". Norway is probably the richest country in Europe. They are not suffering for income.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, I know the guy on the Ady Gil and the guy arrested in Germany are not the same, if that's what you're getting at.

I made that comment with respect to the controversy surrounding its sinking. Given the relative difference in mass between ships, I think that the "captain" of the Ady Gil was an idiot for putting his vessel in harms way, regardless of whether or not the Japanese captain intentionally tried to hit it (which I doubt).

Nope... just wanted to be clear. After the dust-up with Watson after the incident and his incarceration in Japan, I kinda like Bethune. I certainly find him more credible than Watson.

 

[Checkmite]

Watson as the Sea Shepherd folk describe him is Admiral of the Fleet (I kid you not).

(giggle)

Rear Admiral, surely.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

(giggle)

Rear Admiral, surely.

Lower half... Perhaps aft.

 

[Furcifer]

They're most definitely commercial boats - they stay out for weeks on end and process the whales on board. As Ryokan pointed out, the Norwegians enjoy whale meat, but if you counted up all the Norwegians and their consumption of whale meat from last year, it would not equal the "catch". The government approved EXPORT to..... guess where? If you answered "Japan", you would be correct. They re-implemented trading with Japan in whale meat a few years ago.

Norway is an anomaly. They do not need the industry - without the export, it's dying on its own. I'd be curious to hear from Ryokan or others... Is it a stubborn pride thing? Or is there some huge political donor who has a lot invested in whaling. (It became an election issue a few times, IIRC.)

ETA: Not that it'll necessarily dissuade you from slicing and dicing the available information to suit your own purposes, but in case the above is too subtle.... SELLING WHALE MEAT FOR EXPORT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE VERY DEFINITION OF "COMMERCIAL". Norway is probably the richest country in Europe. They are not suffering for income.

Indeed, I was mistaken about the operations in Norway and Iceland. The only thing I would add is that the operation in Japan is a level of sophistication another level beyond them, but no more commercial.
The question is is this sustainable? Or is it only sustainable if every other country on the planet continues to honour the moratorium? History suggests at least the traditional hunts are.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thanks, Furcifer - sorry for the snark, as I was on my way out to go shop hunting and in a rush.

Below will be a long rambling post. I kept wanting to interject, but when I found the time to post something, the thread had gone ahead another fifty posts. I decided this afternoon to just respond where I felt I should. The rest of the story....

Next up:
The politics of the IWC. Simply put, the original International Whaling Commission (or its predecessor) was made up of whaling nations. Some of those (USA, Australia, NZ - notably) have actually turned away from whaling for ecological reasons and because there just wasn't any great demand for the products and byproducts, IMHO.
The anti-whaling coalition (if it was that) realized it was never going to get the a majority of the whaling nations to go for a moratorium or ban, so began a process of lobbying to get non-whaling even landlocked nations onto the commission. Once that happened and you could have Liechtenstein, Switzerland Mongolia, etc... in there, the question became... "What do we do with these new members?" Simple, if you listen to Japan and their supporters. You buy their votes with other favors (I think the USA is accused of buying China's votes with a trade deal of some sort, can't remember the details).
And that's how you got a large group of non-whaling nations who call themselves the Int'l Whaling Commission to vote against the actual whaling nations. Only in the past decade did Japan realize how neatly this worked and started offering massive foreign aid to countries who have no whaling interests,.... in exchange for... you guessed it... supporting votes on the commission.

The whole situation is rife with politics. Rife? Contaminated, festering,... you name it.

Sustainability? Hard to say. The anti-whaling coalition accuses Japan and Norway of both miscounting (or misusing the counts of others in the case of Japan) the Minke population so that they can harvest more. The pro-whaling nations (and their stooges voting with them) accuse the anti-whalers and the IWC of lowering the Minke count, changing it from month to month to suit their own purposes, and then stalling and delaying year after year so they couldn't come to any sort of numerical conclusion as to what might be a viable number to extract yet still sustain a viable population of the species. That, I believe, was when Norway and Iceland upped the ante and said, "Hey, we object originally. We're now formally exercising that objection and you can go suck an egg."

Both sides are probably both right. Festering with politics, indeed.

Meh? I like whales. I want them alive and well and their population growing. I can't see any real need to give Ryokan his whale steak when the process seems so damned unnecessary. (Nothing against Ryokan - Mr. Nagura in Osaka could be substituted if you wish. Ryokan just happened to speak up, here.)

But that's the gist of my stand on this. I will take the emotional argument and I'm entitled to do so, opinions being opinions and all that. But I will not pretend that I think the "science" backs me fully, nor will I come down on the side of the total banners who try to base it on doomsday scare tactics. I feel that if they're just simply against killing whales,.... just say so. Quit trying to couch it in other terms.

And Paul Watson is a jerk. Eco-terrorism is not something I can support. And while Bethune is every bit as radical in his approach to the topic, he seems to have made some serious points against Watson in their battles, particularly that Watson is a liar and manipulator. (See "Bows and Arrows" for one.)
When Watson published their email exchange I find it notable that he didn't refute or debunk anything Bethune claimed. He merely kept calling him a stool pigeon and turncoat. I suggest reading Bethune first (it's lower on the page) and while he sounds a bit petty and more than a bit paranoid, he makes some very specific accusations. Watson responded within three hours but made no effort to refute those specific accusations. I'm quite surprised he thinks this makes him look good.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and...re-the-letters-that-caused-all-this-drama-127

Ady Gil (there is a person of that name - a major donor to Sea Shepherd) is on record as believing Bethune. Bethune, himself, has not turned pro-whaling nor changed his radical approach. His stand is that they are so right that there's no need to manipulate the truth or lie about things. Bethune, to any who are totally pro-whaling, is far from a saint. And, to be honest, I have to say I have my misgiving, too. While apparently everyone at Sea Shepherd signed on to it, the bows-and-arrows were apparently his idea. That's some pretty dirty pool, right there and it gives me pause as to whether his comments about lying and manipulating are quite so sincere.

 

[tyr_13]

Good posts.