Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[Checkmite]

I updated my Facebook status to "saving the whales", change is on the wind.

The point is Watson isn't a nuisance, he's a public nuisance. That may be more effective than an International stalemate with a country many rely on for trade.

Except that it isn't. I agree that apathy is something you generally want to overcome, but when what you're doing is turning people against you, you're doing it wrong.

It may not have the Everybody Look At Me, the Whale Messiah flair of what Sea Shepherds do, but if Japan ever stops or even seriously cuts back on whaling, it will be because of the actions of governments like Australia and not Sea Shepherds.

I can't help but wonder what your motivations really are in regards to "saving whales" when you so cavalierly dismiss the serious work and pressure of so many national governments as of equal value to changing a Facebook status. Yeah, the IWC may not be completely shutting down Japan or Norway; but what if there were never an IWC? How many whales would be getting hunted then by however many nations that never decided to stop? The IWC is responsible for the very continued survival of a few whale species. The fact of their existence has saved incalculable numbers of whales. And this is nothing? This is "setting a Facebook status" to you?

The Japanese have taken hostages and started to kill them, seems like the right time to pull the negotiator and send in the sniper.

"Taken hostages" like coalition warships are taking Somali hostages in the Gulf of Aden.

 

[Furcifer]

Priceless! Thanks!

No better proof of living in your own fantasy world.

You obviously don't know very much about commercial fishing if you don't understand this. Selling your catch does not make you a commercial fisherman, how you catch the fish does. It's based on capacity to catch fish and not the exchange of goods or money.
Is it more complicated than that? Certainly, but this is a fundamental concept around the world. Is it universal? Not exactly, using a net is some countries isn't considered commercial, but typically these are countries where there is little or no regulation. In countries like Japan, where there is a fisheries, it's about the capacity to catch fish that makes it commercial.

 

[Furcifer]

Except that it isn't. I agree that apathy is something you generally want to overcome, but when what you're doing is turning people against you, you're doing it wrong.

It may not have the Everybody Look At Me, the Whale Messiah flair of what Sea Shepherds do, but if Japan ever stops or even seriously cuts back on whaling, it will be because of the actions of governments like Australia and not Sea Shepherds.

I can't help but wonder what your motivations really are in regards to "saving whales" when you so cavalierly dismiss the serious work and pressure of so many national governments as of equal value to changing a Facebook status. Yeah, the IWC may not be completely shutting down Japan or Norway; but what if there were never an IWC? How many whales would be getting hunted then by however many nations that never decided to stop? The IWC is responsible for the very continued survival of a few whale species. The fact of their existence has saved incalculable numbers of whales. And this is nothing? This is "setting a Facebook status" to you?



"Taken hostages" like coalition warships are taking Somali hostages in the Gulf of Aden.

Except all the talking in the World hasn't been as successful as Watson creating an international incident by getting run down by a whaling boat. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

As for the turning people away I simple don't buy what posters on IMDB think. It's like declaring people support suicide from listening to the people on the ground yelling "jump" to a guy on a ledge.

 

[applecorped]

Except all the talking in the World hasn't been as successful as Watson creating an international incident by getting run down by a whaling boat. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

As for the turning people away I simple don't buy what posters on IMDB think. It's like declaring people support suicide from listening to the people on the ground yelling "jump" to a guy on a ledge.

So, Watson "created" the incident?

 

[Checkmite]

Except all the talking in the World hasn't been as successful as Watson creating an international incident by getting run down by a whaling boat. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

That's nonsense. How long has it been since Russia has taken ANY whales commercially? Canada? The United States? New Zealand? You're going to tell me that Watson's "incident" (which half the viewers laughed at and nobody who doesn't watch the show even cares about) "saved" more whales than the formation of the IWC?

"Proof" indeed.

 

[Furcifer]

That's nonsense. How long has it been since Russia has taken ANY whales commercially? Canada? The United States? New Zealand? You're going to tell me that Watson's "incident" (which half the viewers laughed at and nobody who doesn't watch the show even cares about) "saved" more whales than the formation of the IWC?

"Proof" indeed.

That's not the claim though, the claim is he saved more whales from illegal commercial whaling than the IWC.

 

[Furcifer]

So, Watson "created" the incident?

Pretty much, the odds of getting rammed by a Japanese whaling boat randomly in the middle of the ocean have to be almost non-existent.

 

[Furcifer]

How many viewers are there, how many laughed and how exactly do you know this???
You seriously aren't going to use your best guesstimate from reading IMDB are you? You've been around long enough to know this claim is laughable without "evidence".

 

[Checkmite]

That's not the claim though, the claim is he saved more whales from illegal commercial whaling than the IWC.

Japan's whaling is not illegal. We've been over this already. If it were illegal, the IWC could impose sanctions or maybe even expel them. Either of these could lead to Japan dispensing with their "scientific limit" and declaring open season on whales and nobody could do anything about it. So yes, by allowing them their "scientific" exemption, the IWC is most certainly saving any number of whales from illegal harpoons.

 

[Marcus]

That's nonsense. How long has it been since Russia has taken ANY whales commercially? Canada? The United States? New Zealand? You're going to tell me that Watson's "incident" (which half the viewers laughed at and nobody who doesn't watch the show even cares about) "saved" more whales than the formation of the IWC?

"Proof" indeed.

I don't have any love for the Sea Shepards either, but their actions do have a large effect on Japanese whaling operations. Not from any particular incident, but from continuous harassment of the factory ship preventing onloading of whales from the whale boats.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

You obviously don't know very much about commercial fishing if you don't understand this. Selling your catch does not make you a commercial fisherman, how you catch the fish does. It's based on capacity to catch fish and not the exchange of goods or money.

Just keep banging that drum. Because the more you bang, the crazier you look.

Here's the commercial fisheries website for Alaska Department of Fish and Game:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingcommercial.main

You just go ahead and show me where the capacity to catch fish has anything to do with the definition of commercial fishing:

Alaska’s commercial fisheries are diverse, valuable, harvest a variety of finfish and shellfish species, and include both large and small vessels. Catcher processors over 300 feet in length operate in the Bering Sea pollock fishery while open skiffs of 20 feet fish for salmon, herring, and halibut close to shore. In between all sizes and configurations of vessels work their respective fishing grounds.

Whether you are 20 ft. or 300 ft. the only question is whether you are engaged in commerce.

But feel free to actually use a source that enforces commercial fishing regulations to demonstrate that commerce is something other than selling something. There may actually be a country that defines it that way. But we sure don't.

 

[Furcifer]

Japan's whaling is not illegal. We've been over this already. If it were illegal, the IWC could impose sanctions or maybe even expel them. Either of these could lead to Japan dispensing with their "scientific limit" and declaring open season on whales and nobody could do anything about it. So yes, by allowing them their "scientific" exemption, the IWC is most certainly saving any number of whales from illegal harpoons.

Just becuase they haven't been prosecuted doesn't mean what they are doing is legal. They're conducting commercial whaling, which isn't legal. The fact they claim otherwise doesn't change that.

There's plenty that could be done if the Japanese declared open season on whales. I don't think even the Japanese would be dumb enough to make that threat, let alone carry it out. That's why they cowardly paint their boats with "Research" on the side and continue with sophistry.

Personally I think more people saw the "research" on the side of the Japanese boats and turned on them while think "Grow a set". They just aren't as vocal because most people are too PC to say "The Japanese are a bunch of pussies for allowing this to continue and we're all a bunch of pussies for allowing them". Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

[RandFan]

It's seems bizarre that a commercial activity would not be commercial. But I guess there is some basis for it. What would you call fishing for commerce that is not commercial?

source No longer can the definition of commercial fishing be limited to multi-nation factory ships plying the deep waters of the world’s oceans. The devastation of deep water and inshore fish populations as well as the destruction of coral reefs that are the spawning grounds and protectors of so many fish species should no longer be attributed to any one enterprise.

For the purposes of this series on commercial fishing, we have chosen to include a broadened definition of commercial fishing. Therefore, commercial fishing will include all fisheries wherein the fishermen take fish and other seafood for monetary gain.

Commercial fishing is the activity of catching fish and other seafood for commercial profit, mostly from wild fisheries.

 

[Checkmite]

Just becuase they haven't been prosecuted doesn't mean what they are doing is legal. They're conducting commercial whaling, which isn't legal. The fact they claim otherwise doesn't change that.

No; actually it is legal for nations to whale for "scientific" reasons and there's no restriction forbidding the products of such whales from being sold. Japan is following the letter of the law, as it were.

There's plenty that could be done if the Japanese declared open season on whales. I don't think even the Japanese would be dumb enough to make that threat, let alone carry it out.

Why? In case you hadn't noticed, that's precisely what Norway, Iceland, and the indigenous Alaskans have done, and they're not suffering any consequences.

That's why they cowardly paint their boats with "Research" on the side and continue with sophistry.

Exactly! They do that because if they do that, they avoid technically breaking the rules, which means they don't have to worry about legal consequences. Which is what I said the first time.

This whole "I'm going to disagree with you, and then rebut by basically reiterating what you said as if it's a different argument" thing always confuzzles me when I encounter it in these forums.

Personally I think more people saw the "research" on the side of the Japanese boats and turned on them while think "Grow a set". They just aren't as vocal because most people are too PC to say "The Japanese are a bunch of pussies for allowing this to continue and we're all a bunch of pussies for allowing them". Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I don't need any evidence to the contrary; you, however, do need evidence to the affirmative.

 

[Furcifer]

Just keep banging that drum. Because the more you bang, the crazier you look.

Here's the commercial fisheries website for Alaska Department of Fish and Game:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingcommercial.main

You just go ahead and show me where the capacity to catch fish has anything to do with the definition of commercial fishing:



Whether you are 20 ft. or 300 ft. the only question is whether you are engaged in commerce.

But feel free to actually use a source that enforces commercial fishing regulations to demonstrate that commerce is something other than selling something. There may actually be a country that defines it that way. But we sure don't.

The problem with reporting ad homs is the mods delete them. They really should stand as a testament to how weak the argument is.

Unfortunately you don't understand causality, or you're just doing so to avoid the irrefutable truth. The fisheries assume if you have the capacity ie; the gear, the boat, the facilities to catch and process the large quantities of fish you are no longer doing so for personal use or sport, you're doing so for commerce. The actual exchange of goods and services for the fish is completely and utterly irrelevant. It is assumed and doesn't have to be proven.

I realize this isn't a black and white issue. I'm sure there are many examples of where commercialism isn't defined by the capacity to catch fish but soley the sale. For the most part however the difference between sport fishing and commercial fishing is defined this way. This is the difference between most of these traditional hunts and what the Japanese are doing with these "research" boats.

 

[Furcifer]

Why? In case you hadn't noticed, that's precisely what Norway, Iceland, and the indigenous Alaskans have done, and they're not suffering any consequences.

Exactly! They do that because if they do that, they avoid technically breaking the rules, which means they don't have to worry about legal consequences. Which is what I said the first time.

This whole "I'm going to disagree with you, and then rebut by basically reiterating what you said as if it's a different argument" thing always confuzzles me when I encounter it in these forums.

I don't need any evidence to the contrary; you, however, do need evidence to the affirmative.

Meh, you say "legal" I say "the law just hasn't caught up to them". I think you're just making the same mistake potheads did. They claimed they were selling "tobbacco" products and claimed it was legal. Then the cops busted them. Of course they're back, now they're selling legal "bath salts". We'll see if that's legal too I suppose.

I'm afraid you do need evidence and counting "likes" on YouTube videos from obnoxious users doesn't cut it.

 

[Korren]

Except all the talking in the World hasn't been as successful as Watson creating an international incident by getting run down by a whaling boat.

Oh please. Watson has been performing this same schtick for decades -- this is hardly the first time he's struck another ship and lied about being rammed. Norway is still whaling. Japan is still whaling. Iceland is, one again, whaling. Aboriginal whaling continues.

The only thing the Sea Shepherds have managed to do is to firmly entrench the populations of those countries in the pro-whaling camp and, one must assume as they're still farting about, raise money for themselves. They have not had any adverse effect on overall whaling at all.

Greenpeace has at least managed to influence the IWC towards it current log-jam. While one can debate the long-term wisdom of that, and deplore the tactics and politics involved in that, at least it has clearly had an adverse effect.

The Sea Sheperds are not taken serious by anyone but themselves. They're clowns, and inept clowns at that.

 

[theprestige]

Who said i was butthurt?

I simply stated a fact that the Shonan deliberately rammed them. no more, no less.

Well, you stated an interpretation, and called it a fact. But let's leave that aside for now.

The Sea Shepherds fly a pirate flag. Why shouldn't they get rammed by any and every ship able to do so, anywhere they are encountered on the high seas?

 

[Checkmite]

I realize this isn't a black and white issue. I'm sure there are many examples of where commercialism isn't defined by the capacity to catch fish but soley the sale. For the most part however the difference between sport fishing and commercial fishing is defined this way. This is the difference between most of these traditional hunts and what the Japanese are doing with these "research" boats.

The indigenous hunters do in fact sell the meat; the fiction about their hunts having anything to do with "tradition" has already been exposed; and "sustainability" may matter to you but not the indigenous hunters - the only reason what they do is "sustainable" is because there aren't enough of them left in the world to have an impact on global whale populations.

 

[Korren]

No; actually it is legal for nations to whale for "scientific" reasons and there's no restriction forbidding the products of such whales from being sold. Japan is following the letter of the law, as it were.

Actually, the IWC does pose a restriction on what should be done with whales killed for research (or, in the case of the current Japanese hunt, "research"): "Article 8, section 2: Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.[i/]"

In other words: whales killed for research should, as far as practicable, explicitly be processed and sold and not wasted.