Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[Checkmite]

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.

You're missing two things:

1. "Bath salts" were not illegal until they were; which is why nobody who sold "bath salts" before it was made illegal is in jail.

2. The only people who can make "research" whaling no longer legal are the national governments that are members of the IWC. It just so happens that a number of member governments are working on that right this moment. It also just so happens that nothing Sea Shepherds is doing can have any effect on that process; they can't "make it go faster". In fact going into other countries' territorial waters and aggressively threatening their fishing fleets might easy have the opposite effect, as this piratical behavior can de-legitimize the issue or at the very least deflect governmental attention away from the people who are allegedly "breaking the law" and onto these folks who are obviously breaking the law instead.

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

Evidence that people are not doing something?

 

[Furcifer]

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.

So far this is just an unsupported claim. If he's "entrenching" people there should be proof. I can prove his wackiness has led to the Japanese calling their season short.

Love em or hate em clowns still draw people to the circus.

 

[Furcifer]

You're missing two things:

1. "Bath salts" were not illegal until they were; which is why nobody who sold "bath salts" before it was made illegal is in jail.

2. The only people who can make "research" whaling no longer legal are the national governments that are members of the IWC. It just so happens that a number of member governments are working on that right this moment. It also just so happens that nothing Sea Shepherds is doing can have any effect on that process; they can't "make it go faster". In fact going into other countries' territorial waters and aggressively threatening their fishing fleets might easy have the opposite effect, as this piratical behavior can de-legitimize the issue or at the very least deflect governmental attention away from the people who are allegedly "breaking the law" and onto these folks who are obviously breaking the law instead.



Evidence that people are not doing something?

I think you're missing the point, not illegal doesn't necessarily imply legal. Yes it's sophistry but it's an important distinction when we're talking about something so politically motivated.

Yes, I'll show you how. If 6 out of 10 people are doing something, guess how many are not?

 

[Checkmite]

I think you're missing the point, not illegal doesn't necessarily imply legal. Yes it's sophistry but it's an important distinction when we're talking about something so politically motivated.

But "research whaling" isn't merely "not illegal"; the IWC explicitly permits it, and permits the sale of the products of whales taken for research. It is positively legal. Expressly legal.

Yes, I'll show you how. If 6 out of 10 people are doing something, guess how many are not?

I'll get right on organizing and funding a properly vetted and representative survey to counter your throwaway rhetoric in a post on an Internet forum.

 

[Furcifer]

The question I have Checkmite is can you really say you're following the letter of the law when you're lying?

I just don't believe most people can look at this a see 1 crazy man and a nation of liars and then say the real problem is the 1 crazy man. Talk about an issue of scale.

 

[Furcifer]

I'll get right on organizing and funding a properly vetted and representative survey to counter your throwaway rhetoric in a post on an Internet forum.

I'll keep on being skeptical of unsupported claims on teh interwebz.

 

[Checkmite]

The question I have Checkmite is can you really say you're following the letter of the law when you're lying?

See, now that's a step in the right direction. If Sea Shepherds were putting effort into proving the Japenese whalers weren't actually doing any scientific research, that might yield information that could actually be useful to the IWC. Instead all we get is "well it's obvious", which IIRC is Pig Latin for "No, we don't have any actual evidence".

The law says nations can grant permits for groups to take whales for research purposes. It does not set standards that research must meet; it leaves that to individual governments. Yes, a government can invoke this power in bad faith. Unfortunately, nothing in the law yet provides a remedy.

The various national governments on the IWC are working to fix that.

Sea Shepherds is not.

 

[Wildy]

"How many" is a quantity. Quantity is not the same as capacity. I thought I gave some simple examples but apparently this is a complicated concept.

To give you something to complain about instead of discussing something more relevant I would like to point out that at times capacity can be the same as quantity.

A man with a fishing pole and a lure can catch 1 fish at a time. He is considered a sport fisherman. Even if he catches 10 fish.

Is this definition consistent everywhere in the world?

The same man with a net could catch 10 maybe 100 fish in a net. His capacity to catch fish with a net is greater than with a pole, even if he catches the same quantity of fish.

This is why using a net usually requires a commercial fishing license. Even if you never sold a single fish, if you want to use a net you need a commercial license.

And in the eyes of the law that would mean that you are a commercial fisherman.

This is why a couple guys on a 25 foot boat with some spears could very well be considered sport fishing and not commercial.

I don't know, I'm going to have to get you to compare a bunch of fishing boats based on those factors you gave me when you told me to do it with whaling boats.

This is why the "traditional" hunts aren't anything like what the Japanese are doing.

So does that mean that you would want to remove the Aboriginal whaling quotas for Greenland because their hunts are, in general, far more similar to Japanese/Norwegian whaling than it is to Indonesian/US whaling?

By the way did you find the Canadian definition of "traditional" that you said you were going to provide?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

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.

The second part is an interesting convolution - that since it is for commerce, it isn't for commerce.

But you just ignored the fact I did commercial fishing on one day and personal use fishing with exactly the same gear the next day. You have no idea how common this is. And it is in the tons. Because they are feeding dog lots with chum salmon, which is why it is called dog salmon. A big lot can be 200 dogs. All along the Yukon are large fish processing camps that have been operating for years, and they aren't commercial. Fish and game will convict them though if they sell just one fish egg for profit.

That's what happened to the eight-time North American sled dog racing champion Charles Attla. The Huslia Hustler. He wasn't alone, either. That's just the biggest name ever charged with selling personal use fish products commercially. The Japanese will pay a lot for the roe, so this is a constant temptation to personal use fishermen.

Why can't you just show some strength of conviction instead of this bizarre, irrational floundering? People can respect that. But I guess it is just copying the behavior of your hero - since lying, sabatoge, and other antisocial behavior is embraced by him then he is a model for others to follow.

Which is the reason the kind of damage that someone can do is far more than just his personal crimes: teaching others to emulate.

 

[Pantaz]

... A man with a fishing pole and a lure can catch 1 fish at a time. He is considered a sport fisherman. Even if he catches 10 fish. ...

Hmm...

​

 

[Wildy]

Look at all the fish those sport fisherman have caught.

 

[Locknar]

I can prove his wackiness has led to the Japanese calling their season short.

Please do so; from what I've read it seems to be the opposite - they caught ~266 in the shortened 2012 season - 95 more then in 2011 and have never come close to the yearly quota of ~1000/year (set in what, 2004?). The only issue the SSA seems to pose is one of safety; given they fly the pirate flag that is easy enough to solve.

However, whale consumption seems to be on the decline in Japan and the industry is now faced with an existing stockpile and issues wrt embezzlement within the Government subsidized industry.

Look at all the fish those sport fisherman have caught.

But in the next shot, the sport fisherman are throwing them all back

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Our friend does not understand personal use fisheries at all, either. He seems to think the only things you can do are sport fishing and commercial.

We'll be going to Chitna in about ten days as we do almost every year to nab 40 salmon with dipnets. We watch the sonar count at the mouth of the Copper and use the water level to estimate when they're running through the canyon. We pass by people lining the tributaries, where the sportfish rules allow two salmon, and they have to use a flyrod. That isn't my idea of fishing. I haven't picked up a rod in years.

You can also set up fishwheels if you want industrial scale harvesting - in the hundreds of fish. Set nets are allowed on the Yukon, Tanana, Kuskokwim, etc. and that is going to be in the thousands of fish if you are serious. This is not commercial. It is personal use.

Right now reds are selling cheap at about $7 a pound in the store. Kings are about twice that. One red is over fifty bucks in value, and a king is in the high hundreds. So it is in the thousands of dollars to do dipnetting, and way more for fishwheels or set-netting. You'd have to make 30% more than that in pre-tax wages to buy meat in the store, and I know this is the same kind of economics at work in places where the Sea Shepherd was harassing those whalers. In remote Alaska it is way more important.

People are so casual about saying they could just buy the meat in the store instead of harvesting their whales or whatever it is. If someone came to them and casually said "hand over five thousand dollars cash" as if it were no imposition, they would think of such a person as a vicious sociopath.

 

[Furcifer]

See, now that's a step in the right direction. If Sea Shepherds were putting effort into proving the Japenese whalers weren't actually doing any scientific research, that might yield information that could actually be useful to the IWC. Instead all we get is "well it's obvious", which IIRC is Pig Latin for "No, we don't have any actual evidence".

The law says nations can grant permits for groups to take whales for research purposes. It does not set standards that research must meet; it leaves that to individual governments. Yes, a government can invoke this power in bad faith. Unfortunately, nothing in the law yet provides a remedy.

The various national governments on the IWC are working to fix that.

Sea Shepherds is not.

Sometimes private citizens can accomplish more than all the governments in the world. Sometimes you need Seal Team 6. There are limitations to lobbying.

 

[Furcifer]

To give you something to complain about instead of discussing something more relevant I would like to point out that at times capacity can be the same as quantity.

Is this definition consistent everywhere in the world?

And in the eyes of the law that would mean that you are a commercial fisherman.



I don't know, I'm going to have to get you to compare a bunch of fishing boats based on those factors you gave me when you told me to do it with whaling boats.



So does that mean that you would want to remove the Aboriginal whaling quotas for Greenland because their hunts are, in general, far more similar to Japanese/Norwegian whaling than it is to Indonesian/US whaling?

By the way did you find the Canadian definition of "traditional" that you said you were going to provide?

Yes, capacity can be quantity. Compare and discuss the capacity and quantity of an Indonesia vessel vs. the Maru.

No. It varies from country to country and from species to species.

Why, becuase you don't understand the difference between minimums and maximums, upper and lower limits? Because some nutjob in Alaska wants to license his dinghy as a commercial boat, and it would be allowed, what's being done in Indonesia is no different from what's being done in Japan???

I think it depends on what the capacity of the ships is, what facilities they have onboard, whether the boats are registered as commercial or not, whether the catch is kept for domestic use or if it's exported and whether or not the fish coastal or international waters.

No I can't, not until I get a computer. You could search the fisheries Canada site or even look at YouTube videos and compare them in the interim.

 

[Furcifer]

Hmm...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_230994fbde11faf3db.gif[/qimg]​

lol, indeed 100 years ago things were different. If the Japanese want to hire a bunch of fools to try and catch whales on a fishing pole who are we to stop this commercial operation!
Capacity to catch whales in the above picture= 0, obviously not a commercial whaling operation.
Thanks for the laugh though

 

[Checkmite]

Sometimes private citizens can accomplish more than all the governments in the world.

Sometimes.

Not this time. It's just not happening.

Sea Shepherds are tools. Worse, they are comfortable with bending and/or breaking certain rules in the furtherance of what they consider to be a justifiable goal, which is kind of what they accuse the Japanese of doing.

 

[Furcifer]

Please do so; from what I've read it seems to be the opposite - they caught ~266 in the shortened 2012 season - 95 more then in 2011 and have never come close to the yearly quota of ~1000/year (set in what, 2004?). The only issue the SSA seems to pose is one of safety; given they fly the pirate flag that is easy enough to solve.

However, whale consumption seems to be on the decline in Japan and the industry is now faced with an existing stockpile and issues wrt embezzlement within the Government subsidized industry.


But in the next shot, the sport fisherman are throwing them all back

I guess you'd have to look at the catch before the SS and after. Anyone know what it was?

 

[Locknar]

I guess you'd have to look at the catch before the SS and after. Anyone know what it was?

This is not the proof you said you could provide.

According to this site (http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=5894) more whales have been killed on the Sea Shepherd's "watch" then before they started.

 

[Furcifer]

This is not the proof you said you could provide.

According to this site (http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=5894) more whales have been killed on the Sea Shepherd's "watch" then before they started.

What proof did I say I could provide?

I'm backtracking a bit becuase I realize showing the SS running interference and then the Japanese calling it quits is just going to meet with "skepticism". I also realize the Japanese are obvious liars and if they said they ran out of fuel and that's why they called it quits many people here would believe it.

I can't open the link but I can safely say the Japanese killed millions of whales off the SS watch, and not nearly as many on their watch so the website is wrong.