Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[NoahFence]

kinda paints a picture doesnt it?

One group ramming boats at sea, the other firebombing this and that. Real high moral standard. Noah I'm kinda appalled by your take on this.

I'm appauled at the devastation mankind brings on this planet.

 

[mikeyx]

I'm appauled at the devastation mankind brings on this planet.

and have apparently no issue with terrorism. Part of the problem you are.

 

[NoahFence]

and have apparently no issue with terrorism. Part of the problem you are.

Terrorism to me is flying planes into buildings and killing people with the latest Polo Sweater-Vest bomb.

I'll not hold my breath while you dig up the cavernous list of people SSCS or ELF or ALF has killed.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Abortion clinic bombers ? Bad. Unless of course they do it when nobodies there and I don't like abortions, then it's ok. Construction site arsonists? Bad, Unless of course they do it while nobodies there and I don't like where they are building, then it's ok.

Two sides of the same coin if you ask me.

 

[NoahFence]

Well, I'm not claiming any moral high ground here. I'm just offering my opinion on the topic of SSCS and enviro-"terrorists" for lack of a better term.

 

[mikeyx]

Well, I'm not claiming any moral high ground here. I'm just offering my opinion on the topic of SSCS and enviro-"terrorists" for lack of a better term.

Horse puckey, you are coming off as though yoiu are defending them. You dont have any moral high ground to stand on, just delusion. ELF are terrorists on a smaller scale maybe, but they are what they are. And you have made it clear you support them.

 

[theprestige]

enviro-"terrorists" for lack of a better term.

Enviro-douchebags, maybe?

I admit I like "confrontation junkies".

 

[egslim]

Terrorism to me is flying planes into buildings and killing people with the latest Polo Sweater-Vest bomb.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.

The only difference between flying an airplane into a building and sailing a ship into another ship is the speed of the collision.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - or environmental activist.

 

[triforcharity]

no it was done on order by the media whore watson.

And I suppose you have proof of this?

ETA: I've seen the Australian Coast Guard (i think that's who investigated this incident, don't recall honestly) and equal blame was put on both parties. I personally disagree, but I haven't seen the complete raw footage, and am assuming they have much more evidence that I do.

 

[Marcus]

I have to call BS.... they're attention whores whoring for TV. Maybe to call attention to their cause, maybe just for the sake of whoring, I don't care. Yes whaling is wrong, BUT the first impression that this show made on me was you have a bunch of dangerously inexperienced people on ships in very dangerous waters, that act alone shows the Watson is an ass and a dangerous one.

But their approach is also half assed. They have clearly thrown out the green peace rule book, but if they really wanna be pirates, get a big nasty boat with a ramming prow that you know can take a hit or three while cleaving the other guy's hull and engage and sink the whalers. And then be preapred to man up and face the consequences for doing that.

You want a war, fight a war, but the current show is crap and all of you know.

This sounds like a really bad strategy. Sink a boat or two, kill some people, lose your freedom, your funding, your organization, game over. The current approach, in addition to providing us with entertaining buffoonery to watch, is more likely to generate results in the long run.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This sounds like a really bad strategy. Sink a boat or two, kill some people, lose your freedom, your funding, your organization, game over. The current approach, in addition to providing us with entertaining buffoonery to watch, is more likely to generate results in the long run.

But other than letting this guy play pirate what results are there?

 

[Marcus]

But other than letting this guy play pirate what results are there?

They generate quite a bit of publicity, I wouldn't underestimate it's value. Last season they did have a big impact on the harvest, not much this time. The Japanese were armed with new tactics and equipment and soundly defeated them. When the Shepards finally found the factory ship, the faster Japanese hunting boats boxed them in by trailing long lines that prevented the Shepards from turning without fouling their own prop, thus allowing the factory ship to escape.

 

[triforcharity]

But other than letting this guy play pirate what results are there?

Typically, they are able to disrupt the take of whales. With Japan, they set a huge quota, usually around 6-800. The SSCS is able to disrupt them so much, that the Japanese usually only get a fraction of their quota. For instance, the 2010-2011 season, the quota was something in that range, and due to SSCS, they only collected less than 10%, and left the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary early.

Similar results in the 2011-2012 season.

The quota was 935 Minkes, 50 Fin (which are endangered) and 50 Humpback for a total of 1,035 whales.

They got 266 Minkes, 1 Fin (Why would you even purposely kill an endangered animal) and 0 Humpbacks for a total of 267 = 26% of quota.

So yes, SSCS is very effective, and getting results.

Whaling by Japan in the SOWS is costing the Japanese government millions every year. It's a dying industry in Japan, with very few people actually eating the whales' meat.

 

[NoahFence]

Don't forget they took 33 MILLION dollars from the Tsunami/Earthquake/Fukishima disaster and gave it to the whalers.

So they can illegally hunt whales in a protected sanctuary.

If that's not the most messed up set of priorities I don't know what is. Whatever the ELF does pales in comparison to that. The Japanese government is messed up.

Too damn proud.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Typically, they are able to disrupt the take of whales. With Japan, they set a huge quota, usually around 6-800. The SSCS is able to disrupt them so much, that the Japanese usually only get a fraction of their quota. For instance, the 2010-2011 season, the quota was something in that range, and due to SSCS, they only collected less than 10%, and left the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary early.

Yoy need to read this thread more. The take is constant over time, probably because it meets the demand. The biggest change is that they doubled the quota.

But this is not like a quota in manufacturing, it is not a goal it is a maximum.

So their most effective thing is that they did was get the quota doubled, so they can claim some effectiveness.

 

[Korren]

Typically, they are able to disrupt the take of whales. With Japan, they set a huge quota, usually around 6-800.

There's a couple of problems with that argument. First of all, the quota is a limit, not a target. There's no reason to assume that the Japanese whalers actually try to fill their entire quota. Furthermore, the Norwegian whaling also tend to only kill a portion of the total quota each year, even though it has been ignored by the Sea Shepherd since 1994.

 

[Korren]

So they can illegally hunt whales in a protected sanctuary.

There's nothing illegal about Japan's hunt in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. They lodged a formal objection to the creation of the sanctuary^[1] and is therefore free to ignore it. Those are the rules of the IWC -- you might not like them, but as the IWC is an entirely voluntary organisation which nations can leave at any time, the rules need to have such escape clauses in them.

[1] A creation which, incidentally, was not based on any scientific findings and therefore arguably in direct violation of article V of the convention.

 

[NoahFence]

There's a couple of problems with that argument. First of all, the quota is a limit, not a target. There's no reason to assume that the Japanese whalers actually try to fill their entire quota. Furthermore, the Norwegian whaling also tend to only kill a portion of the total quota each year, even though it has been ignored by the Sea Shepherd since 1994.

Without SSCS intervention, they'd just up and stop at a certain point just 'cuz they're nice guys?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Without SSCS intervention, they'd just up and stop at a certain point just 'cuz they're nice guys?

Because maybe they can't sell their product and it would drive down their profit for the whole trip?

 

[Korren]

Without SSCS intervention, they'd just up and stop at a certain point just 'cuz they're nice guys?

As I pointed out, that's what happens in Norway where there is no interference from the Sea Shepherd. (Not, mind, because they're unusually nice guys, but because of the economic and practical realities involved.)