Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[Checkmite]

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

With SSCS intervention they seem to stop at roughly the same point as they do without SSCS intervention.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

So, a quota is not a target? Perhaps you need to tell all the crabbers, lobsterman, and every other commercial fisherman worldwide. A quota is not a taget, but an upper limit. Correct on the upper limit, but it most certainly IS a target.

As far as the Norwegian whaling, I don't know much about it, so I don't know what SSCS's position is.

 

[mikeyx]

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.

It was a deliberate hyperbole, to make a point. If they want to stop whaling, you could sabotage the boats at port, see they disembark, instead, it's all about ratings.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

Terrorism is using terror as a weapon to try stop people doing something.
You do not need to KILL somebody to be a terrorist.
That guy ram boat at see, and is using fear to try to stop people doing legal stuff.
Therefore by definition he is a terrorist , even if he did not kill anybody *yet*.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

What evidence do you have the lack of catch is due to sea shepherd and not other factor, genuine question here.

 

[Aepervius]

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

If that is the argument, why other whaling nation don't "meet" the maximum of the quota despite no obstruction from Sea Shepherd ?

 

[Aepervius]

So, a quota is not a target? Perhaps you need to tell all the crabbers, lobsterman, and every other commercial fisherman worldwide. A quota is not a taget, but an upper limit. Correct on the upper limit, but it most certainly IS a target.

As far as the Norwegian whaling, I don't know much about it, so I don't know what SSCS's position is.

No a quota is an upper limit you are NOT forced to meet. We have a quota of deer hunt here around, and some year due to various factor we hunted less than the quota.

PS: you might be confusing this usage of quota with sales quote for example. *limiting* quota are maximum limit which you can be udner or equal, whereas some other quota like sale quota are goal you want to reach and be above. In our case the whalling quota is not a goal but a maximum limit, like my deer, board, pheasant hunting quota.

 

[triforcharity]

Yoy need to read this thread more.

I'll freely admit I haven't really read much of this thread. If there's something you'd like me to read specifically, please feel free to let me know. I'll gladly read whatever you'd like me to read.

This is a topic that fascinates me, and has for many years.

The take is constant over time, probably because it meets the demand. The biggest change is that they doubled the quota.

No, it well exceeded the demand. In fact, last year, 75% of the whale meat caught was left unsold. If you consider that meeting the demand, I guess that's correct, in the very strictest of the sense. Obliterating, exceeding, and destroying would be much better words.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/14/japan-appetite-whale-meat-wanes

Here's an article from 2010 stating similar facts.

http://www2.wdcs.org/blog/index.php...le-meat-consumption-officially-declining.html

So, meeting the demand, while correct, is grossly inaccurate.

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.

We can argue what the quota is, and isn't, till we're blue in the face. It matters none. Call it whatever you want.

Why would they double their "quota" when what they're bringing in is not even selling? Why is 60-75% of the whale meat that's caught not used?

To me, that is wanton waste. I'm an avid outdoorsman, I hunt and fish quite regularly. If I kill something, I am going to use as much of it as I can. I waste very little, and only kill what I will absolutely use.

While I agree that studying whales is important, wouldn't it be wise to find another way to do it, other than killing them? Especially since it costs millions of dollars a year, and does not support itself.

It is, for all intents and purposes, a waste.

 

[triforcharity]

What evidence do you have the lack of catch is due to sea shepherd and not other factor, genuine question here.

I can honestly say I don't know, but will do some research and look at the numbers before SSCS intervention, and after. Give me some time, as real life things are going to be getting in the way for the foreseeable future.

 

[Korren]

So, a quota is not a target? Perhaps you need to tell all the crabbers, lobsterman, and every other commercial fisherman worldwide. A quota is not a taget, but an upper limit. Correct on the upper limit, but it most certainly IS a target.

The dynamics of most fisheries are different from those of Japanese and Norwegian whaling in that the fleets have excess capacity beyond the granted quotas. Any quotas given is therefore almost guaranteed to be caught.

That's not true for the Japanese or Norwegian whaling fleets -- in part because there's much more limited demand for whale meat than for the various products from fisheries, but also because the absolute size of the endeavour is so much smaller and doesn't have the same economies of scale and also because whaling is more dependent on weather conditions.

As far as the Norwegian whaling, I don't know much about it, so I don't know what SSCS's position is.

They're against it, but they've not made any material attempts at disturbing it since 1994. Anyway, you don't need to know anything about the Sea Shepherd's position on Norwegian whaling to notice that they don't kill their entire quotas either, despite the absence of buffoons from the Sea Shepherd.

 

[Korren]

Why would they double their "quota" when what they're bringing in is not even selling? Why is 60-75% of the whale meat that's caught not used?

Because the quota of minke whales isn't a political decision -- it's determined by an algorithm (the revised management procedure) that is meant to determine the maximum safe take from a whale population. The quota thus depends on what we know about the whale population in question, not on political or economic considerations.

 

[Aepervius]

Because the quota of minke whales isn't a political decision -- it's determined by an algorithm (the revised management procedure) that is meant to determine the maximum safe take from a whale population. The quota thus depends on what we know about the whale population in question, not on political or economic considerations.

same as a hunting quota more less.

 

[NoahFence]

It was a deliberate hyperbole, to make a point. If they want to stop whaling, you could sabotage the boats at port, see they disembark, instead, it's all about ratings.

I believe they've done this.

Accurate information is groovy.

 

[NoahFence]

What evidence do you have the lack of catch is due to sea shepherd and not other factor, genuine question here.

The Japanese admitted it in their own press releases.

However, I think in the case of the 2011-2012 season, it was mostly due to terrible weather.

 

[Cain]

Pssssht, whales. They act like they own the ocean. Look at how much space they take up. And how did they get to be that fat? Nobody eats that much. They probably eat even when they're not hungry. Gross.

 

[Aepervius]

The Japanese admitted it in their own press releases.

However, I think in the case of the 2011-2012 season, it was mostly due to terrible weather.

Link please.

ETA: I found it.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/311...aling-whale-hunt-japanese-whalers-fishing.htm

I note they give both weather and sea shepherd. I would like to see the evolution of catch over the year frankly. Trying to google it.

 

[Aepervius]

I can't find whale consumption statistic except article that whale meat was left unsold last year, and that between 98 and 11 the price of whale meat stayed stable or has dropped.

My take on this ? The activist made a convenient excuse, but it is quite clear whale meat does not get sold much. In fact the price are for meat quite low compared to beef for example despite rarity (from 14 euro for red meat up to about 50 euro for the premium, beef price I saw in supermarket were from 16 euro for rumpsteak up to 30 euro per kg for filet, and black angus can go up to 70 euro).

ETA: if there were less whale sold than expected, the price would rise to meet demand. At least for the last year where they were public (2011) they did not rise, they even dropped, ergo the demand is stable or declining despite the meat rarity and difficulty to provide.

 

[casebro]

I

No, it well exceeded the demand. In fact, last year, 75% of the whale meat caught was left unsold. I



To me, that is wanton waste. I'm an avid outdoorsman, I hunt and fish quite regularly. If I kill something, I am going to use as much of it as I can. I waste very little, and only kill what I will absolutely use.

Ummm, I'd like to look over the Japanese math. If they are weighing each whale when caught, minusing the total kilos sold, then there may be very little waste.

Guts, bones, skin, etc don't count. Outdoorsman that you are, or a butcher maybe, don't we actually eat only 50% of the live weight of a mammal?

Inherently frugal that the Japanese are, I can't beleive they toss out edible meat. Or waste the cost of attaining it. One would think they would sell it to the Koreans, a day before "best served by date". Or prisoners? Foodstamp program?

Or do they really just save the penis for use as an aphrodisiac?

eta: Another thought- Do they toss most of the meat, never having the intention of selling it all, the real point is the whale oil/fat? For industrial purposes? Maybe somebody needs to audit the industry?

 

[Aepervius]

Ummm, I'd like to look over the Japanese math. If they are weighing each whale when caught, minusing the total kilos sold, then there may be very little waste.

Guts, bones, skin, etc don't count. Outdoorsman that you are, or a butcher maybe, don't we actually eat only 50% of the live weight of a mammal?

Inherently frugal that the Japanese are, I can't beleive they toss out edible meat. Or waste the cost of attaining it. One would think they would sell it to the Koreans, a day before "best served by date". Or prisoners? Foodstamp program?

Or do they really just save the penis for use as an aphrodisiac?

eta: Another thought- Do they toss most of the meat, never having the intention of selling it all, the real point is the whale oil/fat? For industrial purposes? Maybe somebody needs to audit the industry?

I am pretty sure we consume much more than 75% of a porc or beef, or heck what we killed in the wood. What I remember from my time as butchering animals was more that you would get 4/5 of the animals sold at various price, but that is 25 years ago so maybe somebody should look that up somewhere, my memory might be extremly faulty, and it is 1 am here...

ETA: I think the reason that they toss out the meat is to *maintain* the price rather than see them falling much further....

 

[Aepervius]

I am too tired but I found a site saying that after slaughter you get 75% of a porc weight as carcass, and depending whether you use the organs or not (for example in France we eat the "tripes", collect the blood, feet etc...) you can get from 70% to 90% as sellable stuff. So for porc : from 55 to 65% of the whole animal as sold stuff. For beef I would expect it to be lower but on the sme order (maybe 40-50%). I expect that whale would be in a similar order of magnitude.

ETA some packing plant says 30% to 45% for beef. ETA for meat only does not take into account gut sold, like tripes or stuff. I gues it depends on the country you are in.