Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[smartcooky]

I see that everyone is again pretending Sea Shepherd only oppose whaling. They also ram fishing ships that have nothing to do with whaling.

Yes, this would be ILLEGAL drift-netting boats and ILLEGAL Shark finning boats

 

[smartcooky]

Sea Shepherd has sunk six Norwegian ships since '92. How is that not terrorism? They're lucky they haven't cost anyone their lives.

And what were these Norwegian ships doing, commercial whaling or illegally fishing endangered species?

If so, they got what they deserved, and I hope there is more coming their way if they continue to do what they are doing.

 

[theprestige]

Only recognised by 4 countries, including, funnily enough, Norway.

And yet many more than four countries assert EEZs, whether they are signatories to the UN agreement or not.

But, okay, sure: The lack of universal acceptance may be why Japan feels they can get away with whaling in Australia's EEZ; and why Australia feels their hand is too weak to justify strong enforcement in their EEZ.

Which brings us back around: If Australia claims an EEZ, but can't enforce it or compel Japan to recognize it, is it really theirs?

I mean, the US could unilaterally claim the Moon as an American EEZ, but without robust enforcement, the claim would be meaningless.

 

[Ryokan]

And what were these Norwegian ships doing, commercial whaling or illegally fishing endangered species?

If so, they got what they deserved, and I hope there is more coming their way if they continue to do what they are doing.

Most of them were at harbour when they were sunk. And they were doing commercial whaling, in Norwegian waters, which is perfectly legal.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That's not evidence. Not even close.

Since the moratorium was adopted, the support for it has dropped from a 75% majority to a 50-50 split, with many of the countries initially recruited by the anti-whaling side now voting with the pro-whaling block. (A 75% majority is needed to overturn the moratorium.) Anti-whaling campaign groups and some governments claim that the Japanese Fisheries Agency has carried out a programme of "vote-buying" - i.e. offering aid to poorer countries in return for them joining the IWC and supporting Japanese positions on whaling. Japan claims, however, that this accusation itself is politically motivated because Japan's oversea aids are not only given to pro-whaling countries. Japan has given US$320 million in overseas aid to Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Guinea, Morocco, Panama, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St Kitts and Nevis and the Solomon Islands. Caribbean countries have consistently sided with Japan in each IWC vote since 2001 though the Caribbean nations admit the rules may possibly impact on their fishing activities as well. Pacific countries' voting patterns vary even for each motion, as they are lobbied by neighbouring pro-whaling Japan and anti-whaling New Zealand and Australia. Greenpeace alleges that Japan's aid activities and these countries voting patterns are correlated. These allegations of tying aid to votes are based on public admissions by government officials both inside and outside Japan, as well as an analysis of voting patterns compared to Japanese Fisheries Aid received. In 2005, The Environmental Investigation Agency approached Lord Ashcroft of the UK to use his influence in Belize to assure support for the anti whaling camp. It was reported that Ashcroft paid Belize's IWC subscription fees:

“Every month I'm on the water somewhere,” he says. “I've grown a close affinity, not just for whales, but for dolphins and porpoises. So it wasn't difficult for me to approach the Belizean authorities with such a brief.” He discovered that Belize's annual subscription to the IWC — £10,000 — had lapsed and came up with the cash. That backing yielded swift results when a crucial vote was won by the anti-whaling nations by a majority of one.”

Both sides accuse each other of using underhanded tactics to pack the commission with countries sympathetic to their position (either pro- or anti-). Edwin Snagg, the IWC commissioner for St Vincent and the Grenadines stated, "It's a question of respect,....Because you are small and because you are underdeveloped there is this view and there is this feeling that you can easily be bought and you can easily be sold. We in the Caribbean feel highly offended." Moreover, there are no developing countries who support an anti-whaling stance. The BBC reported that "Some countries recently admitted to the European Union have been advised by a "word in the ear" that it would be "a good idea" for them to join the IWC. Some activists believe that Britain and its fellow EU old-timers such as France and Germany should recruit all member states into the Commission." In Australia, National Nine News reported that "New Zealand is questioning pro-whaling support among Pacific Island states with the opposition calling for a rethink of foreign aid."

And just for the record, I don't agree with the anti-whaling group suggesting to withhold aid or paying for members to come in either.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If you have evidence that Japan, or any other whaling nation, targets endangered whale species, please present it.

I already posted it. Since 2005 Japan as taken 18, though they want up to 10 a season. Iceland took nearly 300 Northern Fin Whales in 2009-2010! There are an estimated 110,000 Fin Whales left in total, with only 38,000 of them being in the southern Oceans.

 

[Ryokan]

Ok. Evidence accepted.

18 whales over seven years by Japan isn't exactly a great amount, and should show that there's no specific industry for them.

I read up on the Icelandic hunting of Fins, and that's bad.

ETA: If the IWC weren't so demanding on stopping all whaling, forcing whaling nations to either accept their rulings or refuse to accept their authority (or use weasel words like the Japanese), and would rather focus on the preservation of endangered species, I think they would be a lot more effective.

 

[Wildy]

Then why is their refueling ship, a non-ice class ship, below 60 degrees, illegally?

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Ship refueling isn't covered by the international laws on whaling.

I love this part too...

the truth comes out,

As if I were hiding it and you got a "gotcha" moment....

Why did you make it look like I said something that was actually said by stankape?

My favorite thing about this latest bout of high-seas road rage by the Nisshin Maru is when the captain told the Australian Flagged ship to get out of Australian waters.

Even though it it's only Australian waters to Australia and the countries that recognise territorial claims in the Antarctic which is only the other countries that have territorial claims on the continent.

The Environment Minister disagrees:

TONY BURKE: Well the Australian Government view is regardless of where they are in the Southern Ocean, they are acting in breach of international law. That's why we've got the action in front of the International Court of Justice which is now getting closer to its full hearing.

Link

Yes, but how well the Government's arguments hold up will be up to the ICJ. Since New Zealand have recently been allowed to make submissions in the case we might have longer to wait.

You'll have my whale burgers when you pry it from my cold dead hands....

Well there's nothing stopping you from eating your whale burgers, what with the whole "objection to the treaty" thingy that Norway has.

Something tells me that they don't have permission.

And paying off a whole lot of countries to prevent them voting for a total ban so you can then give yourself a quota in someone else's waters is not morally, or according to both the Australian and New Zealand Governments legally right either.

But to Japan they are international waters. Last time I checked all the things that could be done in international waters are covered by international law, and not the law of Australia.

Besides, all that would happen if the whaling commission were to vote for a total ban is that Japan would probably just leave the treaty.

In Australia, the legislation which gives effect to MARPOL is the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. As the spill and passage of the Sun Laurel are alleged to have occurred in Australian Antarctic Territory, there are reporting requirements and a prosecution might be possible if offences can be proven.

First, thanks for the info on the treaties, some of which I've snipped for brevity.

Second, Australia won't charge the Japanese under Australian law because as the Environment minister said in that link you provided earlier it could undermine the Antarctic treaty potentially opening up Antarctica to resource exploitation.

No commercial whaling. The same Commission that created the sanctuary also allows what Japan is doing.

To be honest it's pseudo-commerical whaling. And that's because there's no rule that says you can't sell the whale meat after you've used it for science.

Yeah, except that they're in Australian Antarctic Waters and both us and New Zealand have made it abundantly clear that they are not welcome there.

Which means bugger all for Japan because they don't acknowledge Australia's claim to Antarctica. You could probably get around it by giving them some of Marie Byrd Land, but that would be a violation of article 4 of the Antarctic Treaty.

 

[Magenta]

And yet many more than four countries assert EEZs, whether they are signatories to the UN agreement or not.

But, okay, sure: The lack of universal acceptance may be why Japan feels they can get away with whaling in Australia's EEZ; and why Australia feels their hand is too weak to justify strong enforcement in their EEZ.

Which brings us back around: If Australia claims an EEZ, but can't enforce it or compel Japan to recognize it, is it really theirs?

I mean, the US could unilaterally claim the Moon as an American EEZ, but without robust enforcement, the claim would be meaningless.

Customs patrol the EEZ around Heard and McDonald Island to protect the Patagonian Toothfish fishery & surveilled the Japanese whaling fleet in 2008 prior to the Government initiating proceedings against Japan in the ICJ. The Australian Antarctic Territory is somewhat different from the EEZ around the mainland. Going by what the Environment Minister said today, Australia is taking a hands-off stance on this:

TONY BURKE: In the first instance when you say in Australian waters, the waters that we're talking about there are waters that we've claimed as part of our Antarctic claim.

Now with the Antarctic Treaty System which is the treaty system that has prevented mining in the Antarctic, all the parties have agreed to not enforce their territorial claims against foreign nationals.

Now we are not going to undermine a treaty system that prevents mining in the Antarctic. We're just not going to do that.

In terms of when you ask about the broader action though, we're a government. We settle these issues in courts. We don't settle them in the car park.

Link

Japan has repeatedly ignored diplomatic protests from Australia about whaling in "Australian" waters, so it appears to be a free-for-all around Antarctica.

 

[Magenta]

Second, Australia won't charge the Japanese under Australian law because as the Environment minister said in that link you provided earlier it could undermine the Antarctic treaty potentially opening up Antarctica to resource exploitation.

AMSA is supposedly investigating and I presume it will be the Sun Laurel in the firing line if it can be shown an offence has occurred. I'm not a lawyer but I wonder if marine pollution will be treated differently as it's not a claim over resources.

ETA: I found an article by Don Rothwell (part of which is viewable in Google books) which addresses this:

... as a result of the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, and the widespread lack of recognition of coastal states in Antarctica other than in the instance of the sub-Antarctic islands, the capacity to enforce traditional marine pollution laws and regulations is significantly compromised. (p. 144)

Rothwell, D 2012, 'Law enforcement in Antarctica', in Alan D Hemmings, Donald R Rothwell and Karen N Scott (ed.), Antarctic Security in the Twenty-First Century: Legal and Policy Perspectives, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, UK, USA and Canada, pp. 135-153.

 

[NoahFence]

I see that everyone is again pretending Sea Shepherd only oppose whaling. They also ram fishing ships that have nothing to do with whaling.

And they also oppose shark finning, a most barbaric practice if there ever was one.

 

[mortimer]

Economic Exclusion Zones are a legitimate thing.

Japanese whalers should respect Australia's EEZ.

And, quite frankly, Australia should do more to enforce their sovreignty in their EEZ.

The EEZ only stretches 200 NM from the coast. Doubt there was much, if any, whaling going on within 200 NM of Australia.

 

[Manger Douse]

All this defence of whaling but when I harpooned a cow and dragged it, bleeding down the high-street with my pick-up till it was weak enough to pull on board and butcher for steak sized research purposes I never heard the last of it.
Seems there's one law for whales and one law for the rest of us mugs.

 

[Seismosaurus]

So by this I assume you are prefectly fine with animal poaching and going into the territories of other countries to do it?

Nope. But I am perfectly fine with opposing people who take it upon themselves to go and attack poachers because they don't think the law - which is perfectly well aware of the poachers and perfectly capable of stopping them - is doing a good enough job.

 

[Ryokan]

All this defence of whaling but when I harpooned a cow and dragged it, bleeding down the high-street with my pick-up till it was weak enough to pull on board and butcher for steak sized research purposes I never heard the last of it.
Seems there's one law for whales and one law for the rest of us mugs.

Your homework for today: Research how modern whaling is done.

 

[NoahFence]

Your homework for today: Research how modern whaling is done.

I dunno... seemed a pretty accurate description to me.

 

[Ryokan]

I dunno... seemed a pretty accurate description to me.

Then you need to do your homework as well.

Norwegian whale hunters use an explosive harpoon that instantly kills or knocks out the whale - backed up by a gunner with a high powered rifle to finish it off.

I doubt the average hunted whale suffers any more than the average hunted deer. And it certainly leads a better life than the average domesticated cattle or pig.

 

[Macgyver1968]

I heard Watson stepped down as head of SS, and gave up any paid positions. Anyone know why? It came right after an event with coast guard. From what I understand, someone on shore saw the BB and mistook it's trimaran hull for a yacht that had overturned and called out the coast guard. The CG sent out a helicopter to investigate, but the BB, with Watson on board refused to make radio contact, and instead made a beeline for international waters. I guess Watson thought he they were coming to get him.

Anyone know if this was why he stepped down, or they unrelated?

 

[applecorped]

All this defence of whaling but when I harpooned a cow and dragged it, bleeding down the high-street with my pick-up till it was weak enough to pull on board and butcher for steak sized research purposes I never heard the last of it.
Seems there's one law for whales and one law for the rest of us mugs.

I should then be able to ram your truck off the road, even before you harpoon the cow. Hopefully you and any other passengers won't be killed but you would deserve it, right?

 

[Wildy]

The EEZ only stretches 200 NM from the coast. Doubt there was much, if any, whaling going on within 200 NM of Australia.

Well that depends on whether you include an EEZ that comes from the AAT, which Japan and most of the world says doesn't exist.

Your homework for today: Research how modern whaling is done.

If this thread has taught me anything it's that modern whaling techniques are bad, but a traditional method of whaling where you stab the whale with spears until it dies of blood loss is a-ok.

I heard Watson stepped down as head of SS, and gave up any paid positions. Anyone know why? It came right after an event with coast guard. From what I understand, someone on shore saw the BB and mistook it's trimaran hull for a yacht that had overturned and called out the coast guard. The CG sent out a helicopter to investigate, but the BB, with Watson on board refused to make radio contact, and instead made a beeline for international waters. I guess Watson thought he they were coming to get him.

Anyone know if this was why he stepped down, or they unrelated?

I haven't heard about him stepping down from SS, but the running away thing is probably because he's got a red notice out on him from Interpol. I'm sure we'll hear of him officially leaving international waters in June/July, after the statute of limitations is reached on his charges.