Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[philkensebben]

While that may be true, it could also have been said about Right Whales, or any other critter we saw fit to drive toward extinction.

Other species were driven to extinction because they didnt have sustainable management plans in place, surely? Passenger Pigeon hunts were just an insane free for all for example.

I realise for a sustainable plan to work, the Japanese have to abide by it of coure.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes but Minke whales are not endangered and they are the principle target. I appreciate the concern directed at other species - fin whales for example, and fully support the opposition.

1. They may be the principal target, but there is collateral damage... fin whales for example

2. How do you think endangered species become endangered

I'd far rather stop BEFORE they become endangered than have to say "whoops, sorry about that" later.

 

[smartcooky]

double post

 

[StankApe]

Its actually about survival.

We don't live in some king of magnificent isolation; we live in a finely balanced ecosystem, and messing with the order of that ecosystem is a very risky business.

I'm glad you brought up bugs. Just imagine what would happen to the human race if we were to entirely wipe out all insect life on the planet. You would be quite happy I imagine. No more pesky insects to bite you, no flies to land on your dinner.

The reality would be utter disaster for the human race....

More than half the world's crops are pollinated by bees and other insects; no insects, no pollination, a 50% failure of crops worldwide, mass starvation of people measured in billions. Wars over food will wipe out even more. The world herbivore population suffers mass starvation and extinction, and that follows up the food chain to the carnivores who will run out of prey.

In the mean time, there are billions of dead animals all over the world, as well as dead humans. But there will be no flies other insects to dispose of the rotting flesh. While the lack of insects will remove the insect vector from the transmission of disease, the sheer weight of carcasses will ensure that airborne bacteria will transmit disease to many of the remaining living individuals.

That is how important insects are to us.

Everything in the food chain has is place. It took this planet 4.5 billion years to reach the balance it has today, and we are in danger of seriously disrupting that in just a few hundred thousand years of human existence.

It is now thought that the dramatic rise of the toxic algal blooms that infect shellfish farms along coastal waters is a direct consequence of the lowering of populations of some whales and dolphins; not enough of them around to keep in check the populations of fish and other water-borne life that feed on the algae. You just never know what the consequence of wiping out one species is going to have on the environment we live in.

I understand all of this, but my point is how the smug "save the animals" people tend to be so focused on the smart or cute critters rather than the more important or less cute or dumb critters.

it seems to be more about their own personal enjoyment rather than any true enviornmental protection

 

[theprestige]

We don't live in some king of magnificent isolation; we live in a finely balanced ecosystem, and messing with the order of that ecosystem is a very risky business.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that it's not risky at all.

I mean, you yourself just posted a list of species that have been hunted to extinction. Can you point to any one of them and say there's evidence that its extinction has put humanity at any significant risk of extinction?

Humanity messes with ecosystems all the time, and yet here we are, no more significantly at risk than we were 10,000 years ago.

Even the current estimates for the impact of anthropogenic global climate change seem to put it well within humanity's adaptability range. At this point, the only thing that would really put humanity's survival at risk would be wholesale destruction of the entire biosphere.

As much as I'd rather that all commerical whaling be a) justified by actual market demand, and b) sustainable, I don't see that hunting a given whale population to extinction is particularly risky for humanity's survival.

You seem to be advancing yet another variation of the 'whales are magic' argument. The loss of the atlas bear and the sea mink hasn't put humanity's survival at risk in any measurable way. But there's some whale species out there, that unbeknownst to us, in some way you can't describe or test or measure, is the key to humanity's survival?

I doubt it.

 

[Ryokan]

You seem to be advancing yet another variation of the 'whales are magic' argument. The loss of the atlas bear and the sea mink hasn't put humanity's survival at risk in any measurable way. But there's some whale species out there, that unbeknownst to us, in some way you can't describe or test or measure, is the key to humanity's survival?

I doubt it.

Dude, haven't you seen Star Trek IV?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

That's all very nice for them, but this seems like another example of America declaring themselves to be the World Police.

The 9th US Federal circuit court of appeals (or any US court for that matter) has no jurisdiction to make legal pronouncements about anything that happens outside their own borders and territories.

Actually in international waters they have the jurisdiction to do just that. As does any other nation whose citizens are involved in crimes in international waters. If the US has no jurisdiction then who does?

Paul Watson, the head of the Sea Shepherd organization at the time that this lawsuit was brought on, is a US citizen with a base of operations in US waters (Port Friday in the greater Seattle area) that operate in international waters. His and his groups actions have been found to be "The very embodiment of piracy" (the courts words, not mine, although I and many others who understand the laws at sea have been saying this for years now).

While this ruling falls well short of a Letter of Marque it is most certainly a step in that direction and may give other nations reason to pause before allowing the Sea Shepherds to operate under their flag(s). It may also embolden the Japanese whaling fleet to take aggressive rather than defensive actions against the Sea Shepherds in the future.

 

[theprestige]

Actually in international waters they have the jurisdiction to do just that. As does any other nation whose citizens are involved in crimes in international waters. If the US has no jurisdiction then who does?

Paul Watson, the head of the Sea Shepherd organization at the time that this lawsuit was brought on, is a US citizen with a base of operations in US waters (Port Friday in the greater Seattle area) that operate in international waters. His and his groups actions have been found to be "The very embodiment of piracy" (the courts words, not mine, although I and many others who understand the laws at sea have been saying this for years now).

While this ruling falls well short of a Letter of Marque it is most certainly a step in that direction and may give other nations reason to pause before allowing the Sea Shepherds to operate under their flag(s). It may also embolden the Japanese whaling fleet to take aggressive rather than defensive actions against the Sea Shepherds in the future.

They even fly a Jolly Roger as their ensign; playing pirate on the high seas is not a joke.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

They even fly a Jolly Roger as their ensign; playing pirate on the high seas is not a joke.

Not to parse points but they show their own flag underneath their flag of convenience in cases where flying a flag is required (international waters do not require that a flag be flown unless in a naval battle or when approached by a warship and requested to show their flag) which technically means that they are not indicating that they are pirates but that they have a distinguishing mark (albeit one not recognized under international law). Their "Flag" is also not technically a Jolly Roger but a derivative of one.

That being said, while legally they are not flying a "Pirate flag" their intent is obvious by the design of the flag. I'm sure that their lawyers had some say as to how close they could make their flag look like a Jolly Roger without it actually being a Jolly Roger.

ETA: It may also be considered a "House Flag" which simply indicates the company that owns the ship.

 

[Ryokan]

There were no one Jolly Roger, almost every pirate had his own design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolly_roger

 

[tsig]

I would like it to cease all together, but will accept sustainable hunting if I have to. Something's better than nothing.

BUT

We as a species don't have exactly have a record of that, do we? It's always see resource, obliterate resource, move to next one and leave previous one in ruin. We do it with plants, animals, minerals, whatever.

So it's not that you like whales, you hate humans.

 

[tsig]

Yes there has been, see the USS Essex v. a Sperm Whale

Yes, I think that incident was the inspiration for Mobey Dick.

It actually proves my point, if one whale could do that much damage imagine if the whales actually were intelligent and attacked all the whale ships en mass.

 

[smartcooky]

Actually in international waters they have the jurisdiction to do just that. As does any other nation whose citizens are involved in crimes in international waters. If the US has no jurisdiction then who does?

This whale slaughter is not taking place in International waters though, it is taking place in Australian Antactic Waters (part of Australia's EEZ) in a whale sanctuary.

I invite Paul and is crew to base their operations here in NZ, where he will fall outside the jurisdiction of US Courts. We are impervious to US bullying here!

 

[tsig]

I dunno man. You been on the 9/11 subforum too often? That has to be the single most absurd thing I've read from the pro-whaling side. Ever. Either you actually expect whales to be able to fight back, or you're just trolling. I can't honestly tell.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe they ARE hiding, by going to the most inhospitable place on the planet? (no, I'm not serious) Where is it you'd like them to hide, exactly? Perhaps they swim up the Mississipi, and fan out over the US? Maybe the big ones swim under the ice of Antarctica (breathing be damned) and pop up on the other side many miles away?

I wonder if they'd check with their food source before embarking on their little game of hide-and-seek.

OOH! I know. Transparent Aluminum. There be whales, here captain!

You're the one that called the whales intelligent, I'm pointing out what I think would be the consequences of intelligence.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

This whale slaughter is not taking place in International waters though, it is taking place in Australian Antactic Waters (part of Australia's EEZ) in a whale sanctuary.

I invite Paul and is crew to base their operations here in NZ, where he will fall outside the jurisdiction of US Courts. We are impervious to US bullying here!

The claimed EEZ is inside of the larger Antarctic treaty area which is why it's contested and why there has been no military response by AU\NZ to actions on either side. That specific EEZ a toothless construct that attempts to get around that treaty and attempts to enable the blatant lawlessness on the seas performed by the Sea Shepherds. Like it or not the Japanese are legally doing what they are doing under the IWC and the related treaties. All of the complaining about it is based upon emotions and not international laws, laws that AU\NZ have already agreed to. Don't like it, change the laws and treaties.

Harboring known pirates is usually not a good idea but go ahead and get all ITG if it makes you feel good.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

There were no one Jolly Roger, almost every pirate had his own design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolly_roger

I was of course referring to the modern concept of the Jolly Roger as it is understood by most people. The point I really was trying to make was that the Sea Shepherds don't fly that flag in a location that supersedes a flag of nationality in situations where such a flag is required. That's why I said that it is really considered (by law) either a distinctive marking or a house flag and not a pirate flag.

 

[smartcooky]

I do not have any philosophical opposition to sustainable whale hunting provided that;

1. The method of killing is 100% humane and 100% successful in killing the whale instantly (same as for abattoirs for cattle and sheep, immediate death)

2. The hunters can show a "need to feed", i.e. no hunting them for sport; no hunting them for so-called "scientific research" or for any reason other than for whale meat and/or by-products such as oil and bone.

3. The hunters recognise and accept that whales on endangered lists must not be killed at all, and that they accept that mistakes will be severely and summarily punished financially, e.g. immediate confiscation of the offending whaling vessel and/or cancellation of the remaining and/or following year's whaling season.

4. Representatives of Greenpeace or some other bonafide international conservation group are stationed as observers on all whaling vessels.

I consider these to be the absolute minimum conditions to allow commercial whaling to take place.

Additionally, the IWC should only include countries who have a bona-fide history of whaling, so that we can put an end to the Japanese vote-buying scam.

 

[Ryokan]

1. The method of killing is 100% humane and 100% successful in killing the whale instantly (same as for abattoirs for cattle and sheep, immediate death)

You really need to visit a slaughter house. Even the most humane and effective methods aren't 100% succesful.

4. Representatives of Greenpeace or some other bonafide international conservation group are stationed as observers on all whaling vessels.

Most Norwegian whaling ships are very small. Most of them have a crew of around eight. If the Greenpeace representative could handle living in such conditions, and not paid by the whaling ship, then sure.

Additionally, the IWC should only include countries who have a bona-fide history of whaling, so that we can put an end to the Japanese vote-buying scam.

Then there wouldn't be many members of the ICW. Norway and Greenland? Some Carribbean states? Most whaling nations started whaling last century. It was Norwegian whalers who first taught the Japanese in the early 20th century. The same is true for the Faroe Islands.

(Which actually highlights another thing wrong with the IWC - The Faroese, who started whaling a hundred years ago, taught by the Norwegians, are free to continue their 'tradition', because they're 'natives' or something like that, while Norway, whose whaling goes back to at least the 9th century, is asked to stop.)

 

[theprestige]

Most Norwegian whaling ships are very small. Most of them have a crew of around eight. If the Greenpeace representative could handle living in such conditions, and not paid by the whaling ship, then sure.

This also begs the question that Greenpeace is a "bonafide international conservation group" that can be trusted to provide good faith oversight.

 

[StankApe]

This also begs the question that Greenpeace is a "bonafide international conservation group" that can be trusted to provide good faith oversight.

no kidding, it's like asking Black September to do Israeli settlement oversight.