Japanese Whalers..... by Calhoun

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Seems the smaller boat should have been quicker and more maneuverable, and should easily have been able to get out of the way of the much larger ship. If you're going to cross someone's bow, you might want to watch your speed and distance.

This is in no way a defense of Japanese whaling; just pointing out what looked like some very risky decision-making on the part of the smaller boat's crew.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 3:43 AM

CALHOUN

I agree with you kwicko, though the smaller boat was stationary at the time and it appears to me that the Japanese ship veered towards them at speed at the last instant. A very deliberate and dangerous attack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
I agree with you kwicko, though the smaller boat was stationary at the time and it appears to me that the Japanese ship veered towards them at speed at the last instant. A very deliberate and dangerous attack.

The accident would not have occurred but for the reckless and irresponsible behaivor of the protestors against a legal and legitmate business.

I don't support whaling any more then I support smoking, but both are legitimate and legal businesses with long histories that played vital roles in the development of various nations and cultures. Unlike smoking I agree with many folks that whaling should be illegal. Japan has chosen to disagree and it is their soveriegn right to engage in the practice. I support pressuring Japan to change its laws. I support protesting through reasonable means any outdated practice that I disagree with.

Ultimately, however, it is the responsibilty of the protestors to avoid dangerous confrontations and accidents on the high seas. Protestors have no right to attempt to disrupt, delay, or interfere with these Japanese whaling ships. If they do then they are being dangerous and irresponsible at best and at worst they are committing an act of criminal violence on the high seas (ie piracy).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 5:43 AM

RIVERLOVE

Only savages need to harvest whales. Interesting that the largest animals on the planet are also the most gentle creatures God graced us with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 6:37 AM

FREMDFIRMA

There was a crew of semi-anarchic "pirates" a while back who took on illegal drift-netters out there by ramming the equipment that hauled in the net and then weighting the nets down and sinking them, something I considered maybe more of a hazard than necessary - but anyhows, they did take some footage, including being shot at and having knives and stuff thrown at em by the targets, who of course couldn't exactly make official protest without admitting they were doing something illegal as hell.

I dunno about whalers, but there's a couple folk out there with a gripe about others conduct on the sea and the means to do something about it - that was what started the Somali pirates off in the first place, other nations illegally dumping waste and fishing their waters, which if ya do it in the same place is kinda triple stupid, innit ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 7:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh dear, I'll have to refrain from ranting here, because this one just makes me wanna

Thank you for starting this thread; I heard about it and have been seething ever since.

I played my own small "part" in stopping commercial whaling back in the '70s and '80s, working at the time with Greenpeace and the IWC (International Whaling Commission) when many nations still hunted whales. The IWC's got no "teeth", it's nations only agree not to whale; those taking whales for "scientific purposes" actually do so commercially, and any nation can leave the IWC whenever it wants to.

A moratorium was declared by the IWC back in 1982, except for aboriginal subsistence whaling which is permitted from Denmark (Greenland, fin and minke whales), the Russian Federation (Siberia, gray whales), St Vincent and The Grenadines (humpback whales), and the USA (Alaska, bowhead and occasionally off Washington, gray whales). Canada is not a member of the IWC. The annual whale catch by these groups is probably less than a dozen each. So now we got 12 nations that still kill whales legally.

We went ape shit when the moratorium was declared, it was one of the most exciting "victories", along with the tuna boycott being semi-successful. But in environmentalism, it's never a true victory; we can stop/slow down activities, but it's a continual battle...unless "they" win, in which case whatever we were trying to save is lost forever.

The IWC allows whaling for "scientific purposes," Since 1986 only Norway, Iceland and especially Japan have been issued whaling research permits. Norway lodged a protest to the zero catch limits in 1992 and is no longer bound by them. Iceland left the IWC in 1991 but rejoined in 2002. In addition the Faroe Islands, a non IWC nation, kills around 1000 Long-finned Pilot Whales in the annual whale "grind," where the fishermen drive the whales ashore, cut their arteries and allowed to bleed to death.

Japan has made the largest catches under the IWC "scientific" permit. The extent of 'science' in the catch can be demonstrated by the fact that the majority of Iceland's 'scientific' catch is sold to Japan, Norway sells to Iceland and the Faroe islands and would sell to Japan if the Japanese were not concerned with pollution in the Atlantic. So they're not involved in any "legal and legitimate" business, Hero; they hunt commercially under the guise of "research".

So you have four nations that still have active whaling industries. The Faroe Islands, actually an autonomous region of the kingdom of Denmark, with about 1000 a year, all Long-finned Pilot Whales, actually a large dolphin.

Nations that hunt larger whales;

Iceland with about 100 in 2004.

Norway with about 600 in 2004, but Norwegian Parliament voted to increase the number to 1,800 animals per year by 2006.

Japan with about 800 in 2004, but actively working to remove restrictions.

Back when I was actively involved, it was Greenpeace which was doing the protesting; long since, the Sea Shephard Conservation Society ha taken over and has been active ever snce in harrassing whales and attempting to put the Japanes commercial enterprise out of business.

As to the Adi Gil, it wasn't an accident, trust me. The whalers have tried many ways of "dissuading" the protesters for years, from water cannons to lasers and more. There was no "crossing" of someone's bow, Mike: The SSCS's Australian director, Jeff Hansen, said in a telephone interview that the trimaran “was pretty much at a full stop” and that the Japanese ship had deliberately run into it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07whales.html?partner=rss
&emc=rss

Thank gawd The Bob Barker was close enough to fish them out, and of course it won't stop them from trying to halt Japanese whaling. Believe me, they know all too well the danger they're in, and are willing to risk themselves. The irony is that the protesters won't risk the lives or do anything overtly violent to the whalers; the same is not true in reverse.

However you feel about the issue and this incident, to me it's an unconscionable practice and I will always contribute to the SSCS; someday hopefull they'll be successful. But the world doesn't care about whales so the fight doesn't get the press it should.

There, I think I managed to avoid actual "ranting", but rather gave facts. I'll stop there like a good girl. Let's just say I agree with Riverlove, and then some!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:06 AM

In this view, it looks to me like the Ady Gil was still moving forward, across the path of the Shonen Maru. It also looks like the Maru didn't attempt to veer off, and in fact may have turned into the Gil, but the Gil doesn't seem to be stopped dead in the water, and once struck, she looks to be making a pretty quick full-reverse retreat.

Lucky for all involved that no one was killed.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:34 AM

In some case I would argue against the Sea Shepherd Society, but here there are right...

What needs to happen is an international convention on economic activity in Antarctic Waters, much as there already is for land operations.

With that sort of legal base, whaling vessels could be seized, likely by interesting nations operating in their own zones of influence... Australia in this case.

Turning Antarctica into a conservation zone with no fishing, could actually boost fish stocks in all the southern oceans long term, and that would be to the benefit of all the neighboring countrys.

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:45 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hero

If I understand Niki right, the only legitimate reason to whale is for scientific study. Therefore, by definition, there is no such thing as a 'legitimate whaling business.'

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:00 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike, from one report I read, they had just started their engines when they were hit, which might explain what you see at the last minute. Yes, by the time they were hit, their engines were running, hence the ability to pull back--which, also, looks like more than it is because the Japanese vessel then veered away from them. Nonetheless, there is no question that they were reversing. I could be wrong, of course.

Gino: Everything you said, and more. I think it would be LOVELY, but I'm not holding my breath. Since the IWC has no "teeth", they can only try to get nations to pressure each other (via IWC membership) and issue "guidelines", sadly.

Yup, Rue, you nailed it. As a member of the IWC, Japan has exemption to take whales for "research", but they don't try to hide the fact that they're actually taking them for commercial purposes. Hence it IS a business, and despite the IWC having no way of stopping them, they're playing footsie by being part of the IWC and then finding ways around the moratorium.

So I guess it's both "yes" and "no" in a way. What they're doing isn't "illegal", since there are no international laws to stop them, but at the same time it's not "legitimate" because, as members of the IWC, they should abide by the moratorium.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:05 AM

Also, I'd like to point out that the Ady Gil is also the very same boat that was purpose-built and set a speed record for circumnavigating the globe. It does seem that if they WANTED to get out of the way, they easily could have.

I think they deliberately put themselves in harm's way for a laudable goal, and they lost their boat as a result. But I *don't* necessarily agree that they were attacked or that they were completely blameless in the whole cock-up.

Now, if you can get nations to sign on to a plan like Gino proposed, more power to ya. I'm right there with you, and I'll fully support that.

As or whether or not there is such a thing as legitimate "business" when it comes to research, I'd say you're opening a door you really might not want to walk through, Rue. Are research and business mutually exclusive? Are there NEVER times when you might privately contract someone, for pay, to go out and gather research subjects for you? If you do so, aren't you "in business" with them?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:23 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100107/ts_afp/australiajapanwhalingnzeal
andseashepherd

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, I know about the Adi Gil...but IF they saw the ship coming and realized it was going to ram them while their engine was off, and just had time to start the engine before being hit, speed doesn't come into it. I think your theory that they did it deliberately is fallacious. I'd find it hard to believe, given how careful they've been in the past, plus the fact that they're not a violence-oriented organization, and the loss of the Adi Gil is a major blow.

I don't think there's any question about the "legitimacy" of Japan's actions. Hunting whales for research is one thing; hunting them for profit is entirely different. And when it comes down to it, while the Japanese put on a face of doing it for research, they're don't try to hide the fact that they make a profit off it. They just found a convenient loophole. There's a big difference between hiring people to go out and gather research animals being "in business" with them and hunting whales because they're popular as food in Japan. I see no correlation whatsoever.

Japan resisted the IWC for a long time, and still takes the highest percentage of whales of the IWC member nations. Norway and Japan were, at the time I was involved, the two nations most bent on going against the IWC. They're still at it, as far as I'm concerned..."selling" whales between one nation and another is a pretty fair indication of lack of need for "research" subjects, if you ask me.

Also, just 'cuz:

Quote:
SYDNEY (AFP) – A militant animal rights group locked in a bitter high seas battle with Japanese whalers have the support and funding of a Hollywood A-list including Sean Penn and French screen siren Brigitte Bardot.

One of the world's best known and more extreme marine activist outfits, the not-for-profit Sea Shepherd Conservation Society prides itself on "innovative direct-action tactics" to confront so-called "illegal" activity on the high seas. Related article: Probe into whaling protest collision

It was established in 1977 in Canada by environmentalist Paul Watson who claims in his biography to have co-founded Greenpeace but said he parted ways with the the group over arguments about protest tactics.

In its 30-year history the group has used acoustic weapons, water cannons and stink bombs against whalers, trailed seal hunters and fought campaigns for sharks and dolphins, as well as regularly patrolling the Galapagos Islands.

Longtime patron Bardot sits on its board of advisers, along with Penn and fellow US actors Martin Sheen and Pierce Brosnan.

Sheen, Darryl Hannah and US soap star Richard Dean Anderson have all accompanied Sea Shepherd on protest actions.

Its diverse and high-profile benefactors include rock legend Mick Jagger, Red Hot Chili Peppers frontman Anthony Kiedis, surfing champion Kelly Slater, and actors Christian Bale and Edward Norton.

Former US television game show host Bob Barker donated five million US dollars to help Sea Shepherd buy and fit out a former harpoon ship for its 2010 pursuit of Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean.

Hollywood businessman Ady Gil bankrolled a second vessel for the 2010 season -- a two-million dollar trimaran superboat originally known as Earthrace which claimed the world record for circumnavigating the globe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:30 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Are there NEVER times when you might privately contract someone, for pay, to go out and gather research subjects for you? If you do so, aren't you "in business" with them?"

Researchers hire people all the time - dishwashers, technicians, data entry clerks, statisticians - hell, they even hire 'volunteers' by paying them to participate in studies and trials. If a researcher couldn't hire ANYONE and had to do EVERYTHING by her lonesome, research would be dead in the water.

But a whaling boat which bypasses even a pretense of study (which research group hired them ?, what is their experimental question ?, where is their research plan ?), takes their catch directly to commerical market - and receives larges sums of money for said catch - is clearly not doing research.

I honestly can't imagine a scenario where one could mistake hiring a research function for a for-profit commercial venture.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:48 AM

PERFESSERGEE

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
In some case I would argue against the Sea Shepherd Society, but here there are right...

What needs to happen is an international convention on economic activity in Antarctic Waters, much as there already is for land operations.

With that sort of legal base, whaling vessels could be seized, likely by interesting nations operating in their own zones of influence... Australia in this case.

Turning Antarctica into a conservation zone with no fishing, could actually boost fish stocks in all the southern oceans long term, and that would be to the benefit of all the neighboring countrys.

Gino,

There actually is such a convention - it's called CAMLR, the Convention on Antarctic Marine Living Resources. I don't know what it says about whaling, but it theortically governs all sorts of activities on land and sea including tourism and scientific research. The contracting parties meet every year, and it has detailed protocols for all sorts of things. I'm mostly familiar with the penguin parts of it, and it's quite strict. But then the scientists are acting in good faith and trying to makes sure impacts are minimized. Such is not true with the whalers. And, it has the same problem as the IWC - it's voluntary.

And Hero, if the Japanese were staying within the terms of their "research exemption" (such Orwellian terminology for an obviously commercial product), then I'd agree that what they are doing is legal, but they aren't. It has been conclusively demonstrated (via genetic testing of whale meat in the Tokyo Fish Market) that they are killing and selling everything; blue and humpback whales (both under complete harvest bans for decades before the IWC came into existence), sei whales Bryde's whales and many others. Their "exemption" includes a few fin whales (2nd largest after blues), but almost all of the exemption is for Minke whales, the smallest of the great whales. They violate the living hell out of their supposed commitments and publish very little bona fide research - and that only in a journal published in Japanese by the national fisheries agency. Legitimate Japanese biology researchers who want to disseminate results publish in English. Legal it ain't. It's a baldfaced lie.

And I should point out that though I really don't like whaling, I can't be morally opposed to it, and I believe that no one who eats meat can do so. Killing critters is killing critters. What I can oppose is grossly unsustainable harvest, which is the only term that can be applied to the whole history of whaling. Every single stock has crashed when fished in any but the lightest manner (including Minke's though they would be easiest to manage and the data on their population size aren't very good). The reasons are too complicated to explain here, but both biology and economics (investments in high seas ships) are involved, but sustanability has never been achieved.

perfessergee

eta the word "involved" in the past paragraph

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:

And I should point out that though I really don't like whaling, I can't be morally opposed to it, and I believe that no one who eats meat can do so. Killing critters is killing critters.

I disagree. I think it's all degrees. Killing a fly & a cow are on vastly different levels.
Killing a shark is different than killing a sea lion.
And whalers can be shot like the murderers they are with no moral reservations, God told me so, and his law is above ours.
Okay, a little nuts there, but my point is that we are all animals, and that the more evolved ones should be as off limits for hunting as two year old human children are.
The only conceivable logical disagreement with this would be that we're ALL game, unless you go with that "Only humans have souls" crap.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:03 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey Perfesser

I have one (very) small item to gloat on when it comes to people eating whale meat. It's a little like the Smothers Brothers' routine: ' White man, you smok'um peace pipe with tobacco in it. he he he ... Rot your lungs.' It's: 'go ahead - EAT your PCB and PDBE and dioxin soaked whale meat. Enjoy ! he he he ... rot your gonads.'

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:10 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If I understand Niki right, the only legitimate reason to whale is for scientific study. Therefore, by definition, there is no such thing as a 'legitimate whaling business.'

Providing whales for research is a business. They had a permit.

If you'll look at the picture you see a big clunking whaling ship with "RESEARCH" painted on the side. You also see a sleek black highly manuaverable boat with a skull and crossbones painted on it. We all know that if they wanted to get in the Jap's way and cause this accident they could and if the Jap's set out to do all they could to ram that black boat, there is simply no way it could happen if the black boat didn't want it to.

In any event, this idea of commerical whaling hiding behind a research permit is an issue for the courts, not violence on the high seas. Yes the Japs have used water cannons and such, but I note for the record that a water cannon does not shoot very far...if you were close enough to get wet, you were too close and interfering in their business. Ships also use water cannons to stop pirates.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Providing whales for research is a business. They had a permit.

Hitler did a lot of 'legal' stuff too.
Until someone decided to tell him it wasn't, and interfere with his efforts using violence.

It's all a fucking game.

The not-so-laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"They had a permit."

Here, btw, is the langauge: "... special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research ..."

And what, pray tell, was the purpose of the 'study' ?

"Each Contracting Government shall (not may or should, but SHALL which is the same as MUST) transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV."

And how have they met the requirement to provide these results ?

This is 'research' of the same type as Mengele's - a fraud.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:09 PM

I agree with perfessergee wrote: What I can oppose is grossly unsustainable harvest,

While personally I do think we have and should grow beyond whale hunting... that cannot be the only consideration. As with Chris pic, hunting a species to extinction is illogical.

CHRISISALL wrote I disagree. I think it's all degrees. Killing a fly & a cow are on vastly different levels.
Killing a shark is different than killing a sea lion.
we are all animals, and that the more evolved ones should be as off limits

I have raised cattle, shot deer etc... never slaughtered one of my cows because well... I couldn't. Selling them off was hard enough, but I do eat red meat... Cows are fairly intelligent you find if you spend alot of time around them.

I do disagree with the Sea Shepard's on seal hunting though...

two things there, man has practically eliminated many of the seals natural predators in these areas and two, commercial fish stocks are very low due to our history of overfishing ( which also caused problem 1 )

Until we manage to correct the two problems, I think we need to be the predator that checks the seal population, if not fish stocks have zero chance of bouncing back, and many if not all the seals will starve anyway...

A bad situation where we need to correct other problems before we can change the situation the shepherds are against. But it will take years to accomplish...

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:22 PM

Another point...

At least the Japanese are eating / using what they kill

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0402/p09s02-coop.html

Smarten up naval sonar to save the whales

Obama can silence harmful echoes from the Bush administration.

Santa Barbara, Calif; and Los Angeles

The Bush administration may be gone, but whales and other marine life along our coasts will be hearing from it for years to come – literally.

On its way out of town, Bush's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the US Navy released a series of regulations that, during the next five years, could cause environmental harm on a staggering scale. But by acting decisively, the Obama administration can prevent it.

The regulations allow approximately 11.7 million instances of harassment, injury, or even death (the legal term is "take") to marine mammals by exposing them to high-intensity military sonar training in coastal waters around the United States. These estimates – the Navy's own – include 9.7 million takes along the Atlantic Coast and the Gulf of Mexico; 630,000 off the coast of southern California; 650,000 along the coast of Washington and Oregon; 140,000 in Hawaii; and another 500,000 off the coast of Florida.

Sonar exposure is not, as the Navy suggests, a mere matter of annoyance to whales and dolphins. In fact, the harm ranges from significant disturbance to important behaviors – feeding, breeding, migrating, communicating, finding mates – to hearing damage and even mass stranding and death.

continues

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:28 PM

Who escalated the confrontation ?

Both sides here have acted violently

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0106/Whale-Wars-How-wa
s-the-Sea-Shepherd-s-new-ship-sunk

I think it really shows the need for the international community to act, before this gets further out of hand

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:45 PM

CALHOUN

I say escalate the confrontation further!

and pick a side...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I think we need to be the predator that checks the seal population, if not fish stocks have zero chance of bouncing back, and many if not all the seals will starve anyway...

Allow me a free-association moment, Gino...

I think we need to be the police that checks the terrorist population, if not Democracy have zero chance of bouncing back, and many if not all the states will hate us anyway...

Don't know how relevant that is, just popped to mind is all.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:07 PM

With who?

" Japan with about 800 in 2004, but actively working to remove restrictions. "

" or the US Navy with 11.7 million instances of harassment, injury, or even death "

The best approach, if possible ( Calhoun your from Australia right? ) is to lean on your government to act...

In a protection zone like I proposed whaling ships could be seized and fines levyed

or Australia could deny them travel through their waters, access to their ports... hell extend that to all Japanese flagged vessels if needed

If these confrontations turn into shooting matches ( and the way this is going ) are the Sea Shepard's realistically going to strap on the Japanese Navy?

Better if local govs came together, agreed on some laws, and then enforced them... Either by having law enforcement confront the whalers, or making the cost for Japan to allow the whaling too expensive.

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I think we need to be the predator that checks the seal population, if not fish stocks have zero chance of bouncing back, and many if not all the seals will starve anyway...

Allow me a free-association moment, Gino...

I think we need to be the police that checks the terrorist population, if not Democracy have zero chance of bouncing back, and many if not all the states will hate us anyway...

Don't know how relevant that is, just popped to mind is all.

The laughing Chrisisall

Ah yes, but that proposition assumes that democracy is what you are promoting ( a false assumption ) and if you allowed said states a free choice maybe they wouldn't hate you? ( for that reason anyway )

Seriously though, I do think we need to return balance to a system WE screwed up in the first place... but it took us 50-75 years to screw that system up... If left alone maybe it takes 500 years to self correct. Does it not make sense to try and limit the damage while helping that correction come back faster ? Or would letting that collapse occur in order to give the problem more momentum a better choice?

I'm not a biology guy, just going from some reading is all

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:18 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Interestingly, I don't expect to much unbiased coverage from the Christian Science Monitor, and didn't get it. What DID surprise me were the comments on the article:

Quote:
The ramming of the Ady Gil (Earth Race) was quite different from the tactics of Sea Shepherd. Sea Shepherd while controversial and aggressive has not attempted to sink occupied vessels. A few feet difference in the ramming and six people would be dead. The Japanese attacked without regards to human life, it is a miracle that no one died. The attempted murder of six people is a far far bigger crime than anything Sea Shepherd has ever been accused of.

Whales are creatures with brains larger than our own. Anatomical studies on whales who died of natural causes show brain structures thought to be unique to humans and our closest relatives. Whales don't just have huge brains, they have anatomical features which are closely associated with high intelligence and awareness.

These are not creatures to "sustainably harvest" they are our cousins, the first intelligent life we find in the universe and Japan turns them into dog food. I don't care what supposed Japanese tradition is involved, we don't condone head hunting despite its long tradition, nor should we accept the brutal murder of other intelligent life forms.

Quote:
While some may disagree with the tactics employed by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, we should all support their noble goal of protecting the whales from brutal and illegal hunting - especially in sanctuary waters. Likewise, we should all implore the whale hunters to stop and consider the grave consequences of their actions.

Quote:
Paul Watson may be controversial but at least he's trying to do something to prevent the descruction of the existence of whales. Some of the rare species these boats hunt are on the absolute verge of extinction. Sanctions should be imposed against Japan, we all know that their 'scientific research' is a load of rubbish and the rest of the world needs to say we won't stand for it.

Quote:
This is a very one-sided and opinionated piece. I question Greenpeace - what results have they attained in the Southern Oceans? A few hundred photos of whales being killed to be used as propaganda in order to raise donations does NOT count as "results". SSCS and Paul Watson may not be perfect and Watson has certainly published materials in the past that makes people question his intent - but he IS actively doing something to stop whaling, and "anything" is more than anyone else, including Greenpeace has done in the past. The Japanese are in this for the money. Greenpeace's "all talk and no walk" won't get them off the bargaining table. Watson is right about one thing - if whaling is to be stopped, the whalers have to be economically damaged to the point that it is no longer profitable.

Quote:
I for one am proud of the people associated with the Sea Shepards. At last they dont sit on their computer at home and say oh wow someone should do something to stop the whalers. At least the put their private lives on hold and try.

I left out some of the "God" parts of a couple of the quotes.

Actually, Greenpeace DID harass the whalers long ago, that was going on when I was involved. They gave up fairly soon, however, and SSCS took over.

Whaling caused us to believe the wonderful blue whales off the California coast were extinct. You can only imagine the thrill when one was spotted, and now the population is increasing. I do abhor whaling, along with some other things, despite the fact that I occasionally eat red meat. Here I find a vast difference between mankind breeding things for consumption and taking things out of the wild which are part of the ecosystem. Neither is right, admittedly. We’ve ruined so much by taking predators out of the environment that, yes, now we have to “cull” prey species, which is bad enough, but faking killing for “research” is unconscionable to me.

I also disagree that killing a shark is different from killing a sea lion, for the opposite reasons I THINK Chris is arguing. Japanese take sharks, chop off their fins (a delicacy in Japan) and dump them back in the ocean, still alive. Sickening. Because of that and other “harvesting”, some shark populations are on the edge of being endangered. Sea lions, however, MUCH as I adore them, have been increasing in population for a long time now. So if one is going to argue fly v. cow and shark v. sea lion, that should be taken into account as well, in my opinion.

Hero, you’re being deliberately obtuse, if not disingenuous. “Providing whales for research is a business. They had a permit.” No, they have a permit for RESEARCH, which they do very little of, and they don’t even try to hide the fact that they’re actually taking them for profit.

Quote:
If you'll look at the picture you see a big clunking whaling ship with "RESEARCH" painted on the side.

ALL whale boats are big and clunking, they have to be; remember what they’re killing. But putting “research” on the ship doesn’t fool ANYONE—it’s merely a façade and everyone knows it. I’m not fond of the skull and crossbones, tho’ I do understand Watson’s feelings. They’re out there alone, with no nation’s backup, so I imagine after all he encounters, the urge to call himself a ‘cowboy’ must be pretty strong. It’s not an issue for the courts; there are no “laws” involved, only the agreed-upon moratorium by the IWC, which is voluntary, and Japan finds loopholes to do just what it wants while retaining its membership to avoid international pressure (beyond what it gets anyway, which within the IWC is pretty hefty).

Gino, I’m afraid that culling the seals won’t save the fish. The fewer seals around, the more the stocks of fish will be taken. Mankind isn’t too good at limiting himself, if you’ve noticed. The more fish there are, the more they’ll take, to the point where a number of fish species off our coast are in danger of disappearing.

Quote:
On the west coast, about one in seven (14% or 7 out of 49) of all federally managed fish stocks for which there is adequate information are overfished. Approximately one in twenty (6% or 3 out of 49) stocks are experiencing overfishing and headed in that direction.

http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/oceans/oceans-reports/net
-loss-overfishing-off-the-pacific-coast

Fishermen from SF have to go far north to catch things like salmon, and the legal “take” is being reduced on a number of species almost annually. It’s a serious problem, and culling the seals will only result in THEIR becoming extinct before us.

Quote:
Many marine ecologists think that the biggest single threat to marine ecosystems today is overfishing. Our appetite for fish is exceeding the oceans' ecological limits with devastating impacts on marine ecosystems. Scientists are warning that overfishing results in profound changes in our oceans, perhaps changing them forever. Not to mention our dinner plates, which in future may only feature fish and chips as a rare and expensive delicacy.

The fish don't stand a chance

More often than not, the fishing industry is given access to fish stocks before the impact of their fishing can be assessed, and regulation of the fishing industry is, in any case, woefully inadequate.

The reality of modern fishing is that the industry is dominated by fishing vessels that far out-match nature's ability to replenish fish. Giant ships using state-of-the-art fish-finding sonar can pinpoint schools of fish quickly and accurately. The ships are fitted out like giant floating factories - containing fish processing and packing plants, huge freezing systems, and powerful engines to drag enormous fishing gear through the ocean. Put simply: the fish don't stand a chance.

Ocean life health check

Populations of top predators, a key indicator of ecosystem health, are disappearing at a frightening rate, and 90 percent of the large fish that many of us love to eat, such as tuna, swordfish, marlin, cod, halibut, skate, and flounder - have been fished out since large scale industrial fishing began in the 1950s. The depletion of these top predator species can cause a shift in entire oceans ecosystems where commercially valuable fish are replaced by smaller, plankton-feeding fish. This century may even see bumper crops of jellyfish replacing the fish consumed by humans.

These changes endanger the structure and functioning of marine ecosystems, and hence threaten the livelihoods of those dependent on the oceans, both now and in the future.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/overfishing Killing seals ain’t gonna stop it.

Sorry it's so long, but I wanted to do my bit to "educate" others on an issue near and dear to my heart, and I was impressed by the comments on the article linked here. They pretty much say it for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Seriously though, I do think we need to return balance to a system WE screwed up in the first place

Agreed. I just wince at killing.
Maybe release some salt-peter into the water to reduce the seal-on-seal friction action?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

I also disagree that killing a shark is different from killing a sea lion, for the opposite reasons I THINK Chris is arguing.

Niki, given a choice, would you rather possibly starve to death, or certainly be clubbed to death? I guess that's it comes down to with the seals. The thing with the sharks is plain mean. Makes me think the culinary peeps in Japan are a bunch O' freaks.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:39 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, dear, I can't stop. This is such a hot issue among environmentalists; here's some more. I want you to understand just how absurd this is, and respond to a couple of the things people have said. As to them doing it for "scientific research":

Quote:
In 1987, the ban on commercial whaling came into force for Japan. Yet despite the ban the whaling fleet which had previously conducted the commercial hunt sailed at its usual time to the same whaling grounds in the Antarctic to take the same species of whale they had caught the year before and return them to Japan boxed in 15 kg cardboard cartons, ready for sale. This was made possible by ‘scientific’ whaling.

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/whales/2007/11/catching_whales_for_scienc
e_is.html a whale is killed, scientists collect data from the animal's remains on its age, birthing rate and diet; the meat is then packaged and sold.
....
Japan has cited its long history as a whaling nation and its historic reliance on whale meat for protein as reasons why it should be continued to allow to hunt despite the IWC ban. But Japanese consumption has become so negligible that local governments are encouraging schools to incorporate whale in their lunch programs, while thousands of tons of whale meat remain stockpiled in freezers.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1686486,00.html
Justify that, if you can.

Quote:
It also says whales are to blame for a decline in world fish stocks, though environmental groups dispute this.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw200811171
01302910C946472] That's just pure bullshit, whales eat krill for the most part, not fish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:47 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Obviously that's a false question, Chris. The sharks don't just "starve", they suffer hugely; my argument was to say killing seal lions wasn't better than killing sharks. If you mean would I, as a seal, rather starve to death than be clubbed to death, watch some footage of seals being killed, then tell me which is better. I have, and I'll never forget it.

Gino's got it right; to solve ALL the problems we need to get some smarts and think long-term instead of everyone thinking about their profit next week or next year. Meanwhile, I think a limit on what mankind is allowed to take from the seas is a better answer than killing the predator species!

Not that I have any hope of that happening until it's too late, but I refuse to agree that we should sacrifice yet another species in the wild because we like the flavor of its prey. If we've got to do something only halfway sensible, we should create "fish farms" for those species want, rather than killing off the OTHER predators...they don't have that option.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Obviously that's a false question, Chris. The sharks don't just "starve", they suffer hugely; my argument was to say killing seal lions wasn't better than killing sharks.

No, I agree with you about the shark torture, it's unnecessary & cruel. It was just the sea lions I was talking about.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:55 PM

Quote:
Posted by Niki2:

The ramming of the Ady Gil (Earth Race) was quite different from the tactics of Sea Shepherd. Sea Shepherd while controversial and aggressive has not attempted to sink occupied vessels. A few feet difference in the ramming and six people would be dead. The Japanese attacked without regards to human life, it is a miracle that no one died. The attempted murder of six people is a far far bigger crime than anything Sea Shepherd has ever been accused of.

Sorry, Niks, but I stopped reading at that point, because that post is utter bullshit. It's not YOUR post, but the comments from others that you posted, that I take issue with. Watch the second video (the one at the END of the second article Gino posted from CSM), where the Sea Shepherds' OTHER ship - itself a whaling vessel - deliberately rams another ship. This kind of bullshit behavior on the high seas leaves me not feeling a bit sorry for this douchebag, and has me actually GLAD that he lost his precious little toy. After all, if he's bragging about ramming ships on the high seas, putting lives in danger just to get ratings for his shitty TV show, then why would I feel bad about him suffering the same fate?

By the way, are they lying when they list him as taking credit for the sinking of another whaling ship with a limpet mine attached to its hull? Should that be seen as an endorsement of the French sinking of the Rainbow Warrior using similar methods?

Am I against whaling? You bet. But am I willing to go to any lengths and employ any means, legal or extralegal, to try to get my way? Nope. And I'm not a big fan of trying to ram and attack those with whom you disagree, and then whining and bitching about it when they behave in a similar fashion towards you.

Maybe I'm being too harsh, but it seems to me that when ANY group starts using the old "by any means necessary" tactic, it's a short walk to the torture room at Gitmo or to strapping on a dynamite vest on your way to the airport.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

I also disagree that killing a shark is different from killing a sea lion, for the opposite reasons I THINK Chris is arguing.
Niki, given a choice, would you rather possibly starve to death, or certainly be clubbed to death? I guess that's it comes down to with the seals. The thing with the sharks is plain mean. Makes me think the culinary peeps in Japan are a bunch O' freaks.

The laughing Chrisisall

Killing ONE of either of them I could maybe deal with, especially if it were a life-and-death scenario. I run into issues when you start HARVESTING them, hunting them to extinction "just because".

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:02 PM

Quote:
Gino's got it right; to solve ALL the problems we need to get some smarts and think long-term instead of everyone thinking about their profit next week or next year. Meanwhile, I think a limit on what mankind is allowed to take from the seas is a better answer than killing the predator species!

Bingo. Now that I can agree with! :)

And if killing the predator species IS the answer, then I guess we better start up the eugenics programs, because WE are the ultimate predator, after all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:21 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, Mike, I'll agree with you there. I don't like the use of violence to make a point either. I know I'm prejudiced because I've been in this fight for so long and have become frustrated by the inability to stop the Japanese from their game, so I'll grant you my view is skewed.

Nonetheless, while I agree it's wrong, at the same time I can understandhow frustration would make people take violent measures. This battle has been going on for fifty or sixty years now, and still whale species are being killed to the point of endangerment. Again; yes, it's wrong to take violent measures, you're right.

As far as us being the ultimate predator; there are ways to co-exist with other predators if we gave a damn. It's tough, it's controversial, like re-introducing wolves to Yellowstone, but it could be done if people just friggin' woke UP!

Here, we're getting an increase in population of mountain lions, and will eventually no doubt be faced with dealing with it. We've just recently had coyotes come into the area. But for now at least, we need both species to cut down on the prey population, which is burgeoning. I think here the problem will be less, as NO hunting is allowed at all, so if the ecosystem is left alone, the population of prey determines the population of predators, since they can't increase their range. If we were in competition, it would be another matter.

They've developed to the East steadily, which has put them in conflict with the native mountain lions, and there have been problems. I THINK a predator species coming into an area which is pretty well balanced except for an overabundance of prey species will balance itself, but I don't know for sure, time will have to tell us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:29 PM

Niki2 wrote:

Gino, I’m afraid that culling the seals won’t save the fish. The fewer seals around, the more the stocks of fish will be taken. Mankind isn’t too good at limiting himself, if you’ve noticed. The more fish there are, the more they’ll take, to the point where a number of fish species off our coast are in danger of disappearing.

Alone yes, but in combination with other efforts...

interesting article
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/fishing/cod.html

On April 24, 2003, almost 11 years after the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans imposed a moratorium on cod fishing off Newfoundland, the federal fisheries minister, Robert Thibault, announced the outright closure of what remained of the cod fishery in Newfoundland, the Maritime provinces and Quebec.
continues

It has gone so far Canada has fired on Spanish Trawlers
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/12/world/canada-and-spain-face-off-over
-fishing-zone.html?pagewanted=1

as well as acting to stop US overfishing in Canadian waters
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/22/world/canadians-end-blockade-in-salm
on-fishing-dispute.html?pagewanted=1

At least trying, is better than to do nothing

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Okay, Mike, I'll agree with you there. I don't like the use of violence to make a point either. I know I'm prejudiced because I've been in this fight for so long and have become frustrated by the inability to stop the Japanese from their game, so I'll grant you my view is skewed.

Nonetheless, while I agree it's wrong, at the same time I can understandhow frustration would make people take violent measures. This battle has been going on for fifty or sixty years now, and still whale species are being killed to the point of endangerment. Again; yes, it's wrong to take violent measures, you're right.

As far as us being the ultimate predator; there are ways to co-exist with other predators if we gave a damn. It's tough, it's controversial, like re-introducing wolves to Yellowstone, but it could be done if people just friggin' woke UP!

Here, we're getting an increase in population of mountain lions, and will eventually no doubt be faced with dealing with it. We've just recently had coyotes come into the area. But for now at least, we need both species to cut down on the prey population, which is burgeoning. I think here the problem will be less, as NO hunting is allowed at all, so if the ecosystem is left alone, the population of prey determines the population of predators, since they can't increase their range. If we were in competition, it would be another matter.

They've developed to the East steadily, which has put them in conflict with the native mountain lions, and there have been problems. I THINK a predator species coming into an area which is pretty well balanced except for an overabundance of prey species will balance itself, but I don't know for sure, time will have to tell us.

I like the approach Parks Canada has taken with Bears and Wolves...

over the year they collect and freeze roadkill from the highways, then in the spring around the time these animals start to move around they use helicopters to drop the carcasses into the back country to keep them from coming out too early, giving the berry crops more time to grow... keeping them from looking for food in towns, etc

seems to work, and low cost too

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:59 PM

PERFESSERGEE

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:

And I should point out that though I really don't like whaling, I can't be morally opposed to it, and I believe that no one who eats meat can do so. Killing critters is killing critters.
I disagree. I think it's all degrees. Killing a fly & a cow are on vastly different levels.
Killing a shark is different than killing a sea lion.
And whalers can be shot like the murderers they are with no moral reservations, God told me so, and his law is above ours.
Okay, a little nuts there, but my point is that we are all animals, and that the more evolved ones should be as off limits for hunting as two year old human children are.
The only conceivable logical disagreement with this would be that we're ALL game, unless you go with that "Only humans have souls" crap.

Chris,

We have little to dispute, except for the notion that I think that the term of "murder" is reserved for killing one's own species, though we irrationally exclude warfare from our own collective definition of murder. Mind you, we aren't the only murderers - our closest relatives, the chimps, do it too. And so do many other species. And in a very real sense, we ARE all game - if you don't believe that, go for a walk around Hudson Bay in the fall when the polar bears are waiting for the winter ice (please don't actually do this!)

The most relevant question here is "who ought to be allowed for killing/eating?"

My view is that of an academic ecologist. Should only plants be "allowed to be eaten"? Well, nobody would rationally argue that - certainly not the plants. What about predators like wolves and mountain lions? Surely their prey would like to be left alone, so should we kill the predators? The point is that ALL species are dependent on other species for their survival and reproduction. Those of us who are not plants (not green, don't photosynthesize) are parasites in the biological sense. Everybody else depends on those green plants for their survival. We may eat each other, but nobody else other than plants actually produces any biologically useful energy.

Lastly, I completely agree that there are differences among species. Swatting a fly is not the same thing as killing a whale. But, there are indeed degrees, though I deliberately avoided that issue above.

(For others following this thread, sharks eat seals on a fairly regular basis, but sometimes seals eat sharks - usually young ones). Who's "in the right"?

PS Chris, thanks for a provocative question!

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hitler did a lot of 'legal' stuff too.
Until someone decided to tell him it wasn't, and interfere with his efforts using violence.

What a stupid example.

I note for the record that nobody told him his actions were illegal. In fact they went out of their way to accomodate him when he violated international treaties. Hitler was never prosecuted for breaking German law. Nobody interfered with his efforts using violence. War was not declared until AFTER Germany invaded Poland.

There is no moral equivilant between harvesting whales and invading Poland, also these protestors are not a nation acting in its own defense or with regards to their treaty obligations.

Your example would require war with Japan rather then violent action on the high seas by non-government actors.

In this case we have one party accusing another of illegal action and then taking illegal action to stop them. In that situation...the only folks who should be prosecuted are the protestors.

Vigilante justice has no place in the real world. They are not Batman or Spiderman...just some idiots who got their boat run over and endangered a lot of people.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 4:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
I say escalate the confrontation further!

Sure...provoke a naval conflict with the Japanese. Good luck without the American Navy on your side.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 5:02 AM

FREEBROWNCOAT

This board is messed up

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 6:14 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Sometimes you fight the fights that need fighting...period. Plenty of things in the past have been legal. Usually it took some extraordinary action by some for others to wake up and and change the laws. The entire civilized world should condemn Japan for these hunts, especially the ships' crew's act of attempted murder on the high seas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Sometimes you fight the fights that need fighting...period. Plenty of things in the past have been legal. Usually it took some extraordinary action by some for others to wake up and and change the laws. The entire civilized world should condemn Japan for these hunts, especially the ships' crew's act of attempted murder on the high seas.

Which ship's crew are you referring to? The Japanese ship, or the Sea Shepherd's ship? Seems to me they've both engaged in the same activity (ramming the others' boats), but the Japanese have been rather more successful at it. ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 7:48 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Free, I agree:

Quote:
This board is messed up

Unfortunately, the mix of opinions you get here are merely a pretty good sample of what you'll get everywhere. That's why nothing gets done about whaling and other abhorrent behavior by man.

JS:

Quote:
Sometimes you fight the fights that need fighting...period. Plenty of things in the past have been legal. Usually it took some extraordinary action by some for others to wake up and and change the laws. The entire civilized world should condemn Japan for these hunts, especially the ships' crew's act of attempted murder on the high seas

You pretty much said it for me. Things have been "legal" throughout history which people had to fight--sometimes with violence--to right. Such is life.

Mike: Ridiculous. The actions by Japan have been far more aggressively violent than those by the SSCS over time; there is no comparison, however this individual incident came about. You can try to argue otherwise, but I don't think you'll convince anyone except those already believing as you do. Those on each side can only agree to disagree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 8:23 AM

Quote:
Mike: Ridiculous. The actions by Japan have been far more aggressively violent than those by the SSCS over time; there is no comparison, however this individual incident came about. You can try to argue otherwise, but I don't think you'll convince anyone except those already believing as you do. Those on each side can only agree to disagree.

Seems we will indeed have to agree to disagree, because I posted video of the Sea Shepherd ramming a Japanese whaling ship with their own similarly-sized whaling ship, which is the exact kind of bullshit action that can and does lead to sinkings and deaths, even if the dickheads responsible claim that wasn't what they intended to do. I'm sure nobody aboard the Titanic intended to attack that defenseless iceberg, either. ;)

In the articles linked by Gino, it's noted that the Sea Shepherds' leader has bragged about ramming whaling ships, and has taken credit for sinking one of them with a limpet mine. In the face of clear acts of violence and piracy, is it unreasonable for Japanese sailors to defend themselves when they feel they are being attacked?

Also, many have pointed out that there are things that are worth breaking the law for on moral grounds. I'd humbly submit to all of you that Osama bin Laden feels exactly the same way. I can admit that he has a gripe with the U.S. and the West; I can even go so far as to begrudgingly admit that he may have LEGITIMATE issues with us and our policies and actions in the mid-east. But where he loses me, utterly and completely, is with his methods. Apparently y'all beg to differ, and have no problems with killing people whom you disagree on moral issues.

I'll leave you to your hatred.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 8:49 AM