Sea Shepherd starts operation Musashi this November

[Scubakevdm]

I can only speak for how the Sea Shepherd has affected my own views, and let me start out by saying that I remain an ardent supporter of conservation and protection. While I feel that the cause is noble, it is my opinion that the Sea Shepherd is nothing more than a bunch of waterborne hooligans. I feel that they are dishonest, sneaky and that they grossly misrepresent the facts regarding their endeavors. I can assure you that after viewing video footage (most of it their own), of their engagements and Paul Watson's bullying and reckless operation of his ship, I feel a measure of compassion for whomever they are ramming or launching things at.

I believe wholeheartedly in the preservation of our oceans, however I believe that this is better accomplished through legislation and the enforcement of legislation by the proper authorities.

 

[cdiver2]

Caribbean boycotts whaling vote


The vote makes no material difference, as Japan is not obliged to comply.
Caribbean countries abstained at an International Whaling Commission vote that condemned Japan's scientific hunting programme in the Antarctic.

Japan catches nearly 1,000 whales there each year in the name of research.

After an acrimonious debate in Alaska, a large number of IWC countries, including the Eastern Caribbean bloc refused to vote, saying the resolution was illegitimate.

The insisted that scientific whaling is and always has been a right of any member country.

The result was a huge majority of 40 to two for the anti-whaling bloc.

Any IWC member is entitled to hunt whales for scientific research, but anti-whaling countries view the size and scope of Japan's programmes in the Antarctic and north Pacific as going far beyond what was envisaged when the IWC's constitution, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, was drawn up in 1946.

Research

The IWC's scientific committee recently reviewed Japan's Antarctic programme, and New Zealand's conservation minister Chris Carter was not too impressed with their conclusions.

Japanese hunters "killed 7,000 whales over 18 years, and couldn't even decide how many whales there are," he fumed.

This was in marked contrast to the St Kitts and Nevis commissioner Cedric Liburd, who said: "This research provided significant data enabling us to understand the structure and abundance of whale populations.

"I find [this resolution] extremely disturbing, vexatious and in some ways irrelevant," he said.

"It is frivolous, devoid of action and meaningless."

The vote makes no material difference, as Japan is not obliged to comply.

Nevertheless, it is viewed by environmental groups as an important weapon in the battle for hearts and minds.

 

[cdiver2]

I can only speak for how the Sea Shepherd has affected my own views, and let me start out by saying that I remain an ardent supporter of conservation and protection. While I feel that the cause is noble, it is my opinion that the Sea Shepherd is nothing more than a bunch of waterborne hooligans. I feel that they are dishonest, sneaky and that they grossly misrepresent the facts regarding their endeavors. I can assure you that after viewing video footage (most of it their own), of their engagements and Paul Watson's bullying and reckless operation of his ship, I feel a measure of compassion for whomever they are ramming or launching things at.

I believe wholeheartedly in the preservation of our oceans,

however I believe that this is better accomplished through legislation and the enforcement of legislation by the proper authorities.

When authorities are bribed drastic action is needed, Sea Shepherd is the drastic action. If it where not for people like him then the whaling debate would sink into oblivion...along with the whales

 

[cdiver2]

Sea Shepherd - Greenpeace Refuses to Help Pro-Whale Nations

http://australianetwork.com/news/infocus/s1400056.htm

 

[Kim]

cdiver2 - I'm not sure if you understand the purpose of the IWC. It's mandate is to regulate whaling, not seek ways to ban it completely. In other words....... sustainability, not prohibition.

Maybe this is why so many view the attempts of those who try to subvert it's purpose to an end which it was never set up for as being something to fight against.

To many - it's the ones attempting to use the Commission in this way who are truly at fault.

It's kind of like a group trying to gain control of all the diving agencies, PADI etc, and then trying to use them to ban diving because according to them it's too dangerous (because people die unnecessarily). It's a misuse of the organization.

As for Sea Shepherd - I've said it before and I'll say it again - they are simply eco-terrorists who are going to get someone killed in the end. Kevin is completely correct:
"that this is better accomplished through legislation and the enforcement of legislation by the proper authorities."
but of course, such concrete legislation tends to be based on solid facts, and the fact is, like it or not, limited controlled whaling is perfectly feasable, and sustainable.

 

[cdiver2]

cdiver2 - I'm not sure if you understand the purpose of the IWC. It's mandate is to regulate whaling, not seek ways to ban it completely. In other words....... sustainability, not prohibition.

Maybe this is why so many view the attempts of those who try to subvert it's purpose to an end which it was never set up for as being something to fight against.

To many - it's the ones attempting to use the Commission in this way who are truly at fault.

It's kind of like a group trying to gain control of all the diving agencies, PADI etc, and then trying to use them to ban diving because according to them it's too dangerous (because people die unnecessarily). It's a misuse of the organization.

As for Sea Shepherd - I've said it before and I'll say it again - they are simply eco-terrorists who are going to get someone killed in the end. Kevin is completely correct:
"that this is better accomplished through legislation and the enforcement of legislation by the proper authorities."
but of course, such concrete legislation tends to be based on solid facts, and the fact is, like it or not, limited controlled whaling is perfectly feasable, and sustainable.

this is better accomplished through legislation and the enforcement of legislation by the proper authorities."

How can this happen when Japan buys votes.

It's mandate is to regulate whaling, not seek ways to ban it completely. In other words....... sustainability, not prohibition.

Read a previous post, (Quote from it") "Japan still doe's not know how many whales there are".

Just my opinion Kim but no matter how well the whales have come back from the brink of extinction what are there numbers today compared to 100 years ago

 

[Scubakevdm]

When authorities are bribed drastic action is needed, Sea Shepherd is the drastic action. If it where not for people like him then the whaling debate would sink into oblivion...along with the whales

I think that the evidence as can be found in this thread, along with all of the other Sea Shepherd threads, is that a substantial percentage of conservation minded people are put off by Paul Watson as well, and that their activities tend to be divisive as far as conservationists are concerned, rather than cohesive. I feel strongly that the most powerful weapon there is against the destruction of our oceans is the illumination of the actions that are destroying by video taping them. I personally feel that the video evidence that the Sea Shepherd brings back would be much more effective if there was an absence of aggressive action on the part of the Sea Shepherd.

Public opinion is ultimately what will drive the changes necessary for the preservation of whales, because public opinion shapes law. I understand that there are many who feel that Japan's laws do not protect the whales, however, we are not in charge of Japan's law's, the Japanese are. There is a growing movement from within Japan to end whaling, however there is, again as evidenced in this thread, a feeling that they are being attacked. The actions of the Sea Shepherd against Japan are having a galvanizing affect, as one might imagine, on public opinion there, and is not helping matters at all. In fact it's detrimental to the cause. I think that evidence of this can be found in Greenpeace's condemnation of Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd, and Greenpeace's efforts to aid the Japanese vessels that Sea Shepherd damaged.

So, in a nutshell, the decision for conservation of whales and the cessation of whaling is a decision that must be made by all nations. We don't rule the world, they will have to make those decisions for themselves. There are only two nations to go before it's unanimous globally. The operations of Sea Shepherd are currently shifting public opinion in these two nations away from this cause. Honestly, I think that Paul Watson is motivated by money and fame, because he must know that his actions are eroding support for conservation in Japan, and that by doing this, that he is killing whales.

 

[DennisS]

Paul Watson and his actions makes me want to contribute to "Save The Whalers". He's a crackpot, it's just a matter of time before his recklessness gets someone killed.

 

[cdiver2]

Paul Watson and his actions makes me want to contribute to "Save The Whalers". He's a crackpot, it's just a matter of time before his recklessness gets someone killed.

What species is nearer to extinction whales or humans?

 

[adurso]

What species is nearer to extinction whales or humans?

Is it your point then that it is OK to kill humans?