by Michael dEstries
Categories: Animals, Causes
Tags: .
Photo: Sea Shepherd

To help clear up any confusion over the acquisition of their new vessel (tentatively called “Ocean Adventurer), Captain Paul Watson left a comment laying out the specifics of the deal — and why the group does not yet have the cash to outright purchase the boat.

“The new vessel will be participating in Operation No Compromise under the command of Captain Lockart McLean,” he writes. “The vessel has been secured, meaning, it is in our control. Have we raised enough money to pay for it? The answer is; not yet. Why? Because the total cost of Operation No Compromise will be around $4 million U.S. dollars and Sea Shepherd is a relatively small organization. This $4 million represents half the Sea Shepherd’s annual budget, leaving the rest for tuna in the med, sharks in the Galapagos, dolphins in Japan etc. Ship and equipment cost money – lots of money and we need to spend time fund raising by necessity. Thankfully our support base is growing steadily and we become stronger every year.”

Watson added that the SS are also spending $250K for new engines and propellers for the OA. As stated before, Sea Shepherd hope to raise additional funds by selling the naming rights to the vessel.

Check out the rest of Paul’s comments — including information on the partnership with Ady Gil and Pete Bethune — after the jump below.

Captain Paul Watson:

“The Ady Gil was not a Sea Shepherd vessel. It was owned by Ady Gil and captained by Pete Bethune. It was a partnership with Sea Shepherd BUT Sea Shepherd is not under any obligation legally to replace the Ady Gil or to rename this vessel the Ady Gil II. The responsibility for the Ady Gil was Pete Bethune’s alone. Sea Shepherd covered Bethune’s legal fees of close to half a million dollars. However Pete became a security risk to us when he made a deal with the Japanese to give testimony (including false statements) to the Japanese prosecutor. Bethune’s allegation that I ordered him to scuttle the Ady Gil are ridiculous because I never had any authority over him to give him any such orders and on Whale Wars I say quite clearly, “It’s Pete’s ship, it’s Pete’s call. Pete’s decision to scuttle the Ady Gil was the right decision because the Ady Gil could not be salvaged and presented a navigational hazard. Pete can be seen on camera making that decision. But it was his decision and not mine.

Captain MacLean is a much more experienced ship’s officer than Pete Bethune and I trust him to ensure that his ship will not be damaged and his crew will not be hurt. Competence, resourcefulness, confidence and courage trump cowboy courage any day.

Great and boastful talkers do the least, we see.
– Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson

Operation No Compromise will have three vessels and an upgraded helicopter (Hughes 500). We will have 80 volunteers from 16 different nations including Japan. I am confident that this will be our most effective campaign ever.

The ships will depart from Australia on December 2nd.

Now one final word. If you do not like what Sea Shepherd does or if you disagree with our tactics, our strategies, or our objectives, I need only say, it matters not. People are entitled to their opinions but opinions and criticisms mean very little to us. Our clients in this campaign are the whales, not people, and especially not those who oppose us or indulge in worthless criticism. Calling us names, insulting our character, denouncing our tactics are simply the prattling of individuals who neither contribute to nor cause damage to our activities, in other words it is the hum of insignificance in the background of our campaigns.

And for those who support us, we express out thanks because it is your support that is translated into action and thus support and not criticism is the currency of our activities.

The Night for the Oceans in Hollywood was a very successful event and we very much appreciate all those who have made us stronger with their attendance and contributions.”

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • Chris H.

    Thanks for the additional information Paul.

    The critics (paid & unpaid alike) are irrelevant to the success of the SSCS campaigns. As you already know, you have a huge amount of support from people who recognize the value of all kinds of marine ecosystems, and their inhabitants, all over the Planet.

    It is only a matter of time before the ICR/Kyodo Senpaku Company can no longer afford to keep sending their ships down to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, only to return with empty freezers and empty fuel tanks.

    I wish you great success for the “Operation No Compromise” campaign.

    Keep up the great work! Victory is in sight!

    • David

      Yes Sea Shepherd with $4 million will bankrupt the government of Japan.

      • Cho cho ma


        Sea Shepherd is not trying to bunkrupt Japan.

      • Beverley Bailey

        I rather like the world ‘bunkrupt’ – very apt!

      • Chris H.


        sorry to intrude on your fantasy world, but the Kyodo Sanpaku Company is not “the government of Japan”.

        The Japanese Government, currently formed by the Democratic Party of Japan, is believed to subsidize the ICR/Kyodo Senpaku joint venture with the equivalent of millions of dollars of tax payer’s money each year.

        The new DPJ government may just decide that it is no longer in Japan’s interest to fund this barbaric and unnecessary practice.

        The SSCS accomplishes a great deal with very few resources. You don’t have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to bring down a several hundred million dollar industry.

      • David

        Well cho, since the government of Japan pays for the whaling then it is the government of Japan that would have to run out of money for whaling to stop. So yes effectively they are trying to bankrupt the Japanese government.

      • Chris H.


        I know this is a crazy idea, but couldn’t the government of Japan choose to stop funding the ICR’s whaling activities?

        This story would seem to support that possibility:

      • Imforthewhales

        Gosh almighty..if they did that then they might get some credibility & respect back from the world! Do you think it is ever going to happen?

  • joesolo

    well this cofirms the theory they were gonna soup it up with new engines. oh boy the whalers are in for it now. this babys not gonna sink that easy. plus a better captain for it. wonder whatever happend to the chopper for the Bob Barker though.

  • Geordin

    Oh boy oh boy, I smell a lawsuit coming.

    • Chris H.

      Yeah, it looks like Ady Gil will be suing Pete Bethune to recover the value of the boat.

      After all, the AG was lost, in part, due to Pete Bethune’s negligence.

  • Kimitake Hiraoka

    $4m… imagine what a real conservation group like Greenpeace could do with that kind of money… But instead, I suppose we’ll have to settle instead for more theatrics for the camera and more crimes for the Sea Shepherd charge sheet.

    Interesting what Watson says there about his legal obligations towards the Ady Gil. If you read between the lines, it sounds like he’s getting ready to stiff the Bethune family for the $750,000 they said they’d pay for the trimaran they trashed and dumped in the Southern Ocean. That’s a nice touch – adding injury to the string of insults! What a piece of work.

    May that stand as a warning to any other fools who think about supporting this corrupt and violent organisation.

    Curious that Sea Shepherd is spening $4m on the “protection” of whales that aren’t endangered when they don’t spend even one cent on the protection of the critically endangered Southern Bluefin Tuna that is being plundered from the oceans by Australia without restraint. Do Ecorazzi readers and Sea Shepherd apologists have any thoughts on this?

    • David

      Well Paul tried to make it seem like he answered you but you asked about the SOUTHERN Bluefin Tuna and he brought up the campaign for the ATLANTIC/NORTHERN Blufin Tuna. Don’t know if it is because he doesn’t know the difference or because he can’t read or because he doesn’t have an answer and hoped that no one would notice.

      But the Southern Bluefin Tuna population has drop by 92% while the Atlantic/Northern Bluefin Tuna population has drop by 72% in the Eastern Atlantic and 82% in the Western Atlantic.

      So Paul sent a ship half-way around the world to protect a less endangered species rather than stay right where they were in Australia and try and protect the more endangered species.


      • AnimuX

        Looks like we’re back to the random straw-man argument once again.

        David makes a false conclusion that Sea Shepherd should protect one species rather than another species to imply the campaign is all about “theatrics” for money.

        This is one of the most common and flawed attacks made by anti-environmentalist antagonists. They falsely assert the environmentalists are just putting on a show for money.

        So let’s review:

        1) Paul Watson has been physically interfering with whaling and other industries that cruelly over-exploit marine life for over 35 years with or without loads of donations. This includes whalers (starting with the soviets and pirate whalers), sealers, illegal drift nets, IUU fishing in the Galapagos, shark finning and more.

        2) Sea Shepherd has received high ratings as a charity organization that puts most of its donations toward operational expenses rather than overhead (ie: very little goes to administrative costs like salaries).

        3) The campaign for blue fin tuna in the Mediterranean specifically addressed the lack of political will to protect the species, not just from legal over-fishing, but from illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Sea Shepherd stepped in and was praised by traditional fishermen who have lost their livelihoods to foreign corporations (and may lose again when BFT are made commercially extinct).

        4) However, there is a common link between both southern blue fin tuna, northern blue fin tuna, whales and Japan.

        Japan consumes 80% of the world’s BFT catch and also acts as the world market for whale meat. In fact, Japan has opposed, subverted, violated and defeated conservation efforts for both blue fin tuna and whales.

      • Chris H.

        David’s “argument” really comes down to a plea. He is, in essence, saying:

        “Don’t do it to us! Do it to them instead!”

        It’s a classic deflection strategy. It’s also a mark of cowardice.

      • David

        Sorry but you are wrong again AnimuX, no straw man here.

        Paul was asked a specific question about Southern Bluefin, so he either misunderstood or he tried to deflect. If the first then he now knows he made a mistake, if the later then everyone else now knows he doesn’t want to answer the question, and they may wonder why.

        “3) The campaign for blue fin tuna in the Mediterranean specifically addressed the lack of political will to protect the species, not just from legal over-fishing, but from illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.”

        And the exact same situation exists with Southern Bluefin.

      • AnimuX

        In making a straw-man argument the antagonist attempts to misrepresent the opponent’s position by presenting and attacking a similar sounding but fundamentally different and weaker position.

        In this case, the original antagonist falsely asserts Sea Shepherd is misusing donations.

        The weak position presented is the assertion that Sea Shepherd must only “save the whales” to get money because southern blue fin tuna are endangered while minke whales are not (Antarctic Minke whales are listed as Data Deficient by the IUCN – there is conflicting data on Minke populations) or that SBT are more endangered than northern blue fin tuna.

        The argument completely ignores:
        * the long history of regulatory violations by the world’s whaling industries
        * the fact that nearly every species of great whale was driven to the brink of extinction by whaling
        * the fact that the Japanese whaling fleet kills endangered and non-endangered whales
        * the arguments for animal cruelty that apply to intelligent mammals like whales
        * the unilateral action taken by Japan to continue to kill whales in an internationally established whale sanctuary
        * other stated reasons for the ongoing campaign in the Southern Ocean and new campaigns in the Mediterranean
        * other influences on the management of each fishery or other efforts to reduce pressure on each species, etc

        So yes. It is a straw-man argument to simply attack Sea Shepherd for protecting a specific species while the antagonist prioritizes (for the sake of argument) other species as somehow more important.

      • David

        Very good AnimuX, but the ‘original antagonist’ was not me, yet you direct your accusation at me by name with no mention of the original poster. Now why would that be?

      • Imforthewhales

        David…you do realize that Japan drives most of the demand for tuna worldwide? Don’t you?

        The problem with the Southern Bluefin tuna is that japan has consistently lied for about twenty years over the size of its catches.

        It is JAPANS LIES that have caused the damage.

      • David

        Yes I do realize that.

        So lets look at an analogy. Who gets more jail time the drug dealers or the drug users?

        So who is responsible for the current tuna quota problems, is it the fishermen or their customers?

      • Imforthewhales

        The quotas were set and japan violated those quotas…by catching twenty times more than they should have yet lying about the catches…reporting only a legal catch 9 1/20th of what they caught) .

        Japan has been raping the world of its tuna and pretending that there is no problem.


        A report by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin found Japan had illegally caught up to $6 billion worth of the fish over the past 20 years.

        The report also found if Japan had stuck to its allocated catch, the stock of southern bluefin would be at least five times larger.

        Since the mid 1980s, Japan has defied every country that has tried to stop it illegally fishing southern blue fin tuna.

        According to Australia’s Fisheries Minister Eric Abetz, Japan has now owned up to taking well over 100,000 tonnes above its quota of one of the world’s most expensive fish.

        “It is substantial, it was a very very large sum of money,” he said.

        “Whether it’s one billion, four billion or six billion it is, in anybody’s language, an horrendous overcatch.”

      • Kimitake Hiraoka

        Let me get this straight. When it comes to tuna, we’ll ignore what is going on today (Australia’s 5,265 tonnes annual harvest which is 40% of the global catch) and talk only about historical matters relating to Japan.

        And with whales we’ll never discuss the historical matter of the destruction of whale populations carried out by Britain, Australia, the United States, Russia and others in the 19th and 20th centuries. We’ll instead bleat incessantly about Japan’s modest and entirely sustainable present day catch. Keep the focus on Japan, right?

      • David

        Yes and in the past the US had legal slavery but guess what? They don’t any more, that is called history.

        We catches more Tuna at present, Japan or Australia?

      • imforthewhales

        JAPAN..they have been catching 3 or 4 times over quota for the past 20 years. They almost got away with it too..but they were exposed.

        Sadly, due to Japans vigor in overfishing the worlds tuna stocks, they have also decimated the worlds albatross population.

        * Not far off the coastlines of New Zealand and Australia two extraordinary migratory animals face an imminent threat to their survival. Both – one a fish and the other a bird – have become inextricably linked by the enormous profits to be made selling a high-priced seafood delicacy to lucrative markets thousands of miles away. The Southern bluefin tuna is the high-priced target, while several species of albatross and petrel are the accidental victims of a global fishing operation that stretches thousands of kilometres across their migratory routes.

        Each year, millions of deadly baited hooks are set in the Southern Ocean luring tens of thousands of birds and fish to their deaths

        Southern Bluefin Tuna in Crisis

        Sadly the Southern bluefin tuna population today is so severely depleted that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature recently listed the species as “critically endangered” on its Red List of endangered species.

        Massive overfishing in the 1960s and 1970s outstripped Southern bluefin tuna’s ability to naturally replace itself and maintain healthy population levels. Today the species is on the verge of collapse. Scientists estimate that overfishing has reduced bluefin to only 2-5% of its original population levels and predict that if current fishing levels continue the species only has a 15% chance of recovery by the year 2020. As dire as this prediction sounds, it is likely that the reality will be far bleaker. Recent scientific studies found that the rate at which bluefin is recovering has been over-estimated by up to 60%.

    • Chris H.


      you are poorly informed… SSCS’s budget is a tiny fraction of the Greenpeace budget (less than 3%).

      Charging someone with a crime, and convicting someone of a crime are two very different things, at least in countries whose legal systems are not corrupt.

      When I read between the lines of your comment, it sounds like you are desperately trying to find the slightest excuse to slander and smear Paul Watson, and the SSCS, through false assumptions and inuendo. Your desperation is showing.

      FYI, Fin whales are endangered,

      and the ICR/Kyodo Senpaku Company have declared their intent to kill 50 Fin whales each year for the past 4 seasons. So, despite your claims, the Japanese whalers are targeting endangered species.

      • AnimuX

        If you look at the IWC statistics, despite the moratorium on commercial whaling, the Japanese whaling fleet kills:

        Fin whales – Endangered
        Sei whales – Endangered
        Sperm whales – Vulnerable
        Bryde’s whales – Data Deficient
        Antarctic Minke whales – Data Deficient
        Common Minke whales – Least Concern

        And threatens to kill Humpback whales…

        Japanese whalers also kill beaked whales and tens of thousands of small cetaceans annually in Japan’s coastal waters.

      • Chris H.

        Thanks for the information AnimuX.

        Your comments on this site are consistently well thought out, well written, and demonstrate a profound understanding of the issue.

        Keep up the great work!

  • Josh Lamb

    So cool! Thank you SSCS, and Admiral/Captain Watson for everything you do for animals, You are a inspiration to many! May your voyage be a safe and successful one!

    • Hideyoshi Toyotomi

      Settle down there Josh. Watson will be fine – he only ever endangers the lives and well being of others (either Japanese mariners or his own crew), never himself. And for the record, he’s not a registered captain. Just a convicted criminal.

      • don miguelo

        Queue “hum of insignificance in the background of our campaigns”:


      • josh lamb

        Haha, I see your from Japan. Actually no he has never endangered the lives of anyone. His crew signs up with a contract abiding that if they do get hurt it will have to effect on SSCS which legally makes and injures to his crew none of his fault. He has never injurdered or killed and whalers. Yet the Japanese whalers with there stupidity have lost 3 men and several injured. The reason he is not a registered captain is because if he was registered as a captain under any nation that nation could revoke his captains licsence and he could not man a ship so its better he not have one in the first place. And no not a convided criminal he has never had a felony. Silly silly.

      • AnimuX

        Just because it’s annoying that people continue to say Paul Watson is not a captain with NO evidence to back up their claims (from comments on Ecorazzi):

        Captain Paul Watson, August 3, 2010 at 6:44 pm

        “Am I a Captain. Yes, I am. I received my training with the Norwegian and Swedish Merchant Marine and the Canadian Coast Guard. I would not be allowed to depart and arrive in foreign ports as the registered Captain unless I was in fact a legitimate ship’s master. Do I care if people think otherwise – not really.”

      • josh lamb

        Thank you AnimuX I retract my captain statement

      • From MN, with hope…

        Oh hey hideyoshi! Welcome back with your same argument after leaving months ago after admitting to being an ICR paid puppet. I’ll give it a try, but I know you’ll be back in several hour with the same nonsense. Regardless, lets see how I can say this a hundredth time:

        Captain is mostly a nickname, and a title of respect for Paul. Although he has been captaining ships for 33 or so years, so he certainly has the experience needed. In fact he probably has more than enough. Might he has a captains license? Maybe, maybe not. Who cares? He can still be at the helm, and nobody out in the real world will care.

        “Just a convicted criminal.”
        Sure he is. If you want to change the world you’re bound to get some people P-Oed, and bound to end up in jail a few times. But this really doesn’t matter. There are many people out there who are convicted criminals, and you don’t call them out. Does it really matter though?

        If really think he endangers your crew, well, they signed up for it. They knew going into it that they could die down there. And Paul not endangering himself? He’s on the ship too!

        Does Inwood just prep your arguments in a word processor and you just paste them onto here, or what?

        Don: That’s a dang long hum.

      • Jeremy Bryant

        On top of what Josh has said, if you watched the first and second season of Whale Wars, the Japanese whalers were indeed trying to injure the Sea Shepherds. In the first season, they tried to throw Benjamin Potts overboard after he and his partner boarded one of the harpooning vessels. In the second season the whalers were throwing nuts, bolts, and other hard objects at the Sea Shepherds, which could possibly cause serious injury if it were to hit in the right spot on the body. Also, in season two, the whalers were launching there water cannons in the direction of the helicopter, endangering the pilot’s and cameraman’s life. The worst tactic the Sea Shepherds use is stink bombs.

  • Beverley Bailey

    The Ady Gil was part-purchased by Sea Shepherd using funds supplied by Ady Gil. SSCS is still contracted to provide the remainder of the funds still due to Pete Bethune in final payment for the Ady Gil.

    Pete was working under the command of Paul Watson throughout Operation Matilda. Therefore, the buck stops with Watson unless he is going against every known rule of the command chain.

    According to Watson, Sea Shepherd themselves made a deal with the Japanese (including false statements – viz. Pete would no longer be a member of SSCS following the trial) in order to secure Pete’s release.

    Looking back on the previous statements from Paul Watson issued by SSCS concerning Pete’s character, skills, bravery and aptitude, for Watson to now label Bethune as having ‘cowboy courage’ is disingenuous to say the least.

    And as for the quote from Lord Nelson, I think he’s rather shot himself in the foot with this one as it clearly applies more to Watson than to Bethune. Perhaps the following might be more suitable?

    No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar. ~Abraham Lincoln

    • John Taylor

      Thank you, Beverly. Spot-on, and you saved me from having to say it.

      Watson’s continuous self-aggrandizing is a far greater threat to SSCS than anything else. The Admiral has no clothes.

    • Chris H.

      Ah, Beverly Bailey, another public relations professional attacking SSCS.

      My only question is: Who is paying you to post this stuff Beverly?

      • don miguelo

        Ouch! That’s gotta hurt where she used to have feelings.

        Nice job on this and many other posts Chris H!

  • John Taylor

    Hey, Watson! Why do you hate cowboys so much? You used to be one, before your gonads shriveled.

  • Nancy

    Bev and John I agree 100%.
    I also think Paul is such a drama queen. His ego and dishonesty makes me dislike SSCS yet I continue to support it due to the hardowrking VOLUNTEERS that make it all happpen. Not to mention the cause is such a worthy one!!! But I really wish Paul would get over himself and quit battling back and forth about Pete online. He acts like a teenage girl!
    Best of luck to the hardworking crew this year! Be safe and save some whales!!!

  • Beverley Bailey

    Just realised (and I should have been quicker off the mark) that the ‘Ocean Adventurer’ is none other than the previous holder of the global circumnavigation speed record that was smashed by Earthrace (aka Ady Gil) in 2008.

    Not quite sure what it means in karmic terms but I smell portents of doom and leaking diesel…

    • Chris H.


      you’re only about the 5th person to mention this. Congratulations.

      P.S. Try to keep your “karmic” fantasies in check…

      • Imforthewhales

        i smell…a rather angry and increasingly desperate Japanese Kamikaze Captain who attempts to destroy yet another ship!!! Good luck Captain Kamikaze…you’ll be needing it!


      • Chris H.

        @ Imforthewhales

        You are exactly right. I’m sure that Lockart MacLean will be far more vigilant than PB was last season.

        Pete’s assumption that the Japanese would not try to damage his vessel ending up costing a lot of people a lot of money. I’m sure that Captain MacLean will not make the same mistake.

      • Imforthewhales

        Chris H …i hope you come over to the planet ocean alliance forums ( if you are not already there)

      • Chris H.

        Thanks for the invite! See you there.

  • John

    Paul stated over and over again throughout season 3 that Pete was a cowboy so that’s nothing new Beverly. SSCS spent $500,000 on the best legal defense of which Pete actually almost screwed himself by running his mouth. NO ONE LIKES A RAT PETE! As for the Lincoln quote…Pete has lied and sadly forgot there was a camera in his face. How dumb do you have to be to rewrite your statements when they are on camera! Pete said on the show to let the ship sink now he’s saying paul ordered him. Go back to NZ Pete and stop partying in LA and getting drunk every night.

    • Chris H.

      Pete got scared (understandably) and forgot the golden rule:

      “Nobody talks; everybody walks.”

      Pete likes to be liked, even by the Japanese whalers & prosecutors, and that was his weakness.

      Let’s also remember that Pete was the one who wanted to board the Shonan Maru #2, and he wanted to be taken back to Japan. It was a brave vision, but he bit off more than he could chew…

      Paul Watson wanted Pete to return to Australia (in Jan. 2010) to do media interviews, but Pete convinced Paul to let him try boarding the SM#2. This is all on camera, and is indisputable (except by paid shills of the whaling/seafood industries).

  • Captain Paul Watson

    All very amusing guys. Kimitake, please ask the ICR to brief you better. You look silly not doing your homework. Sea Shepherd had a campaign to defend Bluefin tuna in June and July off the coast of Libya. We emptied one of the poacher’s nets, freeing 800 of those magnificent fish. But what I really love is this statement you made, “$4m… imagine what a real conservation group like Greenpeace could do with that kind of money”
    Do your homework and maybe ICR will give you a raise. The Greenpeace annual budget is around $300 Million. At least make an attempt to be credible. Nancy, drama queen – love that, of course we use drama as a media tool. Why wouldn’t we? Study the Laws of Media by Marshall McLuhan. I actually take that as a compliment. Drama queens and media whores, all very valid criticisms and all simply irrelevant in the context of our modern media culture where all of us without exception are hypocrites.

    Now, I would really love to continue this friendly banter with you. It is fun BUT I’m off to Australia to rejoin my ships and I won’t be back until March so do continue to talk amongst yourselves and have fun. I know I will – nothing like blocking the slipway of a whale killing death ship to give a sense of accomplishment for when it all comes down to it, all these opinions mean absolutely nothing and all that matters is reducing the kill quota and negating the profits of the Japanese whaling fleet. We have done that and we will continue to do that and not one word of criticism directed towards us will prevent us from doing so.

    • Imforthewhales

      Good old kimitake, the apologist for japans rape of the worlds tuna and destruction of other valuable wildlife in the process (look up albatross kimitake , and your other flying monkeys, and see what the Japanese longliners have done to these magnificent birds)

      As for Greenpeace…I suppose 4 million or so would make a v nice PS2 or X box game! Because thats about as close as Greenpeace will be getting to the Southern Ocean this year. Very sad.

      Go gettum Paul, go Sea shepherd, you guys are the real deal, we are right there with you every step of the way!

    • David

      Sorry Paul but you haven’t ever affected the profit of the whaling fleet. The whaling fleet operates under contract to the ICR. Their profit is built into the contract, so as long as the have a contract they get their profit, no matter how many whales they take.

      And the ICR is a government agency; they don’t try and aren’t expected to ‘make a profit’. In fact the term profit doesn’t really have meaning in regards to their operations. Do we say the military doesn’t make a profit? Or schools? Or any other government organization?

      And so Greenpeace has a budget of $300 million and somehow that means they couldn’t use and wouldn’t appreciate another $4 million? You can, as you so aptly put it, “At least make an attempt to be credible.”

      Have fun in the Southern Ocean. Hopefully there won’t be any more mysterious non-anthrax white powder letters or magical non-bullet flying pieces of lead.

      • AnimuX

        It’s a good thing we have good ole David here who is somehow privy to detailed information about how the ICR funds its annual excursions into the Southern Ocean.

        We know that the ICR (and therefore the company Kyodo Senpaku) is funded by public money from the Japanese government for whaling.

        However, we also know there is a commercial component to this operation as some of the whale meat is sold in restaurants and markets in Japan.

        It is known that the ICR attempts to recuperate funds from the sale of whale meat.

        Demand for whale meat has significantly and consistently declined in Japan since it peaked 40 years ago.

        Sea Shepherd interference has increased the cost of whaling in the Southern Ocean and reduced the take.

        So while some people may remain confused about the word “profit”, the fact is that actions by Sea Shepherd, other anti-whaling organizations, and declining consumer demand all increase the “cost” of whaling for Japan.

        The cost can be measured as increased spending on the whale hunt with a reduced capacity to recover losses through the sale of whale meat. (not to mention the damage to Japan’s international reputation)

        As for Greenpeace, the government of Japan has targeted them as well despite the fact that GP took an alternate approach by working from within Japan.

        Two Greenpeace activists attempted to expose the criminal actions of whalers (the smuggling and sale of whale meat for personal gain that was already paid for by Japanese tax dollars). They built a case and took the evidence to the police. In response, the activists were jailed, tried and convicted by their own government. (even the UN stated Japan had violated the basic human rights of these Japanese anti-whaling Greenpeace activists)

        Sea Shepherd is effective as demonstrated by the statements of Japanese fisheries officials who admitted their catch was reduced by interference. And that’s what Sea Shepherd is about – physically intervening against the cruel exploitation of marine life.

      • Chris H.


        I sincerely hope that you are paid by the word, and not by the idea, because you keep repeating the same cr*p over and over again…

        However, I will give you credit for one thing, you certainly know a lot about the inner workings of the ICR for a guy who claims to live in the U.S. and work in “waste remediation” (kinda like Tony Soprano!).

        When it comes to credibility deficits, you’re the Rod Blagojevich of the whaling debate.

      • David

        The funding of the ICR is public knowledge.

        As to the ‘commercial’ aspect and ‘profit’.

        It is similar to the US Parks Department. They sell access to the parks to help offset some of their costs and the rest is covered by the government. The basic situation is if they make more money they get less government aid, if they make less money they get more from the government.

        As required by the IWC regulations the ICR sells the meat to offset some of their costs, what isn’t covered by sales is covered by the government.

        See how easy it is?

        Oh and the 2 Greenpeace activists where arrested and convicted for stealing private property. That being whale meat that is legally given to the crew as part of their compensation.

      • AnimuX

        The government of Japan uses public funds to subvert internationally established conservation efforts by contracting elements of Kyodo Senpaku, through the ICR, to kill whales.

        The whale meat is sold commercially to recover funds in order to continue whaling. The markets and restaurants that buy and sell this whale meat attempt to profit from the publicly subsidized commercial whaling operation as well. The demand for whale meat continues to decline yet the government of Japan refuses to put an end this failed industry and honor its international obligations.

        Sea Shepherd interference reduces the catch thus sparing many whales the agony of Japanese harpoons.

        The average cost for taking each whale increases as the whaling fleet attempts to offset Sea Shepherd intervention with “security ships” and end the season with less to show for its annual trip to the Southern Ocean.

        Whaling is already a costly activity and Sea Shepherd will continue to make it even more costly and difficult for the Japanese whaling industry and government.

        Well done, Sea Shepherd.

    • Kimitake Hiraoka

      Wow, would you listen to this guy. Sometimes I wonder if he actually believes his own lies.

      Anyway, I’d also like to ask of the Sea Shepherd apologists among us: do any of you register a sense of irony that the only party getting rich from whaling in the Southern Ocean is in fact Sea Shepherd? Not to mention Paul Watson himself, who pays himself a huge salary from the donations (over four times the median US salary, last I checked).

      Anyone else find this ironic given his constant lies regarding the profits of the ICR?

      Or does that require too much independent thought…?

      • Imforthewhales

        You are getting very stale Kimitake.

        Sea Shepherd is a tax deductible charitable organization in a dozen countries. Sea Shepherd has successfully passed two major audits with the U.S. I.R.S.

        Sea Shepherd supporters see the riches of the Southern ocean…the whales, the Tuna, the albatross, continually get raped by the Japanese whalers and fishermen who are stealing the planets riches and not giving anything back.

        That is the only riches that people on here care about and do not want our world destroyed by ignorant, greedy people, wherever they come from.

        That goes for their apologists too.

        The Japanese are murdering our whales.

        Fin whales – Endangered
        Sei whales – Endangered
        Sperm whales – Vulnerable
        Bryde’s whales – Data Deficient
        Antarctic Minke whales – Data Deficient
        Common Minke whales – Least Concern

        And threatens to kill Humpback whales…

        Sea Shepherd are down there to stop the Japanese illegal commercial whalers from conducting their gruesome, barbarous and bloody business. All paid for by people who care.

        Would anyone donate a cent to support Japanese whaling? I don’t think so. Sea Shepherd have the support of the passionate. The whaling industry only has the support of the greedy.

        Sea shepherd are not getting rich, as has been mentioned previously and covered by Captain Paul Watson on this site. Their money goes towards what counts…ie saving whales and all the other projects world wide that they are involved in.

        Do you not find it ironic kimitake that you yourself have created the awesome Ggodzilla that is sea Shepherd? Without you and your employers conducting illegal whaling in the southern ocean, then there would be no sea Shepherd ships going down there, and no whale wars on animal Planet, and no bad publicity for Japan.

        Or does that require too much independent thought…?

        “Criticism can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger.”

      • Kimitake Hiraoka

        Well I’m glad I’m not too stale that I can’t incite you into a lengthy and tedious resprouting of Sea Shepherd’s lies and spin.

        But please, stop with the emotive babble like “murder of whales” and “endangered” and “barbaric” etc etc. Some of us on this forum are adults and can do without the childish theatrics that is a popular tool among the anti-whaling activists.

        You might like to consider more appropriate terminology such as “sustainable harvest”, “humane killing techniques as recognised by the IWC Scientific Committee” and “legal entitlement to harvest oceanic resources on the high seas as enshrined in UNCLOS” and “legal research program sanctioned by the IWC”. Much more accurate, I’m sure you will agree.

      • Imforthewhales

        Thats just pyscho babble kimitake and is the kind of guff fit only for children who may lap it up eagerly without question. You may as well be working for the ministry of truth when you espouse, verbatim, that kind of illogical rhetoric without a second thought. You might think those terms are double plus good. But there are some Winstons on here who seek the truth and read between the lies of the ICR.

        How do you get sustainable harvest when you are murdering endangered species?

        How do you get scientific research out of illegal commercial whaling? Much more accurate terms, i am sure that you will agree.

        Do you press a Ministry of truth button to bring up those particular terms on your computer screen?

        As to emotion..have you ever felt emotion kimitake?

        Unlike you and your brethren, i see nothing wrong with emotion, nor do i see anything wrong with empathy. To be able to feel emotion, and to understand another beings plight, is something that separates us from children, some might say those who can feel emotion and have an empathic view of the world puts them on a higher plane then that which is inhabited by the “human” throwbacks such as rapists and murderers who get a thrill from the fact that they do not empathize with their victims.

  • Angela

    Preach it, Paul! I’m so excited for Sea Shepherd’s new campaign!! I wish you guys all the luck in the world and hope you have an amazing season. Thank you for being brave and caring enough to stand up for what you believe is right and put your beliefs into practice. You and the rest of the volunteers are an inspiration!

  • Chris H.

    @ David:

    Regarding your comment that “the funding of the ICR is public knowledge”.

    Could you please post a link to the ICR, or to a Japanese government website, that shows this as I have been unable to find public websites that confirm your claims.

    Thanks in advance.

    Btw, while I was looking, I did manage to find this story:

    • herwin

      wow, thats a great link ! and yeah, that wa already predictable and a liogic step that sooner or later subsidies for killing whales (an international pr disaster for japan)would be stopped by the japanese governemnt.
      Anyway @ David, you can read that article and STUFF IT and whine a bit more how your meat eating world view is undermined again..and again…by facts. ;-)
      After whaling has ended, your next job will to be a troll for the fur industry, i guess…

      • David

        Yes an old article about something that might happen but didn’t. That surely will put me in my place.

        Oh wait, it actually supports what has been said many times. The actions of SSCS have, and will continue to, prolonged whaling. Even with budget issues the government of Japan still fully supports whaling. And a major reason is they feel taht politically they can’t be seen to give in to a group like the SSCS.

      • Imforthewhales

        WHAT you are failing to understand, David, is that Sea shepherd is just the tip of the iceberg. Sea Shepherd only exists in its current form because of the supporters out there that make their heroic actions possible. These supporters come from all walks of life, rich and poor, male and female, young and old, and they live all over the world.

        They are much bigger than the Japanese government.

        You are also failing to understand that the best thing the government of japan can do is to abandon illegal commercial whaling. Perhaps then they may seek to restore some of their “face” in the eyes of the world. Face which has been all but lost due to this whaling charade that they are playing.

        because of whaling, and because of their illegal tuna fishing, and because of their destruction of the oceans, Japan is seen very much as a pariah state.

        You also fail to understand that while the japanese government may be seen to be supporting whaling, there are obviously rumblings in the wings. The people of Japan are largely ignorant about the extent of Japans illegal whaling…probably kept ignorant by the powers that be… and the ordinary people are shocked when they discover the hidden truth.

      • David

        “They are much bigger than the Japanese government. ”

        And how many of them can vote in Japan? Unless they can then the government of Japan really doesn’t care too much about them.

        And nothing you said addresses the fact that the people of almost every country resent it when people from other countries try and put pressure on them. In fact they often dig in even deeper when they perceive it as cultural or racial bias.

      • Mick


        “After whaling has ended..”

        Even if Japan was to end their scientific whaling program in the SO, whaling would still continue. Norway, Iceland, Greenland, America and Russia are also whaling. Japans’ scientific whaling program in the North Pacific would continue as well. Not to mention the large number of whales that Korea “acidentally” catches every year.

      • Mick


        “The people of Japan are largely ignorant about the extent of Japans illegal whaling…probably kept ignorant by the powers that be… and the ordinary people are shocked when they discover the hidden truth.”

        I disagree. The Japanese people I have spoken to are generally well aware of the ICR’s whaling program. Information in regards to whaling is readily available and easily accessable by average people. I have spoken with many ordinary people who know about and support whaling. You can find fresh whale meat at the grocery store on a regular basis where it sells out quickly. You can also find canned whale meat at the store too. The “truth” about whaling is far from being “hidden” in Japan.

      • imforthewhales

        I disagree. The Japanese people I have spoken to are generally well aware of the ICR’s whaling program

        i am talking about the people on the street….

        not the people opposite you in your ICR cubicles.

      • Mick


        “i am talking about the people on the street….”

        Really? And how many “people on the street” have you talked to in Japan?

        I was refering to my family, friends, co-workers and acquaintances in Japan.

        “not the people opposite you in your ICR cubicles.”

        Seeing as I do not work for the ICR it is quite impossible for me to have a cubicle and people “opposite” me there.

      • imforthewhales

        You will be surprised how little the Japanese public know about what the Japanese government is doing regarding whaling.

        The survey we commissioned last June shows that more than 92 per cent of the Japanese public do not know that their government is killing more than 900 whales, some of which are endangered species, in the Southern Ocean whale Sanctuary.

        Also more than 95 per cent of the public have never eaten or very rarely eat whale meat. This is particularly true with the younger generation many of whom have never eaten whale meat or know anything about the whaling done by Japan. And when they were asked what they think about whaling in the future, 69 per cent of the public said they do not support whaling in the high seas – this includes the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

        The Japanese government’s propaganda about the public’s support of whaling is usually only communicated in English and to those outside of Japan. Very rarely is it in Japanese to the Japanese public. This is because it does not reflect the real situation in Japan.

        I want to emphasise that the desire and will of the majority of Japanese people is the same as yours – to end whaling in the southern ocean whale sanctuary. Please do not get misled by the Japanese government’s propaganda.

        Just imagine how many Japanese tourists go to whale watching in Australia, New Zealand, Alaska, and Hawaii all the way from Japan. And they are true whale-lovers.

        Opinion poll in Japan on whaling (2008)

        What do Japanese citizens think about whaling and the country’s whaling program? In a 2008 survey, 71% of Japanese respondents said they supported an end to whaling on the high seas. The results certainly challenge the image of Japan as a nation thatlargely supports whaling.

        In 2006 and 2008, Greenpeace commissioned Nippon Research Centre Ltd, a member of Gallup International Association, to undertake an opinion poll on whaling in Japan.

        The poll contacted 1051 people, aged 15-60 years, and asked 18 questions about whaling. Respondents were randomly selected from internet panels registered with the Centre (the Centre maintains pre-recruited panels of internet users available to be interviewed for specific projects).

        The 2008 poll asked the same questions as the 2006 poll. Here are some of the results.
        General attitudes to whaling

        In terms of general attitudes to whaling, 69% of respondents were not in favour. They either were opposed to whaling or held no opinion.
        2006 2008

        Favoured whaling 35% 31%
        Opposed whaling 26% 25%
        No opinion 39% 44%

        When the above results were analysed according to age and gender, women and younger people were more likely to oppose whaling, with the majority of women aged 15-36 years opposed.
        71% did not support whaling on the high seas

        The poll also presented respondents with four statements, from which they were to choose one that best reflected their opinion.
        Japan should whale on the high seas as well as along the Japanese coast 21%

        Japan should whale along the Japanese coast but not on the high seas 45%

        Japan should whale on the high seas but not along the Japanese coast 3%

        Japan should discontinue whaling 26%

        Other 5%

        Based on the above results, 71% of respondents supported an end to whaling on the high seas (either by stopping whaling altogether or by just stopping whaling on the high seas).

        The Centre further analysed the responses and found that, among those who said they were neither for nor against whaling, over 80% disagreed with whaling on the high seas. Even among those respondents who said they supported whaling, almost 40% disagreed with whaling on the high seas.

        When the same question was asked in 2006, 69% wanted an end to whaling on the high seas.
        Little awareness of their country’s whaling program

        Questions about whaling in general produced responses suggesting that the average person in Japan has little idea of what the Japanese Government does in their name. Respondents were asked if they knew that … Did not know

        Whale meat obtained as a result of the research is sold in Japan for commercial purposes. 40%

        The Japanese Government hunts whales for scientific purposes despite requests from the International Whaling Commission to limit research to non-lethal methods only. 45%

        The Japanese Government announced a halt to hunting humpback whales in the Antarctic Ocean. >80%

        Japan hunts over 900 whales, including 50 of an endangered species, within the Antarctic Ocean whale sanctuary. 85%

        The Japanese Government subsidises research whaling with about 500 million yen (AU$8.59 million) annually. 87%

        The picture revealed by these answers is very different from the image of Japan as a nation that largely supports whaling. It shows that the largest category comprises those with no opinion about whaling and little knowledge of what their government is doing on their behalf.

        Among those with an opinion, there is only a slim majority who support whaling. A striking majority of over 70% of Japanese people oppose whaling on the high seas, even those who are neither for nor against whaling.

      • imforthewhales

        According to Japanese scholar Jun Morikawa of Rakuno Gakuen University in Sapporo, Japan, while whaling is considered a time-honored tradition in some local communities, in others, whales are revered animals and the thought of hunting them is unthinkable. Morikawa questions the validity of claims that the whaling industry is a kingpin of national Japanese culture, and instead believes that is a falsity spread by a consortium of political and industrial bodies intent on keeping whaling alive.

        Indeed, Morikawa (whose specialty is politics and foreign relations, not the environment or conservation) believes Japan’s continued whaling not only fails to benefit the nation financially, but actually hurts it in terms of smooth relations with otherwise friendly nations that aren’t fans of the practice.

      • Mick


        Jun Morikawa is a professor at a small agricultural college whose focus is dairy science.
        In his opinion, “Japanese consumers generally don’t like whale. They don’t buy it. And they don’t eat it.”
        I disagree with his assessment. In my personal experience Japanese consumers do like, buy and eat whale meat. As I’ve said before. When the local grocery store gets fresh whale meat in stock, it sells out the same day. You can find canned whale meat in many stores year-round and they have no problem selling it. I have talked to many people who said they like whale meat and buy it when it’s available.

      • imforthewhales

        @ mick..firstly i think you meant to reply to me.

        Secondly, what you are describing is a commercial activity.

      • Mick


        “..firstly i think you meant to reply to me.”

        My apologies.

        “Secondly, what you are describing is a commercial activity.”

        An activity done in accordance with the rules and regulations of the IWC. As you already well know. IWC regulations require that any whales taken under scientific permit be utilized as much as possible. Selling the whale meat in order to recoup some of the cost of the research is perfectly within the bounds of the IWC regulations.

        In any case. The assertion that people in Japan don’t like and don’t eat whale meat, is incorrect.

      • imforthewhales

        “No abattoir in the world would allow the killing of a cow by running after it in a field plunging a spear with an explosive tip into it’s back and than slowly electrocuting it or pumping it full of small caliber bullets until it died forty minutes later.” Paul Watson

    • herwin

      @mick. thanks for the reply ! You’re right, when the japanese whaling has ended, our little whaling troll David can try to be a paid troller for another whaling nations. Thanks for correcting me.

      • Mick


        “thanks for the reply !”

        You’re welcome. Thank you for your trollish reply.

        “Thanks for correcting me.”

        “Correcting” you? Not at all. I was either informing you or reminding you. Which one depends on whether you were aware of other countries whaling programs or not.

  • Imforthewhales

    David…the thing is they do care…because Sea Shepherd (the organization, + their supporters), the anti whaling protesters, The governments of other countries etc…the bad publicity for japan..this is all having an effect on Japans profits ala commercial whaling and the massive damage to japans beleaguered reputation that whaling has…yes, the government is caring and they are going to care more and more as time goes by.

    This game will never be over as long as Japan continues to flout its obligations.

    Yes, the government of Japan will be caring alright.

    “And nothing you said addresses the fact that the people of almost every country resent it when people from other countries try and put pressure on them. In fact they often dig in even deeper when they perceive it as cultural or racial bias.

    Japan can take whatever stance that they choose to take in regards to this…but anybody of sound mind would see this as merely a deflection.

    They know, when they are standing in front of the mirror, what it is they are really saying.

    So do we.

    There is an old saying David….”never try to be more of a speaker than you are a man…because your audience will know”.

    This is why japans audience never takes these so called perceptions at face value. They know it is really just a sidestep from tackling the truth of the matter, and that is that whaling is damaging Japan. Big time.

    Japan cannot keep punching itself in the face forever. Like it or not, this is a war that Japan will never win.

  • Iboo radley


    “And nothing you said addresses the fact that the people of almost every country resent it when people from other countries try and put pressure on them…”


    Japan is putting pressure on Australia and New Zealand and the concerned citizens of the world … not to mention the pressures they are placing on the deep water citizens and ultimate victims of Japan, the whales) to accept their commercial slaughter of the great whales. It is little wonder then that Japan is meeting such great opposition.

    • David

      I will type this slowly so you can understand.

      The discussion was about the pressure other countries and NGOs are putting on Japan and its ineffectiveness. Not the counter-pressure that Japan is exerting in retaliation.

      • imforthewhales can see you typing…so whether you type slow or fast makes no difference to the final result.

        When you press the send button, then all the words appear on this site at the same time.

        when you write something that actually has some glimmer of credibility, or shows an understanding of the issues, then people will begin to understand you.

        Typing slow or fast is not the issue here, but i can see that it is a semi useful tool of yours to try and cast aspersions on your anti-whaling foes on here.

      • David may want to study what the term sarcasm means.

        I am sorry that you don’t believe the legal documents establishing the IWC are credible or that court records are credible or that the words of the IUCN or the UNWCfN are credible.

        Although if you will only believe what Paul tells you it does make your life simple. No need to think and all that. But many people would say that is how a cult works.

      • imforthewhales

        Like the cult of the ICR perhaps, and the Glen Inwood cult?

      • David

        No like Paul Watson’s cult of personality.

      • imforthewhales

        At least Paul Watson has personality unlike the faceless brainwashed drones from the ICR and their flying monkeys.

        “Cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be, reasonably or unreasonably, considered strange. The term was originally used to denote a system of ritual practices”.

        This sounds very much like the modern japanese cult of whaling who often claim they have a ritual right to whaling, despite most people who consume whale meat buying it in a package or at a market…and are not involved it eh actual whaling. In other words, they are disconnected from the actual practice of whaling.

        Cult groups such as the ICR is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself. For some reason, japan thinks it has the right to ignore the international whale sanctuaries set up to protect whales…unlike all the other countries of the world who do NOT go whaling in Antarctica, japan feels it has a special and exalted “right” to.

        In cults, the group ( such as the ICR) has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. This is definitely true when it comes to japans commercial whaling. If they don’t get their way then the people who support Japanese whaling start calling everyone who opposes them as being “racist” imperialist. Classic “us and them” mentality.

        The cult group, as a rule, is preoccupied with making money. Check ICR…TICK.

        One thing that cults tend to do is to add their own rules and distort the message..the Japanese ducking and weaving and distortion of rules regarding whaling ( ie the fraud of scientific whaling) could certainly classify them as a cult.

  • herwin

    “And nothing you said addresses the fact that the people of almost every country resent it when people from other countries try and put pressure on them. In fact they often dig in even deeper when they perceive it as cultural or racial bias.”

    Another trollish suggestion that we should stop protesting and than the japanese will do what ? My guess is : no protests equals much more whaling and dolphin killings.
    The exposure in other dolphin killer towns like Futo made that these small fishing towns actaully stopped killing dolphins.
    Whenever there are international protests like the protesting against political prisoners (Mynamar, Iran, China), protests against department stores selling fur, protest against Disney serving shark fin, facts (and facts dont care about opinion) show that no matter wether big companies or governemenst, they mostly are reasonable enough to one way or another listen, or inteligent enough to see the massive consequences of being an international outlaw, and they DO act to any international protest.

    Bedning the rules of the IWC and using the scientific loophole to continue whales is a PR disaster for them and the PR damage is just massive. And for what ? For a handfull of old japanese farts who try to make buckets of money with loopholing laws and killing endangered whales.

    Is that the best you can do ? :-) suggest we should stop protesting ?

    • David

      Where did I suggest you stop protesting? If you did that I would have to find someone else’s useless antics to laugh at.

      “…they mostly are reasonable enough to one way or another listen, or inteligent enough to see the massive consequences of being an international outlaw, and they DO act to any international protest.”

      Yeah sure they do. And when did the Palestinians get their own country? And there are all those people that weren’t put to death because of international protests.

      • imforthewhales

        David…ever heard of Gandhi? Martin Luther King?

        The French underground?

        The suffragettes?

        The recent backdown of logging companies in Tasmania?


        Time to read up, ol’ pal.

      • David

        I must have missed something. How does the French underground fit in with international protest?

        And we can trade groups from each side back and forth. But just one case where the international protests have had no effect proves my point.

      • herwin

        you are not very clear, but i guess thats part of your trolling job, to keep spinning and turning around.
        ok, so you say that pressure often doesnt work and people tend to dig in deeper ? In a nutshell, is that what you say ? My reply is simply that protests have worked very well in gainging attention and changing policies and decisions of both big companies and countries. Thats it.

      • David

        But protest many times don’t work in changing policies and decisions of both big companies and countries. And after over 30 years of protesting whaling the number of whales hunted every year is growing. So it looks like this is one of those cases where it isn’t working. And the ‘direct action’ by the SSCS seems to be having even less effect than the protests by other groups.

        Also you may want to look at the French Underground. Despite what some TV shows and movies portray they weren’t very effective. Most sabotage in France during WWII was done by American and British agents smuggled into the country.

    • Chris H.


      what David really means is that if the anti-whaling movement stopped protesting and obstructing the Japanese whalers, then he’d be out of a job…

  • imforthewhales

    I forgot to mention the downfall of apartheid in SA.

    The French underground helped make life v hard for a foreign aggressor.

    If you don’t think Sea Shepherd are effective or are of no consequence then why are you on here?

    International/ local/ whatever, protests & action do work and bring about change.

    • David

      Because the SSCS is breaking the law and it is everybody’s responsibility to oppose criminals and expose their illegal activities.

      • AnimuX

        SSCS is doing everything in its power to uphold international resolutions for the protection of whales.

        Unfortunately, the Japanese government, whalers and their supporters do not adhere to the internationally established moratorium on commercial whaling, the internationally established Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, CITES and other resolutions and agreements that protect whales.

        The whalers are criminals – poachers and agents of the Japanese government.

        SSCS direct action against whaling is the moral equivalent of a private citizen tackling a bank robber when the police refuse to do the job.

        Well done, Sea Shepherd.

      • David

        The internationally established moratorium has a specific exception. So acting in accordance with the WHOLE international agreement, including the exception, is adhering to the agreement.

        The internationally established Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was established in direct violation of the international regulations regarding such sanctuaries, so legally and effectively it doesn’t exist. But even ignoring those facts, it doesn’t apply to whaling under Article VIII; and if you want to ignore Article VIII, it still doesn’t apply to Japan as Japan followed the provisions of Article V of the international agreement on whaling.

        CITES deals with International Trade in species so hunting whales can’t violate CITES. On top of which, in accordance with CITES own regulations Japan and many other countries have filed objections to various species being listed.

        Now why don’t you list some of these other binding resolutions and agreements so I can shoot them down.

        You really should take the time to read some of these documents before you parrot the SSCS claims. You would be surprised to see what they really say as opposed to what Paul tells you they say.

      • AnimuX

        Unfortunately, pro-whaling antagonists continue to falsely claim their interpretation of Japan’s actions are equivalent to legal certainty.

        International independent legal panels have concluded Japan’s whaling programs continue in violation of international agreements.

        When Japan’s “research whaling” began the USA enacted sanctions including the loss of fishing rights in the US EEZ (Reagan 1988).

        The International Whaling Commission has repeatedly called upon Japan to cease killing whales.

        The Australian Federal Court has declared Japanese whaling in the Australian Antarctic Territory is illegal.

        And Australia has filed against Japan with the International Court of Justice for a definitive ruling on this ongoing matter.

        Japan continues to kill whales in a whale sanctuary and elsewhere, including endangered species, and imports the meat of endangered Fin whales from Iceland (500-600 tons of it).

        To justify violating and subverting international agreements to protect whales, Japan uses a loophole for scientific research that is not intended for the indefinite continuation of commercial whaling in violation of IWC resolutions.

        To justify the importation of endangered whale meat in violation of CITES, Japan simply declares itself exempt.

        Not to mention the LONG history of Japanese regulatory violations including exceeding or ignoring size limits, species protections, sanctuary boundaries, seasonal limits, all manner of quotas, and even facilitating “pirate whaling” all over the world (that’s front companies secretly killing whales with no regard for regulations and smuggling the unreported meat back to Japan).

        My assessment of Japanese whaling is absolutely correct in labeling these whalers as poachers and agents of a government that has systematically undermined international regulations to protect whales since the 1930s.

        Thankfully, Sea Shepherd has taken the UN Charter for Nature very seriously in its effort to satisfy the obligation of Non-Governmental Organizations and citizens to help ensure international conservation efforts are effective.

        Once again, well done Sea Shepherd.

      • David

        Unfortunately, anti-whaling protagonists continue to falsely claim their interpretations of Japan’s actions are equivalent to legal certainty.

        Other international independent legal panels have concluded that Japan’s whaling program is legal.

        US government fishing quota decisions are politics they aren’t legal decisions.

        The IWC is a political organization and none of their resolutions asking Japan to stop whaling are binding. The also have never claimed that Japan’s whaling program violates the IWC regulations.

        Since the Japanese don’t whale in the Australian Antarctic Territory, even the Australian court said the ruling has no effect. Since the ATS doesn’t allow claims on the ocean the ruling doesn’t matter. You do realize it is difficult to hunt whales on land?

        Actually Australia filed a case based on a claim the Japanese are violating the IWC regulations. They specifically said they did not want their EEZ claim to be addressed.

        Yes, they legally hunt in a sanctuary and they legally import whale meat.

        CITES specifically allows countries to exempt themselves. Perfectly legal. And Switzerland has the most exemptions of any country.

        And Paul himself has admitted in court that the UN World Charter for Nature gives him, the SSCS or any other NGO no enforcement powers, no obligations and no rights.

      • imforthewhales

        David, October 31, 2010 at 6:24 am

        “it is everybody’s responsibility to oppose criminals and expose their illegal activities.”

        which is why WE are here, thanks for the heads up david! :)

      • David

        “imforthewhales, October 31, 2010 at 7:17 pm

        David, October 31, 2010 at 6:24 am

        “it is everybody’s responsibility to oppose criminals and expose their illegal activities.”

        which is why WE are here, thanks for the heads up david! :)”

        Great news. You have seen the light and will oppose the illegal activities of the SSCS. You see perseverance can pay off.

      • imforthewhales

        SSCS are just fine thanks david…it is the monkeys of the world that delight in the illegal slaughter of the great whales that we are here for.

      • David

        So you lied.

        You are going to continue supporting criminal actions.

        Oh well I had hope for you. Too bad.

      • imforthewhales

        No i didn’t tell a lie David, I told you the truth.

        So no need to twist things to suit yourself david, its all there in black and white.

        We are here to expose the illegal activities of the Japanese whalers.

        It is everybody’s responsibility to oppose criminals and expose their illegal activities. When it comes to wildlife, and the illegal slaughter of wildlife, this view is supported by the UN charter for nature.


      • David

        Yes, and the UNWCfN doesn’t give any individual or NGO the power or authority to enforce any laws or regulations.


        And Paul knows this because he claimed in court that the UNWCfN didn’t give him any authority, and the court agreed in its ruling.

      • imforthewhales

        Can you provide a transcript please david?

      • David

        No I can’t. The court transcripts are not online.

        But the court ruling addresses and explains his defense. I could provide that, but I won’t.

        First because I have already done so number of times.

        Second because you have shown that even when presented with proof you refuse to believe it.

        So I won’t waste my time and effort on a useless endeavor.

      • imforthewhales

        Well i think thats a good tactic…if you have something to hide that is.

      • David

        Yes I have deleted all the links here at ecorazzi to the courts ruling and shut down the Canadian court system website so no one can look at the case.

  • AnimuX

    In typical fashion, pro-whaling antagonists assert their opinion that internationally established regulations can be unilaterally violated and ignored by Japan.

    Pro-whalers believe Japan may kill as many whales as it likes, including endangered species, despite that the whales are protected by international agreements.

    Pro-whalers believe Japan may kill whales in an internationally established whale sanctuary.

    Pro-whalers believe Japan may ignore international agreements prohibiting the trade of products made form endangered and protected species.

    And then the same pro-whalers insist that Sea Shepherd is violating laws despite the apparent lack of national jurisdiction in the Southern Ocean or the fact that the flag nations of SSCS vessels have not charged and prosecuted the activists during years of direct action against Japanese whale poachers.

    • David

      Anti-whalers refuse to believe facts. A simple reading of the documents they keep claiming the Japanese are violating will show anybody that the plain language supports the legality of the Japanese whaling.

      • imforthewhales

        They forgot to add the bit about commercial whaling, though David.

        It should read ‘Japan will use whatever means necessary to continue commercial whaling…any rules that we don’t like, we shall ignore and any body who gets in the way of our commercial whaling we will try and sink”.

        Why don’t japan just admit the truth?

      • David

        Japan does admit the truth, you just refuse to believe reality.

        They whale under Article VIII as legally allowed. Even the IWC, whose regulations allow the Japan whaling, have never claimed that they are violating the regulations or that they aren’t doing research.

      • imforthewhales

        You forgot to mention the the IWC does not agree with japan killing thousands of whales, whether for so called “research” or for commercial means.

        The IWC adopted a resolution in 1987 recommending Japan not proceed until disagreements over its research proposals were resolved. A second resolution was also adopted on February 14, 1988 recommending Japan not proceed.

        In 1994, at its 46th annual meeting, the IWC established the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in a 23-1-8 vote. Commercial whaling is prohibited within the sanctuary boundaries.

        As the size of the IWC continued to grow, so did the influence of Japan within the commission. For example, many new Caribbean member nations voted in favor of whaling interests in 2000 including the defeat of a proposed South Pacific whale sanctuary. Additional support for whaling was gained in the Pacific, Africa and South-East Asia. As many of these nations received economic aid from Japan, accusations of vote buying were made by anti-whaling groups. In 2001, Japanese fisheries official Masayuki Komatsu stated Japan used overseas development aid as a tool to gain influence.

        In 1997 the IWC scientific committee officially reviewed the JARPA program and disagreed with japan on whether lethal methods were necessary. It was also noted that the results could potentially allow for an increase in the number of minke whales annually taken ( fudging the books so to speak).The commission made note of the fact that the catches took place in the IWC established Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and that improving management of whaling in a sanctuary is unnecessary.

        The 2007-1 resolution on JARPA is one of several calling on Japan by majority vote to suspend its lethal research.

        Jarpa II

        Disagreement over the objectives, methodology, effect on stocks and overall success of the program continued in the scientific committee review of the feasibility study and full program. The full program introduced a change from previous use of the ICRW Article VIII research provision by not specifying an end date. The objectives were deemed unnecessary for stock management by some members and would not contribute significantly to previously identified research needs. The sample size and methods proposed were unlikely to satisfy program objectives and the ecosystem modeling was considered to be poorly developed.

        In 2000, 2001 and 2003 more resolutions were passed by the IWC urging Japan to cease issuing special permits for whaling and limit research to non-lethal methods.[90][93] The most recent Scientific Committee review was conducted in January, 2009.

        Disagreement over the value of the research, the use of lethal methods and the sample sizes continued in both the scientific committee and the commission. In 2005 and 2007 the commission passed resolutions by majority urging Japan to stop all lethal research in JARPA II.


        From 1994 to 1999 Japan carried out its research program JARPN in the western North Pacific.
        As with JARPA, the IWC issued resolutions calling for Japan to cease issuing permits for the take of Minke whales citing concerns over the need for lethal methods such as the 1999-3 Resolution on whaling under Special Permit.

        A 2006 episode of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s popular science show Catalyst, which strongly argued against whaling, reported that of the 18 year JARPA I program, which lethally obtained samples from 6800 whales, less than 55 peer-reviewed papers were produced, of which only 14 were claimed on the program to be relevant to the goals of the JARPA program, and that only four would require lethal sampling. Some of the research includes a paper named Fertilizability of ovine, bovine, and minke whales spermatazoa.

        A 2010 undercover investigation by reporters from the UK’s Sunday Times revealed the officials of many developing countries accepted financial compensation from Japan for support in the IWC. Separate from millions in overseas development aid, membership fees, paid flights, hotel stays and spending money was all provided, by Japan, to gain the support of IWC delegates. In some cases cash was presented in envelopes by Japanese officials.

      • David

        So there is disagreement about whaling. I think everybody here knew that.

        Has the IWC ever passed a resolution telling the Japanese they are in violation of any IWC regulations? Or telling them to stop whaling? Or saying the are not research whaling?

        And Japan gives more economic aid to countries that do what they want. Isn’t that what most countries do?

        And lets not forget that the IWC membership ballooned in the 70’s and 80’s when the anti-whalers paid countries to join. But that is OK right? It is only a problem when the Japanese follow suit, right?

    • imforthewhales

      In typical fashion, pro-whaling antagonists assert their opinion that internationally established regulations can be unilaterally violated and ignored by Japan.

      Well said.

      • David

        Not opinion, fact.

        Try reading the documents. Japan is not violated any international regulations in regards to whaling.

      • imforthewhales

        Except for the tiny bit at the bottom that says ‘no commercial whaling allowed since 1986″.

        There is also a word called ‘sanctuary” which the Japanese seem to have a hard time comprehending.

        Oh, did i mention cites?

      • David

        You realize repeating the same lies over and over won’t make them true.

        Even the IWC haven’t made the claim that the Japanese are commercial whaling. And since it is their job to regulate whaling they would be the experts.

        As you have been told many times just in the last 24 hours, the sanctuary doesn’t apply to Japan because they used the very regulations you claim they are violating.

        “Article V.3.c) thereafter, the amendment shall become effective with respect to all Contracting Governments which have not presented objection but shall not become effective with respect to any Government which has so objected until such date as the objection is withdrawn.”

        Yes you have repeated the lie about CITES many times and you have been told many times that CITES applies to International Trade so it doesn’t directly apply to the hunting of anything. And just as with the IWC, the IUCN allows objections to be filed. You can ask Switzerland about that process, they have over 40 objections more than any other country.

      • imforthewhales

        David…first of all, you don’t need to ‘tell’ me anything, oh pompous one. Secondly, you should take your own advice about lies. The only lies forthcoming are from the direction of the Japanese whalers and their cover up of commercial whaling, even hiring a few yobbos to try and change public perceptions 9 a tactic which you guys are obviously losing big time…people just aren’t that stupid)

        Meanwhile, back at the ranch,

        LONDON (Kyodo) An Icelandic whaling firm has shipped 500 to 600 tons of finback whale meat to Japan this year, after resuming full-fledged whale meat exportation, sources said Saturday.

        Japan annually catches around 4,000 tons of mainly minke whale meat under its so-called research whaling program, and markets the meat domestically. However, stocks currently exceed the sluggish demand for whale meat. The shipment of finback meat, which has a high market value, is certain to affect overall prices.

        Kristjan Loftsson, managing director of Hvalur, the largest whaling firm in Iceland, said in Reykjavik the finback whale meat exports to Japan are not intended to crowd minke whales out of the Japanese market. “We are confident this should be, could be good for both parties,” he said.

        With an eye on the Japanese market, the firm has caught 148 finback whales this year, whereas Japan has hunted only two during the past two years.

        Hvalur exported 66.6 tons of finback whale meat to Japan on a trial basis in 2008.

      • imforthewhales

        AUSTRALIA’S top fisheries manager has revealed Japan illegally took $2 billion worth of southern bluefin tuna, effectively killing the stock commercially.

        An investigation into the imperilled fishery found Japanese fishers and suppliers from other countries caught up to three times the Japanese quota each year for the past 20 years, and hid it.

        The Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s managing director, Richard McLoughlin, said it was an enormous international fraud. “Essentially the Japanese have stolen $2 billion worth of fish from the international community, and have been sitting in meetings for 15 years saying they are as pure as the driven snow. And it’s outrageous.”

      • David

        Fine, expose one of these lies. I wait with bated breath.

        Oh, a 4 year old story about Tuna when we are discussing whaling. Nice move there.

        And lets see Iceland is legally exporting fin whale meat to Japan to meet the demand. So by preventing Japan from reaching their quota, they instead turn to Iceland to fill the demand. Ergo, SSCS’s saving of Minke whales causes the death of more endangered Fin whales.

        Thank you for offering proof of what has been said many times. Paul doesn’t care about the whales, it is all about his ego. His actions don’t save any whales it just changes where and by whom they are killed. And helps prop up the Icelandic whaling business.

      • imforthewhales

        well its just another typical pro whaling tactic…if you cant score a point then you start claiming that the motives of those who attempt to save whales from japans harpoons are without merit. Which is just fine , as it just means you cant come up with anything better. Trying to defend whaling must become rather tiresome & feel rather like hitting your head against a brick wall after a while, I agree.

      • David

        You really need to work on your memory. I have claimed that Paul doesn’t care about the whales since the first time I posted here.

        If you cant score a point then you start posting old articles about tuna fishing.

      • imforthewhales

        Yes, I can imagine that highlighting other attempts by Japan to circumvent rules and regulations might be seen as an embarrassment for the pro whalers.

  • imforthewhales

    Thank you David for he opportunity to further erode Japanese whaling credibility.

    THE IWC has banned commercial whaling. Commercial whaling has been banned for many years, as we all know. In 1986, the year that the ban on commercial whaling took effect, Japan issued itself a scientific permit to take 825 minke whales and 50 sperm whales every year for ten years. Despite the fact that the IWC scientific committee rejected its research proposals.

    Commercial whaling is exactly what japan is up to. Japan commercially hunts, kills and tortures endangered and non-endangered whales.

    The whale sanctuary is not a commercial whale sanctuary.

    Australian courts deemed Japans commercial activities to be illegal.

    Independent studies have shown Japanese claims of scientific research to be nothing more than a smokescreen.

    Besides being a supplier of whale meat to Japanese restaurants, there is another ulterior motive why japan wants to keep on hunting and killing the whales.

    The Japanese say they need to continue lethal scientific studies of whales because they believe whales are eating fish that Japanese consumers need for themselves.

    “The catches by Japanese fisheries drastically decreased from 12.8 million tons in 1988 to 5.8 million tons in 2005,” states a 2009 paper on Japanese Whale Research Program in the North Pacific by scientists from the Institute of Cetacean Research, the National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, and Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology.

    Since 1986, when the IWC ban on commercial whaling took effect, Japan has killed more than 12,000 whales. Its two separate hunts have increased in scope and scale to include common minke, Antarctic minke, fin, sperm, Bryde’s and sei whales. Fin, sperm and sei whales are classed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

    • David

      The IWC scientific committee doesn’t have the authority to accept or reject any research proposals.

      No the Australian courts deemed that the Japanese activities would be illegal in Australian territory, but they said since they aren’t taking place in Australian territory no crime is being committed.

      The whale sanctuary was established in violation of the IWC’s own regulations, ergo it doesn’t really exist.

      • herwin

        @ David, you said it very correctly, the IWC doesnt have the authority to accept or reject any research proposal. So any country can make up a bogus research program without the IWC, or any other scientific independent body, aproving of it. And anyone can read the opinion of the IWC of this bogus research, it is, to say the least, controversial within the IWC.
        All Japan is doing with this whaling program is loopholing and bending the international regulations of the IWC.

      • David

        You may want to look at the definition of loophole.

        Use of a loophole is legal.

        The IWC can change its regulations and could have closed the loophole in the 90’s when the anti-whaling members had the 75% majority needed to do so. But they didn’t. I wonder why they refused to close a loophole that you say they are so upset about?

      • imforthewhales

        A loophole is a weakness or exception that allows a system, such as a law or security, to be circumvented or otherwise avoided.

      • David

        Yes, and your point is?

        A person or group using a loophole is not violating the law/regulation. So whether you consider Article VIII a loophole or not, and calling a whole Article in a document that only has 11 Articles a loophole is kind of funny, operations under the loophole is legal.

        So why didn’t the anti-whaling nations close the loophole when they had the opportunity?

      • imforthewhales

        You are asking me to speculate & make up some rubbish…which i prefer to leave to the pro whalers on here who are experts at this.

    • Mick


      “Fin, sperm and sei whales are classed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.”

      So are the Bowhead whales which the U.S. continues to hunt. From 1985 to 2008 America has killed 1,121 endangered Bowhead whales from a population that numbers around 14,000.

      • imforthewhales

        Mick…yes , you are right but this kind of thing has been covered before.

        Personally I believe this kind of whaling needs to stop…full stop. Bowhead whales suffer just a much as any whale on the end of a Japanese harpoon and there is nothing to suggest that they are any less intelligent than the endangered whales that japan hunts.

        Perhaps this kind of whaling will stop one day and it may well do if the natives of Alaska decide to give up their subsistence lifestyle and go and live in large cities like Tokyo.

        However, unlike Japans commercial whaling, native subsistence whaling is (unfortunatly for some, including the whales) allowed.

        Of course there are some major differences between the two operations.

        Unlike Japans commercial operation which supplies whale meat to restaurants for a price, native whaling is subsistence in nature where there may be a scarcity of food for a community.

        Commercial whaling, the principal cause of the decline of the Bowhead whale, has been discontinued.

        Natives of Alaska, as you well know, take between 25 and 40 whales each year ( compared to the thousands of whales and dolphins that japan slaughters each year). They do not use massive factory ships such as the Nishin Maru to slice and dice or traverse the globe in search of whales nor are they stealing whales from designated International whale sanctuaries. Native Alaskan whalers do not pay other countries to vote for a return to commercial whaling and in fact I am sure that they would see a return to commercial whaling most unfavorably, because it would be intrusive to their way of life.

        This is not a defense of native whaling…i am just pointing out the differences of a small subsistance group conducting small scale subsistence hunting when compared to Japans huge commercial whale hunt inside International whale sanctuaries for profit.

      • Mick


        “Of course there are some major differences between the two operations.”

        Yes, of course there are differences. One difference that you failed to mention is the fact that Alaskan natives are taking a much higher percentage of the total Bowhead whale population than the ICR is taking of the much more plentiful Minke whale population in the SO.

        “Commercial whaling, the principal cause of the decline of the Bowhead whale, has been discontinued.”

        Yes, commercial whaling that was done for oil, not food.

        “Natives of Alaska, as you well know, take between 25 and 40 whales each year..”

        Actually they take an average of 50 whales a year. They took 75 in 2001.

      • imforthewhales

        If you are trying to compare it to japans industrial scale whaling then you are failing badly.

      • Mick


        “If you are trying to compare it to japans industrial scale whaling then you are failing badly.”

        If you are trying to deflect the subject away from the fact that the Alaskan natives kill a much higher percentage of the total Bowhead whale population than the ICR is taking of the much more plentiful Minke whale population in the SO, than your efforts are in vain.

      • imforthewhales

        No matter how you try to spin things, japans whaling is the biggest whaling operation there is , even more so when you tie in Icelandic whaling to the mix.

        Do you actually have a point with all of this, or some destination that you are trying to get to?

        Is this some classic whaling “they are doing it so we are going to do it too” kind of argument you are making? The old two wrongs making a right strategy?

      • Mick


        “Do you actually have a point with all of this..”

        On October 31, 2010 at 7:12 pm you stated: “Fin, sperm and sei whales are classed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.”
        I replied that the U.S. was killing Bowhead whales that are also listed as endangered. There was no point other than to add pertinent facts to the discussion. Facts that are routinely neglected by those who are against Japans’ whaling.

        “japans whaling is the biggest whaling operation there is..”

        Yes, they do kill more whales than other countries. However, their scientific whaling in the SO takes a lower percentage of the overall whale population than other countries hunts. Which means that their operations in the SO are less likely to have a negative effect on the overall whale population than other countries whaling operations.

      • imforthewhales

        @ about you tell that to the thousands of whales that Japan harpoons for sushi. Despite their intelligence, i think you will have a hard time explaining percentages to them or saying that the harpoon that just blew apart their insides is less likely to have a “negative effect on their populations”.

        Q. If you saw someone being stabbed int eh street, would you help them or walk on by Mick?

        Would you tell the stabbing victim that it doesn’t matter if they get stabbed because there are millions of people and their own death will not have a negative effect on the population?

        Will you replay that you would help because people are somehow “special”?

      • herwin

        @ Mick, and @ David i guess.
        Scientific whaling is a loophole, if its used by REAL scientist it would be legal. Japan can claim that it is conducting scientific research but it is bogus research so Japan indeed is illegaly whaling.
        Come on, you cant be so stupid to think that EACH YEAR thousand whales have to be killed for legitimate “research” ?
        Not one credible scientist of endangered animals kills thousands of its subjects, just to “study” them.The whole research program is a blatant commercial whaling disguised as scientific researxh. Its ilegal.

      • Mick


        “ about you tell that to the thousands of whales that Japan harpoons for sushi.”

        That would be rather pointless. Seeing as whales are animals and would not understand.

        “Q. If you saw someone being stabbed int eh street, would you help them or walk on by Mick?”

        This discussion is about whales not people. Please try to stay on topic.

        Your nonsensical and emontional rant does not change the fact that the ICR’s scientific whaling in the SO takes a lower percentage of the overall whale population than other countries hunts.

      • Mick


        “Scientific whaling is a loophole, if its used by REAL scientist it would be legal.”

        The ICR’s scientific research program IS being conducted by “REAL scientist[s]”.

        It is no more of a “loophole” than whaling under Objection. Objection whaling which, by the way, has resulted in the death of 20,248 whales from 1985/86 to 2008/9.

      • herwin

        o Mick, this is getting awfully silly, but i guess thats your job as a paid troll.
        There might be scientist working on the ship but that doesnt make it scientific research.
        Cutting up some dead whales, examening their dead foetuses, etc, doesnt make it legit or useful science.
        The “science” is bogus, a front for commercial whaling, everybody including the IWC, governements, marine researchers, scientists (except the ones who are paid by the ICR) and common people like us know it.
        The Japanese “scientist” ONLY conduct lethal research, 1000’s whales edning up like sushi, and no (or little side research from their whaling vessles) non-lethal research. Everybody with half a brain can figure that one out.

      • herwin
      • Mick


        “o Mick, this is getting awfully silly, but i guess thats your job as a paid troll.”

        Yes, you are being silly. Making childish and baseless accusations of someone being a “paid troll” is quite silly.

        “The Japanese “scientist” ONLY conduct lethal research, 1000?s whales edning up like sushi, and no (or little side research from their whaling vessles) non-lethal research.”

        You are quite incorrect. The ICR conducts a lot of non-lethal research.

        Check it out. It gives a good overview of their research.

      • Mick


        “some scientists who dont take the japanese crap anymore”

        And their research cruise earlier this year was a total failure in regards to obtaining data on Minke whales. They were unable to get any samples of any kind from any Minke whales.

      • imforthewhales

        Not that any is needed of course… as the IWC have pointed out, there is no point in lethal research or any research inside a whale sanctuary. what is needed is to leave the whales alone. Who would’ve thunk?

      • David

        “…as the IWC have pointed out, there is no point in lethal research”

        Not that anyone would misrepresent the truth, but as has been quoted here just a day or so ago, the IWC has specifically said that there is data that can only be obtained with lethal research.

  • imforthewhales

    The IWC scientific committee doesn’t have the authority to accept or reject any research proposals.

    Japan is not research whaling, it is commercially whaling.

    as we speak the Australian government is preparing to take Japan to the international court of justice.

    try telling the world that the whale sanctuary doesn’t exist. Nice spin there, dr. It is an International whale sanctuary, and commercial whaling is off limits.

    • David

      I think you will find that there are legal scholars on both sides of the argument about the sanctuary. But as I have said many times, even if you are right it still doesn’t matter, Japan objected to the sanctuary (as the IWC regulations allow) so it doesn’t apply to them anyways. So commercial whaling is not off limits. You also realize it only applies to IWC members? So any country that isn’t in the IWC or leaves the IWC can commercially whale to their hearts content.

      And the fact that Australia is taking the case to the ICJ doesn’t prove anything except that there is a dispute. It isn’t proof of either side being correct.

      • imforthewhales

        “Japan objected to the sanctuary (as the IWC regulations allow) so it doesn’t apply to them anyways. So commercial whaling is not off limits”

        Japan is a member of the IWC…so commercial whaling is off limits to them. The commercial whaling ban has been in place since 1986.

        Despite the IWC directing japan to abolish its lethal whaling under the guise of scientific research, Japan continues to hunt whales.

        Yes Japan can leave the IWC, and they could attempt to whale commercially in Antarctica. But there would be consequences to Japan for such an action.

        The costs to japan are already mounting up. The Japanese whaling adventure is costing the Japanese economy money for little to no benefit. This does not include loss of trade or tourism to Japan because of its whaling stance but these costs may well be substantial.

        Additionally, the Japanese will have to prepare their case for the international court Of Justice. This is going to cost a lot of money and a lot of time.

        If Sea Shepherd prevent the whaling fleet from taking all of their quota this year then Japans whaling might really have hit the rocks and be on the verge of sinking…for good.

  • boo redley

    “The spending review committee established by Japan’s new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, has recommended that funding for the Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation be cancelled after 2010.”

    Just out of interest, is there any further news or updates on this situation? if this goes ahead then it is going to make life very difficult indeed for the whaling tragics.

  • herwin

    It suggests that people are fed up with Japan loopholing international regulations and behaving like the bad boy concerning protected endangered animals. Japan has a long history of obstructing international rules regarding endangered animals, wether its elephant tusks or sea turtle products. I would like to suply you with links and fill you in but i gotta work, no time, unlike you i dont get paid to posts comments.
    Anyway, its a bloody shame that any civilised country is loopholing to such a degree for many years and making a joke about international regulations, shame on you Japan.

    • Mick

      I have a question for you, herwin.

      Is it your contention that whaling under scientific permit is a “loophole”?

      If so, there are 3 exceptions to the whaling moratorium. They are:
      whaling under objection
      scientific permit
      aboriginal subsistence

      If scientific permit whaling is a “loophole”, are whaling under objection and aboriginal whaling “loopholes” too?

      • herwin

        you dont get it. The IWC has made a clausule that under certain circumstances the killing of whales are excempted from the moratorium, such as in scientific research, in which they must have envisioned that it might be possible that some whales could be killed in the name of research. This clausule never was ment for nations to transform their whaling fleet into a “scientific research” fleet who goes year after year killing thousands of whales. The thing is that its bogus research, and thats why its ilegal, its not real research. Its BOGUS research and its just making a travesty of hardworking people such as marine biologist and scientist who research in a proper way.
        We are really lucky that a country like China dont “research” its endangered tigers the way Japan “research” whales that arent even in its own seas.
        as for your questions.
        1. Scientific research isnt a loophole in itself, its how the japanese use it that it becomes a loophole.
        2. i dont know whats whaling under objection.
        3. aboriginal whaling isnt a loophole in itself, its merely an exemption for aboriginal people who are truly dependent on whale meat for their survival. Unfortunately, just like the scientific exemption, the aboriginal exemption is being abused and used as a loophole by people who are not dependent on whaling for feeding their families.

      • David

        How do you know what the clause was meant for?

        And to monitor a population over time requires a continuing research program.

        If you look at basic statistics the Minke whales, for example, require almost 1,000 samples for valid results.

      • imforthewhales

        David…the only thing that they come up with in their so called research program is that whales eat fish.

        Golly gee.

        Non lethal research will tell you everything you need to know about whales.

        Lethal “research” is a self serving, questionable & amoral practice that supplies japanese restaurants with whale meat.

        The general consensus worldwide is that japans “research” is complete BS and the bulk of it is not peer reviewed 9 in other words, complete bunkum) .

      • Mick


        “1. Scientific research isnt a loophole in itself, its how the japanese use it that it becomes a loophole.”

        If scientific whaling is not a “loophole” as long as you stay within the bounds of the regulations, which Japan is doing, it doesn’t matter how you “use it”. Scientific whaling is legal and will remain legal.

        “2. i dont know whats whaling under objection.”

        Whaling under objection is when a member country of the IWC exercises their right to reject the whaling moratorium. In which case they can continue whaling. Such as the case of Norway. From 1985/86 to 2008/9 some 20,248 whales have been killed, by various countries, under the Objection exemption.

        “3. aboriginal whaling isnt a loophole in itself, its merely an exemption for aboriginal people who are truly dependent on whale meat for their survival. Unfortunately, just like the scientific exemption, the aboriginal exemption is being abused and used as a loophole by people who are not dependent on whaling for feeding their families.”

        So aboriginal whaling perfectly legal.

      • Mick


        “Non lethal research will tell you everything you need to know about whales.”

        That is not quite correct. The much touted Australian and NZ non-lethal whale research cruise failed to obtain any samples of Minke whales. No skin samples, vomit or feces. Nothing. Therefore their research was unable to provide any information about Minke whales.

      • David

        “David…the only thing that they come up with in their so called research program is that whales eat fish.”

        Now you know as well as I do that your statement is a bold face lie.

        “Non lethal research will tell you everything you need to know about whales. ”

        And there is another bold face lie. Even the IWC disagrees with your statement.

        Here is what they say; “Closely linked to these questions is the discussion of lethal versus non-lethal research techniques. Although there has been a great increase in the types of information that can be obtained from non-lethal research methods such as biopsy sampling and photo-identification, at present there are certain data that can only be obtained (at least in the short-term) using lethal methods.”

      • imforthewhales

        Mick/ David…just how stupid do you think this audience is? Stupid, really stupid or incredibly moronic?

      • David

        Well we know about you, but I expect most of the audience here can read and understand English. You know where the IWC says that for some data lethal research is the only option.

      • Mick


        “Mick/ David…just how stupid do you think this audience is? Stupid, really stupid or incredibly moronic?”

        Please refrain from trying to change the subject.
        The joint non-lethal whale research cruise was a total failure in regards to obtaining any data on Minke whales. They were unable to obtain any skin or any other samples from any Minke whales.

      • imforthewhales

        David…there is nothing that the Japanese need to know that cannot be done using non lethal means.

        Japan will claim otherwise of course, as if they give in to non lethal research programs, well, they are hardly going to spend million of dollars on research unless there is some sort of payoff ( that is, whale meat for sale).

        I am certain that we all know that they are not really doing research and we all know that their so called research is just a guise to continue on with whaling commercially.

        You do know that right?

        Yes, I thought so.

        Japan is not trying to save the whales through research, or discover any sort of information that can benefit the world or benefit the whales.

        They just want to make endless piles of whale sushi. You know it, we know it., the ICR know it, the IWC know it and the Japanese know it.

        Sadly, many of the whales killed by japan are pregnant females, however these young whales that are doomed to die do not appear in the official kill figures from the Japanese whaling fleet.

        I can tell you everything you need to know about whales. If you leave them alone and not kill them, they will do very well. They will also be more abundant. Amazing, hey.

      • David

        Well the IWC, you know the experts on whales, say that some data can only be obtained by lethal means. So I guess that would make you wrong.

        “I am certain that we all know that they are not really doing research and we all know that their so called research is just a guise to continue on with whaling commercially.”

        So more lying:”imforthewhales, November 2, 2010 at 9:02 am

        You are asking me to speculate & make up some rubbish…which i prefer to leave to the pro whalers on here who are experts at this.” Well you are speculating on what others know. Not that it surprises me that you would lie, I just figured it would take me longer to prove it.

        “Japan is not trying to save the whales through research, or discover any sort of information that can benefit the world or benefit the whales.”

        You are right. When did they say otherwise? They are researching to determine if it is possible to sustainably hunt Minke whales.

      • imforthewhales

        They are already commercially whaling…David…and we are researching ways to stop them…for good!

  • imforthewhales

    @ Mick…not if they are as they claim to be.

  • imforthewhales

    Open Letter to the IWC ( * from the cove website )

    The Oceanic Preservation Society, on behalf of citizens worldwide, formally entreats all IWC delegates that have engaged in unethical or inappropriate vote bargaining to abstain from voting at the IWC 2010 conference.

    At stake is a highly charged decision over whether or not to overturn the world’s ban on commercial whaling. Citizens, advocates and governments worldwide are impassioned in this debate over the fate of the world’s whales – vote trading in this instance is not merely unethical, it is insulting.

    IWC delegates from six countries – St. Kitts and Nevis, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Grenada, Republic of Guinea, and Ivory Coast – engaged in negotiations to sell their votes at the upcoming IWC meeting in exchange for aid. An undercover investigation by the London Sunday Times reveals that these governments were not only willing to accept bribes of financial aid for their countries, but eager to bargain these offers against longstanding kickbacks from the Japanese government to extract a higher price.

    Although six countries are formally implicated in the Sunday Times’ investigation, their statements compromise the Pacific Islands, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Antigua, Barbuda, the Grenadines, Tanzania and other African pro-whaling countries in “a vote-buying operation that Tokyo has always denied.”

    In exchange for a pro-whaling vote, Japan’s allies admit to receiving cash payments, daily conference spending money up to $1,000 per day, travel and hotel compensation, and call girls, in addition to larger international aid packages.

    When it was originally passed in 1986, the moratorium on whaling was seen as a watershed victory for the environmental movement. To this day, it remains a point of pride and victory for advocates everywhere. To see the weight of the IWC’s decisions tossed around like poker chips in a game is an indignity to the IWC and casts serious doubt on the credibility of that organization’s ability to reign in its members and produce sound policy in good faith.

    Engaging in such corrupt behavior ought to result in a forfeiture of the right to vote. And nations of disrepute should in good conscious abstain from voting at the IWC 2010 conference. If they do not, it is incumbent on the IWC to enforce the law of ethics, if for no other purpose, than to defend its credibility to the world.

    • David

      What a pretty letter.

      So all the anti-whaling nations that have been selling their votes since the 1980’s are going to be asked to abstain from voting also right?

      Or is the The Oceanic Preservation Society a bunch of hypocrites?

  • imforthewhales

    I don’t think its very pretty David. I see it more as a scathing attack on the disgusting industries that japan is involved in and their complete lack of morals when it comes to those industries. I think its a real shame that japan has stopped so low on the world stage. I think its a real shame that they wish to keep on raping the planet and the oceans of its natural life.