Doesn’t really matter what I believe Kevin, the US Court of Appeals certainly believes it and courts have he power to issue arrest warrants if need be. Maybe Greenpeace doesn’t grab the childish “outlaw spirit” in all of us, but at least they aren’t going to stain the entire environmental movement with images of violence and criminal activity.
.

Actually Watson officially “stepped down” and SSCS handed operations to SSCS Australia AFTER the US Court injunctive order to keep 500 yards away from the whalers so the act of subterfuge does not remove US Court jurisdiction over SSCS operations globally. Of course, US Courts can only enforce within the United States, but certainly Arrest Warrants for Contempt of Court can and probably will be issued for a SSCS members. Best they all emigrate to Australia and never set foot on US soil again. Greenpeace are not “weenies” they have a long history, longer that Watson’s of Environmental Activism. But they are smart enough not to turn world opinion against it. Greenpeace will be here long after Watson and Sea Shepherd are gone. Yes, I agree you are “just sayin’” because conducting acts of violence, being labled Pirates and Eco-Terrorist is a very far cry from acting like “an adult”. Even people who are against whaling are against it.Only the most immature and intellectually weakminded follow and worship Watson. You can read what Greenpeace has to say about him, just google “greeepeace sea shepherd”. First hit..

Yes, who speaks for the whales? And the cows, pigs and chickens.
If you don’t think any of these creatures are “intelligent” you’ve never grown up on a farm. And if think none of these suffer at the hands of humans, you’ve never seen the inside of a slaughterhouse. Nothing “special” about large plankton feeding cetaceans, they are cows of the sea. Not on he same level as the smaller cetaceans.All these creatures have a” right to exist”. Or do you not believe in animal equality?
Paul Watson was an early member of Greenpeace. He was kicked out of Greenpeace. Watson is the only one who clams “to have been a founder”. The only thing he founded was Sea Shepherd.

No Kevin, it’s not ignorant at all. The intelligence level of small cetaceans is widely recognized. That of larger cetaceans is not.
Except by the crowd who seem to think that some characteristics of large whales are “special”. They really are not in that equivalent characteristics have been observed in many large animals. Do you honestly think that a “whale” is somehow more intelligent than an
“elephant”?

Now now, Kevin, foul language does not enhance your viewpoint in a positive way. Watson was an early member of Greenpeace, He was thrown out because of his disregard for laws and penchant for violence. What public record are you referring to? Grrempeace themselves deny it.

RP-That’s for the ICJ to determine and pass judgement upon. Not you, not me and certainly not SSCS. The Whales are not being “poached” no matter how many tines you repeat that. What is know is that the data is submitted to the IWC Scientific Committee as required and hey have never been rejected as invalid. So let the ICJ decide, support Greenpeace and stop letting SSCS do further damage to the cause.

David, let’s review some realities. The IWC stands for the International Whaling Commission, an organization founded and existing for the purpose of regulating the Whaling Industry. The Japanese research whaling is being conducted under IWC authority and regulations. If you have a problem with whales being hunted at all, the IWC is the place to take your argument. Now, let’s understand why the research is being done. Whales of many species were pushed to the brink of extinction and because the Charter of the IWC calls for the management of whale stocks (populations) a Moratorium on commercial Whaling was instituted in 1986. Now almost 30 years later some species have become abundant, such as the Minke Whale which Japan is targeting. Other whales like the Blue whale still remain endangered and off limits. Finally, World Heritage as defined by UNESCO refers to territories and sites, and the term “World Heritage Animals” refer specifically to animals which inhabit those designated areas. The Research Whaling is being done in International Waters that are not designated a “World Heritage” location.

Animux, you are very much mistaken. The IWC most certainly allows member states to issue Scientific Permits. Please google
“IWC + Scientific Permits”. While the anti-whaling faction within the IWC has succeeded in getting passed Non-Binding Resolutions calling for Japan to end it’s program in the past, the failure to eliminate the right to issue Scientific Permits or to revise the terms under which it can be carried out even to this date is proof that the
IWC currently “allows” research whaling. Again, because the research whaling is conducted in accordance with IWC Article VIII and does not violate any country’s sovereign rights, it is NOT POACHING, no matter how many tines you repeat this fallacy.
What needs to be changed is the IWC’s official position. Attacking Japan, which is abiding by the IWC regulations is not constructive at all to resolve the problem. Constantly repeating fallacies or making arguments about culture are also totally counter-productive. BTW, the term “amakudari” refers to former civil workers ending up in civilian positions in general, and has nothing to do with “whaling”.

Yes it does “allow” research whaling. The IS Court of Appeals says;
“Plaintiffs-Appellants (collectively, “Cetacean”) are
Japanese researchers who hunt whales in the Southern Ocean.
The United States, Japan and many other nations are
signatories to the International Convention for the Regulation
of Whaling art. VIII, Dec. 2, 1946, 62 Stat. 1716,
161 U.N.T.S. 74, which authorizes whale hunting when
conducted in compliance with a research permit issued by a
signatory. Cetacean has such a permit from Japan.
Nonetheless, it has been hounded on the high seas for years
by a group calling itself Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
and its eccentric founder, Paul Watson (collectively “Sea
Shepherd”).
Sorry but I consider the opinion of a US Federal Court to carry more weight on this issue than your personal views.
And thanks for proving my point – that “amakudari” has nothing to do specifically with the whaling industry.

And the next year they started the Working group to resolve the issues, and in 2010 they tried and failed to remove the moratorium, and in 2011 they condemned the actions of Sea Shepherd in a similar resolution. Doesn’t change the existing laws of IWC, nor the fact that special permits are issued under IWC regulation, described on IWC’s website, and there are pictures of dead whales being researched, next to the scientific permit justification text, on IWC’s website. It also doesn’t change the fact that the head of the IWC said that what Japan does is perfectly legal.

“special permits are issued under IWC regulation”. Also, could you repeat that last part again, it seems to lend credence to the fact that the whaling is legal…
“Today in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg called upon a rapist to cease all raping activity…”

Are you now just trying to say “Ani can’t read”?

It’s not a difficult concept that if I say something “is issued” in passive voice, that a party mentioned in a following prepositional phrase is not the subject of the verb.

Thank you for pointing out that by a vote of 40 to 2 the IWC called upon Japan to stop killing whales.

It’s called the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. It states many things — including that the IWC is authorized to establish restrictions on whaling under Article V.

There is even a provision under Article VIII for ‘research’ whaling.

However, Article VIII does NOT state that nations may ‘pretend’ to do science in order to purposely defy all of the restrictions established under Article V — which is exactly what Japan is doing.

Pro-whaling antagonists like to pretend as if Japan has absolutely no history of regulatory violations — as if the entire 20th century never happened and this conflict magically began with sea hippies driving small boats around whalers.

However, the reality is Japan has historically killed protected species, killed undersized whales, hunted out of season, hunted in off-limits areas, and even hired foreign poachers (pirate whaling) to smuggle whale meat into Japan off the books.

So do yourself a favor and stop pretending.

Open a history book on this subject and read it.

Japan has been breaking the rules on whaling since before there was a moratorium and long before there was a such thing as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

You may have a bug up your rear over protesters that showed up on your television one day, but it doesn’t change Japan’s whaling history over the last century.

The point being you have never addressed any of the points regarding the consistent position of IWC over the years being that Japan is acting legally, including current statements to that effect on its website.

For the record, I’m anti-whaling but much more so anti- bloated vigilantism.

From the IWC website:

Article VIII

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.

2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.

3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.”

And you still think the IWC isn’t allowing the Research Whaling?
Thanks for playing.

Whether any member country is “conducting” research whaling as specfified under Article VIII or merely :pretending” as you allege has yet to be determined. Perhaps the upcoming ICJ case will do that. But until then, merely repeating what you “think” it may e hardly makes it reality. Those Scientific Permits are indeed issued by the member country, but re done so under the auspices and authority of the IWC. Member nations cannot just issue permits and not abide by the Article VIII requirements. If so, they would simply be conducting whaling in defiance of the 1986 Moratorium.

As for the IWC’s view of your heroes:

“March 10 (Bloomberg) — The International Whaling Commission condemned the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s “dangerous tactics” against Japan’s whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean after skirmishes between the two sides intensified last week.

The IWC called on Sea Shepherd “to refrain from dangerous actions that jeopardize safety at sea,” according to a statement following three days of meetings in London. The IWC said Sea Shepherd has been banned from commission meetings since 1987 because of its “unacceptable behavior.”

Yes, the same IWC that condemns Sea Shepherd, authorizes Research Whaling under the Scientific Permit system and makes participating countries EXEMPT from recognizing Moratoriums and Sanctuaries. Why is that people are incapable of reading and comprehending this before crying about “whaling in a sanctuary?

And neither is this:
“Although the issuance of special permits is the responsibility of the member government concerned, proposed permits have to be submitted for review by the Scientific Committee ”
In other words. If the IWC “does not authorize” research whaling and “never has” as you claim, why has Article VIII been part of the IWC regulations for decades. Are you aware that even the United States has conducted “research whaling” under Article VIII in yje very early 1980s?
Calling Japan’s research whaling “bogus” is pointless since you have zero evidence to support your claim, and none of us will know for sure until the ICJ case is over.

An unenforceable non-binding resolution that asks Japan to “reconsider” not “cease” it’s research program, the results of which are submitted to the IWC Scientific Committee and accepted. This hardly stands as evidence that the “IWC isn’t allowing research whaling” when they have done nothing to change or remove Article VIII, without which no member country could issue Scientific Permits.
The FBI calls Sea Shepherd Pirates.
The US courts call Sea Shepherd Eco-Terrorists.
The IWC condemns Sea Shepherd.
Greenpeace condemns Sea Shepherd.
Ask your self whether Sea Shepherd are actually doing Environmental activism any good, or are they simply causing long-term harm to the movement.
How you feel about “Whaling” does not justify Sea Shepherd’s use of violence to attain their goals. You can not justify it on the basis of your charges about the validity of the research whaling.
And you might as well as forget about trying to “prove” that the IWC isn’t the international body created and existing for the purpose of Regulating the Whaling Industry. It’s NOT an anti-whaling organization, as much as the anti-whaling faction has corrupted it’s functional abilities. Unless these realties are recognized and faced will there ever be any constructive steps towards ending whaling. You’re enjoying the :fight” so much that you’ve forgotten what you’re supposed to be fighting for.

I am neither pro-whaling nor anti-whaling. I am anti-violence.
You on the other hand are anti-whaling, pro-violence and pro-criminal because you feel your anti-whaling beliefs justify it.
That is simply wrong. To justify your support for criminal activity
you cite false information, but you are too short sighted to see that
it only hurts conservation efforts in the long run.
Until people like you are able to face reality, that the research whalers are not “poaching” under any country’s laws, that US Courts regard Sea Shepherd as criminals, that Japan is NOT breaking IWC regulations, will there ever be any forward progress.
But of course Sea Shepherd do not want to see an end to this issue, they NEED an enemy, they need to have a show, and suck up contribution money that could have gone to Greenpeace., WWF and countless other LEGITIMATE conservation groups. The only thing we have here is a Sea Shepherd propaganda minister that parrots the Eco-Terrorists party line. There is no interest in protecting Whales, merely the
Pirate organization itself.

The problem is that all the information you cite is either inconclusive, or past history irrelevant to the present issue at hand.
That the IWC has passed non binding resolutions asking Japan to RECONSIDER, not STOP, research whaling means nothing when the IWC continues to run it’s Scientific Permit program and accepts data from Japan’s research.
If you consider the US Courts, FBI, IWC, Greenpeace all to be just
“big jerks” then I’m afraid you’ve got quite an uphill battle. The US Court has imposed a restraining order on Sea Shepherd to keep 500 yards away from the Whalers, which while on one hand claimed did not affect them because of jurisdiction, fought unsuccessfully in court to get the order lifted. This begs the question- if it’s not relevant to Sea Shepherd why bother fighting it? Sea Shepherd are in contempt of court and we can expect to see Arrest Orders being issued and eventually the shut down of SSCS as a US based Non Profit. The US Court issued the injunctive order because they disagree with you, they feel that Sea Shepherds continued actions will eventually result in injury or loss of life. That it hasn’t happened yet is not a viable excuse.
Whales of all species were decimated to the brink of extinction by England,. Norway, France, The United States because they hunted whales globally from the early 1800s for their oil. killing every mother and calf and flensing them on deck and throwing the entire blubber-stripped carcass overboard, in what must be one of humanity’s worst case of wanton destruction and waste of an animal species. The Japanese hunted locally for food. and didn’t hunt Antarctic waters until they bought a harpoon boat from the Norwegians (complete with Norwegian harpooner) in the 1930s. To even imagine that the Japanese had anything to do with “hunting them to near extinction” indicates a complete ignorance of whaling history and perhaps a strong racial bias in your motives. The last whale processing plant in AUSTRALIA closed only in 1978.

If a judge calling Sea Shepherd pirates doesn’t make them pirates, does Paul Watson calling Sea Shepherd pirates make them pirates?

“When people began calling us “pirates,” we designed our own pirate flag, and it’s proven to be our most successful marketing logo. Of course the whalers are the real outlaws, but sometimes it takes a pirate to stop a pirate…In Sea Shepherd we like to look on ourselves as compassionate pirates”

Has Paul Watson stated he is a pirate? YES

If an Australian Court ruled Japan’s research whaling illegal in 2008 then why hasn’t the Australian Maritime Safety Authority gone out to stop the whalers? Because Japan isn’t conducting research whaling in Australian territorial waters or in Australia’s EEZ. Therefore Australia has no jurisdiction.
It’s racist if you try to blame the near extinction of all Whale species on a country that didn’t engage in “modern whaling” until the 1920s, when western nations were doing it on a wide global scale from the 1800s. For YOUR education, Japan did learn from the Norwegians but they conducted coastal whaling. It was not until the 1930s that they actually hunted whales far overseas, including Antarctic waters.
Whether there exists a nutritional need or even demand for that matter for whale meat in Japan really is not any of your or my concern. That is Japan’s problem. And that is where Greenpeace is making an effort.
No, I’d say your bias against Japan is pretty clear. And unfortunately such bias does not lend itself to problem resolution, merely more “war activity” for Sea Shepherd.

I would love to see page numbers, or actual references cited, as you have not met my previous challenge as to your sources for “history”. I would also like to see you address the major points of the argument rather than quibble over whether a particular event happened in the 1920s or 1930s.

You argue only points where you have some rhetoric to parrot (even repeating your own statements over and over), while not engaging on the most damaging core points against your arguments.

1) no comment from Animux on resolution 2011-2 CONDEMNING Sea Shepherd’s tactics

2) constant parroting by Animux of non-binding resolutions that REQUEST that Japan stop its research whaling, no engagement on the fact that the very existence of these as REQUESTS implies the legality of the activity. I’ll say it again, no police force *requests* that bank robbers cease activities. (quick – post the resolution yet again so that everyone else but you can read clearly that it supports this comment)

3) no engagement or comment on the fact that the Head of the IWC explicitly called Japan’s activities legal (as did the US judge, as will the ICJ – happy to bet on that one)

Protecting a losing argument can be fun, but tiring. Get some rest, your yawn makes you sound tired. Calling us pro-whaling isn’t going to help you. I want Japan to stop whaling endangered species entirely. But I will defend their right to do so until they are in violation of a treaty which they remain a party to. And I will certainly abhor and raise a voice against vigilantes who consider themselves fit to define what justice is and attempt to enforce it by direct action and violence.

“SQUAWK here are my arguments

no response to point (1)

SQUAWK Let me repeat myself

no response to point (2)

SQUAWK here’s what I’d like to say

obliquely address point (3) by denigrating the chair position for the only group whose rules matter in the dispute (well, come on he doesn’t agree with me and I’ve done the same even to US judges who don’t)

SQUAWK SQUAWK – I don’t have to debate you, I just have to repeat my points again and again! They gain validity each time!”

Now that you finally spoke on a material point it is. IWC could certainly regulate SS so long as SS ships are under a treaty member’s flag. Since they currently have Dutch and Aussie registration they would most certainly be bound by provisions of the treaty, including any new regulations.
However, they haven’t chosen to yet. You’re the one that confuses resolution language to be somehow binding when it is not. They have merely condemned Sea Shepherd’s tactics in the strongest possible language, and certainly stronger then “calling upon” Japan to not issue permits for research whaling.

IWC can regulate anything its treaty members agree to. If it has remotely to do with whaling, they will be happy to pass a resolution on it, and they would resent your claim that their resolutions have no merit. Or should I say, your blatant and laughable cherry picking which of their resolutions you say are worthwhile discussing and which aren’t. Wow, only the ones that favor your position matter? – what a surprise.
And on the latter point, I said the same thing earlier in discussing the multiple resolutions and you look goofy for suggesting otherwise. In fact I have stated not only that it happened, but that it means that the whaling is legal – as police don’t “call upon” criminals to stop their criminal actions. The evidence is here on the page, you might want to – oh wait you have no use for evidence in your logic.

You need a course on international law and how not to repeat yourself when under stress.
SQUAWK – A parrot is a perfect companion for a pirate, I guess.

Repeating yourself again I see. SQUAWK!

*Snort* bwahaha

BTW the governments of the west just amended a patent treaty that had existed since 1883. Given that, how hard would it be for the governments involved in ICRW to add a phrase that says they can regulate whaling protests? NOT HARD, bro.

“Establishment, however, can be a tricky basis for entitlement because it is
much more subjective than, e.g., being a national of a contracting party. The
establishment phrase derives from Article 3 of the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property (1883), which originally used the term
“establishment” alone in an analogous context.

According to WIPO, the treaty was amended to narrow the scope of
establishment, with “real” being added to exclude “fraudulent or fictitious”
establishments and “effective” being added to exclude minor establishments such
as a “mere warehouse.” In considering the amendments, a proposal to limit the
scope of establishment to principal places of business was rejected.”

“IWC can regulate anything its treaty members agree to.” Sorry if you were way behind the curve, but this is exactly what I was saying all along.

Yes, IWC can regulate anything its members agree to, specifically by creating any amendment they care to. As it has already condemned the actions of Sea Shepherd (and chastized NZ on Maui Dolphins), it may choose to take that action or anything else it deems fit. As Canada’s experience has been to have to impound an SSCS flagship vessel, take it away, and sell it off after ramming incidents at sea, the IWC may choose to step up and provide similar protections in international waters and require member states to enforce them.

Great, but that’s not what you described in your example of modifying the convention, which was accurate and I was simply reprising.

The case of the Farley Mowat is certainly an interesting one. Sea Shepherd makes claims to not be acting illegally and that they are the ones getting rammed, but having run afoul of Canada and lost their ship as a result, plus captain and first officer convicted of violating a law on proximity to other ships. I’m sure that the US Ninth Circuit is coming up with some fines or other measures too, and SSCS will claim they aren’t under US jurisdiction right up until they lose non-profit status.

SSCS’s record of ramming ships is highly related to the topic. As I’m sure you’re aware, the FM was involved in multiple collisions with Canadian coast guard vessels. SSCS claims to be the injured party but consistently ends up in collisions with other vessels. The path followed by Canada provides a template for the IWC to consider in terms of penalties. In fact, having cited the ramming of ships as evidence of the piracy claim in the recent court decision, US 9th circuit is likely to take action against SSCS as well.

9th Circuit has juristiction over US Sea Shepherd and its non-profit status, which may not last long. I’m sure if the evidence points to Sea Shepherd US transfering the assets of a US based non-profit to a foreign non-profit for less than their value, shortly after a US Circuit court made a ruling that would have affected those assets, that a prosecutor who cared to could find criminal activity in that.

SSCS also brought suit in the Netherlands, which did have jurisdiction, against JCR – whatever happened to that case? Oh yeah, it had no merit. It’s funny how court cases always go against Sea Shepherd – it’s as if they are in the wrong or something.

We don’t need to argue about past issues, we can find out who knows what they’re talking about by predicting future ones. ICJ will not be ruling in favor of Australia.

How much shall we wager?

Indeed, the IWC allows aboriginal subsistence whaling. However, the IWC does not ‘allow’ whaling under objection. It is conducted under objection — not permitted by — but an official defiance of the democratic decisions of the IWC. Just as Japan defies the IWC with its bogus research whaling scheme, Norway, and Iceland defy the IWC with their ongoing whaling under ‘objection’ — perhaps more honestly than Japan.

The USSR was indeed a horrible offender when it came to exceeding quotas. For decades whales were killed and the true numbers were not reported to IWC scientists so the damage was not discovered until it was admitted many years later.

However, Japan was no slacker when it came to killing whales in the 20th century. Whale oil was not only used for fuel — in fact Germany had developed methods to turn whale oil into food products like margarine — and Japan supplied a great deal of whale oil to Germany in particular prior to WWII.

You are historically and factually incorrect to suggest that Japan’s participation in modern whaling was somehow minor or inconsequential. The fact is Japan raised one of the world’s largest and most productive whaling fleets during the 20th century. This fact of history is not unfairly critical of Japan.

Not to mention the regulatory violations committed by Japan’s whaling industry which went as far as to pay foreign poachers to kill whales illegally and smuggle the meat to Japan.

The IWC has indeed called on Japan to stop killing whales repeatedly — such as in Resolution 2007-1 where the IWC:

“FURTHER CALLS UPON the Government of Japan to suspend indefinitely the
lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale
Sanctuary.”

The FBI has not designated Sea Shepherd as a terrorist organization, period. Don’t agree? Please point out the case in which the FBI has actually charged Sea Shepherd and convicted all of its members as eco-terrorists. If you get bored, you can bring up the DHS report that named just about every conservation organization in the world as examples of eco-terrorism including the Sierra Club and the Humane Society — a report ‘withdrawn’ by DHS later and blamed on a private contractor.

Well Kevin, we live in an orderly society where we are all able to live a relatively safe and peaceful life, free to pursue our individuals interests. This is possible because society is subject to the rule of law. Without it, we would have chaos, and whoever has the means to bully others through violence would control the world.
This is what Sea Shepherd is doing, they are taking the law into their own hands, without any national or governmental authority. Kevin, suppose you love hamburgers. Many of us do. So as you are driving down to your favorite hamburger joint, I smash into your car because of my belief that “cows are special”. Does my personal belief justify my breaking the law and causing you harm?
This is what Sea Shepherd is doing. This is what YOU are doing when you cite “whale arguments” to justify acts of violence which a US Court has called “Piracy” and the FBI has called “Eco-Terrorism”. You seem to enjoy berating Greenpeace but as I said, they will be here long after Sew Shepherd is gone.
One needs to separate “save the whales” from “criminal activity”.

Kevin, if you believe in the Law as you state, there is no way you could support Sea Shepherd, even as an anti-whaling advocate.
Japan is not breaking any law. Sea Shepherd is,. The US Courts have said so on record.
It is very easy to defend the Research Whalers and Greenpeace at the same time. The whalers are abiding by the IWC regulations.
Ending is going to have to accept that as a fact, not make up allegations of “poaching” or “loopholes” or attacking the country’s “culture”. Greenpeace has put efforts into reducing demand for whale meat within Japan itself, something which can potentially bring about positive changes. Se Shepherd on the other hand plays up to the rather childish “do something right now” approach
and relies upon lies and falsehoods to support violent action. This does not bring constructive changes. In fact it is widely recognized that Sea Shepherd has simply hardened Japan’s position.
Finally please google “FBI + Sea Shepherd” as you will see that Eco-Terrorism is a specifically defined law enforcement term,
not the same as “Terrorism”.

Valerie, you are grossly misinformed and in error on nearly every point you raised. ONE- Japanese (as well as Koreans, Norwegians, Icelanders,etc) do have a tradition of eating Whalemeat. But it is far less than it used to be. Additionally “dolphin” or more accurately “porpoise” is consumed locally in fishing villages that harvest them. Whalemeat is NOT a “favored food” of the Japanese people as anyone who has spent any time in Japan can affirm. TW0-Yes Japan says they are conducting research and they are doing it under the authority and in accordance with IWC Article VIII. The ICR has published he results of the research and are required to submit them to the IWC Scientific Committee. Whether that data is valid or not is up to the IWC, which to date has not rejected them. THREE- Research whaling is exempt from recognizing “moratoriums” and “sanctuaries”, and it is in International Waters. Australia does not own those waters, it simply has a claim to them. Therefore, Auistralia has NO AUTHORITY to enforce anything there. And because of IWC Article VIII, what the Japanese Research Whalers are doing is LEGAL are NOT POACHING. Finally, Minke Whales are abundant and not endangered. Please feel free to verify every point mentioned you will find it in black & white.

“Sea Shepherd has never killed, kidnapped, or beaten anyone up — and never attempted to in over 30 years of direct action protest.”, funny how this is the first thing Watson says when he speaks. I wonder why he was wanted for murder in Costa Rica, rams ships, etc. Your argument that one can do whatever they want as long has they dont’ cause death or injury is flawed, ignorant and a shallow justification for Watson’s actions. Here is the litmus test… next time your down town beat the window out of a car because you don’t like the colour of the upholstery….perhaps you will get away with it because you didn’t hurt anybody….

” the Faroe Islands” is a good example of how Watson exploits opportunity and attempts to demonize people and culture. There is nothing illegal about the pilot whale harvest on the Faroe Islands. He saw an opportunity to exploit a people and did so. And going back to the beginning to time to justify one’s behavior is a form of propaganda….

Through out North America and Europe it is recommended that recreational fish consumption be limited for the same reasons…these notices are also supported by doctors and health departments…

That is “bio magnification” and is not specific to the Faroese Islands….

They’ll have to keep increasing because as Paul Watson has stated it will be tough to stage a campaign now that SSCS US is not allowed to fund it or participate in it.