sea shepherd operation zero tolerance
by Michael dEstries
Categories: Animals, Causes.
Photo: Sea Shepherd

Citing diminishing fuel stores and stormy seas, Captain Paul Watson late yesterday announced that the Sea Shepherd’s Operation Zero Tolerance campaign had come to an end.

“Adverse weather has put an end to the whaling season,” Watson posted on Facebook. “The whalers returned South more for show than practicality. Monitoring the weather and it is joyfully stormy. The Sea Shepherd ships have just enough fuel to reach Melbourne and should arrive in 12 days. This has been the most successful campaign undertaken and Sea Shepherd Australia has done an incredible job of coordinating it. A very courageous job by the three crews of the Steve Irwin, Bob Barker and Sam Simon.

“The Australian Federal Police are expected to raid the ships but they do that every year because Japan asks them to. Not sure why Australia never asks the police to raid the Japanese vessels. Sea Shepherd always cooperates with the authorities. Japan never does. They can destroy a boat and get away with it without having to answer questions while Sea Shepherd is expected to justify saving endangered whales in an internationally established whale sanctuary from whalers who are in contempt of an Australian Federal Court ruling.”

Now that the Sea Shepherd have left the whaling fleet, it’s unclear just how many more lives they might be able to take between now and when the season officially ends on March 31st. As Watson stated, the forecast for stormy seas makes it likely that any efforts to kill more whales would be limited.

Give ‘em hell Mother Nature.

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 →
  • http://twitter.com/RSPW_DEP David Powell

    The reason Australia does not raid Japanese vessels is because they are doing a legal activity in international waters. Much like your neighbor can fly the Confederate flag off their front porch, or can wear a T-Shirt pledging allegiance to your least favorite Football team, you don’t have to like it but it is legal. Watson and his group, on the other hand, are engaged in very dangerous sailing and doing other stuff that puts themselves and other sailors on the high seas in danger. That is why Watson’s group may be raided by Australian authorities, and why Japan’s “Research” fleet has not been.

    • AnimuX

      No. Japan’s whale poachers are simply not held to answer for their crimes because the poaching is sponsored by Japan’s government and funded by tax money.

      Japan is purposely undermining international conventions and getting away with it.

      • HereHere

        Not to mention tsunami aid money.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.wilber.9 Rob Wilber

      David you should see what a harpoon can do to a whale. it is wrong that they’re killing these animals. God Bless Mr. Watson. your a great man! thank you

    • Valerie O’Brien

      David, you are an idiot. The word “sanctuary” means that creatures within it are not to be hunted, or otherwise denied their natural pursuits. Left to their own choice, the Japanese government has chosen to violate the sovereignty of Australia, and poach whales for profit in Japan. The Australian government does not want to face off against Japanese government sponsored actions, fearing retaliation. The Sea Shepherds are the only force that can hinder the illegal Japanese operation.

  • AnimuX

    What we have here is a whale hunt during a moratorium on commercial whaling, within an international whale sanctuary, while the international organization responsible for regulating whaling calls on Japan to stop. How is that not poaching?

    Of course, this behavior is nothing new for Japan’s whaling industry which has historically broken the rules. Japan whalers have ignored size limits and species protections, hunted out of season, hunted in off-limits areas, exceeded quotas, and even paid foreign poachers to kill whales illegally and smuggle the meat to Japan (pirate whaling).

    The latest bogus ‘research whaling’ program carried out by Japan’s whale poachers is just one more example of a long history of regulatory violations.

    The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in article 65 declares all nations shall cooperate for the conservation of marine mammals — and whales in particular through the appropriate international organization. In this case, it’s the same International Whaling Commission that set all commercial whaling quotas to zero in 1986, established the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in 1994, and repeatedly called upon Japan to stop killing whales. This is exactly why Australia has filed a case against Japan’s whaling with the International Court of Justice.

    Unfortunately, Japan continues to annually slaughter endangered fin whales, endangered sei whales, vulnerable sperm whales, rare bryde’s whales, common minke whales (many from the threatened J-stock), and Antarctic minke whales (the IUCN shows this species is also in decline). Not to mention up to 20,000 small cetaceans like dolphins including rare beaked whales and a dall’s porpoise hunt called ‘clearly unsustainable’ by the IWC scientific committee.

    Thankfully, Sea Shepherd Australia’s brave volunteers continue to oppose the poaching of endangered and protected whales within an international whale sanctuary.

  • Ames

    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”).

  • Ames

    What you have here is a country that is a member of the IWC conducting research whaling under scientific permit as authorized by the IWC under Article VIII.
    This same Article VIII exempts whaling under scientific permit from recognizing moratoriums and sanctuaries, ad also requires them, to utilize the meat.
    In other words, what they are doing is LEGAL and is NOT POACHING. Hence no legitimate national authority has ever attempted to stop their actions. The correct way to solve this is through legal means (the ICJ) and not though acts of eco-terrorism and piracy. Want to save the whales? Support Greenpeace or the many other legitimate conservation groups.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

      You can’t really believe that? They’re killing for commercial purposes under the guise of research. Support greenpeace? Greenpeace hasn’t. Accomplished even a fraction of what SSCS has.

      • Ames

        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.
        .

      • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

        Actually since sea sheperd is an international organization and since Paul Watson gave control over to sea sheperd Australlia, the us courts really have no say. Criminal activity? Give it a rest who’s side are you on ? Someone has to step up and actually do something if the weenies in greenpeace aren’t up to it they should pack it in and do what they’re best at, mainly nothing. I know maybe they can go sit in front of the institute for cetacean slaughter and sing cum by yah, however you spell it, and let the adults handle the real work. Just sayin

      • Ames

        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..

      • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

        Spoken like a true champion for the planet. The day the weenies, and I stand by that name, get off they’re asses and actually get involved and do something, I mean anything, then I will respect them. Just holding up a sign and sitting by and watching or maybe even praying it will stop is not enough. How would you feel if someone hunted down your family then shot them in the back while they tried desperately to escape, then hauled hem up by they’re legs and carved them up? My only question is, who speaks or fights for these magnificent creatures? They have a right to exist. Cultural tradition went out the window when dumb ass humans hunted them to the brink. We didn’t know or understand they’re intelligence. And still know very little. World opinion? Everyday more and more people turn against whaling. Why? BECUSE SSCS is making the news and exposing the injustice. Who cares what the courts of this bankrupt, corrupt govt say, yes I am an American who has served his country seven years army infantry. It hurts me to see how far this great nation has fallin. By the way wasn’t Paul Watson a founding member of greenpeace?

      • Ames

        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.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

        Well there it is. We’re not talking about cows and pigs and chickens. You call whales cows of the sea? That’s the most ignorant thing I’ve read. I don’t support killing of any creature. But since people eat meat, cows and the others are going to be bred for consumption. Whales are not. Of course everything has a right to exist, and I’ve never said farm animals aren’t smart, but intelligence on the level of a whale, definitely not. Paul Watson was a founding member who was kicked out for his radical viewpoint, green peace is distancing itself BECUSE I guess they’re to scared, or maybe they just don’t have any real heart for the fight.

      • Ames

        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”?

      • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

        I read your link, what a crock Paul Watson was a founder and that’s a matter of public record. The mere fact that they don’t share info speaks volumes. What do they do? Seriously tell me. SSCS has saved thousands of whales over the past five years. While he others just sit and watch . They claim they’re going to end whaling peacefully? What the heck does that mean? No one has ever been hurt by SSCS actions. I’ve said it before w can’t wait for people to come to their senses, and just stop. Shit or get off the pot!

      • Ames

        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

      @Ames, what kind of, “science or research” is being done using a factory ship specifically designed to take in whole poached whales, process them into cans and store them frozen?

      Show us what significant scientific studies or papers published by the IWC that have any facts of substance or new discoveries regarding whales?

      • Ames

        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 Matos

        It seems to me that the Ames forgot that whales are world heritage and can not be extinguished by the fact that the owners of whales is humanity itself. Whaling can not be allowed, unless the quota is reasonable. Japan does not establish a reasonable quota. They want to hunt 1000 whales. This too is contributing to the extinction of whales. And where is the range of hunting? Every year they come hunt! Thus, it is clear the intention of the destructive Japanese. Thus, should not be allowed hunting, by the Japanese. Should only be allowed when there is proof that they are not putting endangered whales.

      • Ames

        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

        The IWC does not ‘allow’ Japan to kill whales. The fact is the IWC has repeatedly called on Japan to stop killing whales. It’s about time pro-whaling antagonists stop spreading the lie that Japan’s whale poaching is somehow conducted under the authority of the IWC. Japan is defying the authority of the IWC with every whale killed for these bogus ‘research’ programs.

        Furthermore, the IWC has called Japan’s so-called ‘research’ flawed and unnecessary.

        According to Jun Morikawa, who wrote “Whaling in Japan: Power, Politics, and Diplomacy”, the whaling continues for the benefit of corrupt bureaucrats who ensure tax funded subsidies for whaling in the fisheries budget only to leave public office and take high paid jobs in the commercial whaling industry. This type of corruption is so common in Japan they have a word for it: ‘amakudari’.

      • Ames

        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”.

      • AnimuX

        No. The IWC does not ‘allow’ Japan to go whaling. Japan issues itself ‘special permits’ while the IWC calls on Japan not to.

        It is a unilateral action by Japan in defiance of the IWC.

        Also, amakudari is defined as:

        “the institutionalised practice where Japanese senior bureaucrats retire to high-profile positions in the private and public sectors. The practice is increasingly viewed as corrupt and a drag on unfastening the ties between private sector and state which prevent economic and political reforms.” — thanks Wikipedia

        People don’t have to take my word for it. Just read Jun Morikawa’s book: ‘Whaling in Japan: Power, Politics, and Diplomacy’.

      • Ames

        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.

      • AnimuX

        No. The 9th Circuit is NOT the IWC.

        So, here is IWC Resolution 2007-1 to explain how the IWC sees Japan’s whaling:
        ———————————————
        CONVINCED that the aims of JARPA II do not address critically important research needs;

        NOW THEREFORE THE COMMISSION

        FURTHER CALLS UPON the Government of Japan to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
        ———————————————
        Thanks for playing.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • AnimuX

        The IWC does not issue the special permits. Japan unilaterally issues the permits to itself.

        The IWC has repeatedly called upon Japan to stop killing whales — and pointed out the so called ‘research’ is unnecessary and flawed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        “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…”

      • AnimuX

        Once again — Japan issues itself permits in defiance of the IWC.

        The IWC calls upon Japan to stop issuing itself permits and stop killing whales in the whale sanctuary.

        This is not a difficult concept.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        In case you’re confused as to the nature of this resolution being a request, here’s the text from the IWC press release describing it:

        The issue of special permit whaling is controversial within the Commission
        and, as in previous years, strong statements were made both for and against
        special permit whaling. The Commission passed a Resolution *asking
        Japan to refrain* from issuing a permit for JARPA II by 40 votes in favour, 2
        votes against and 1 abstention; 27 countries decided not to participate in the
        vote as they believed that the submission of the proposal was not conducive to
        building bridges within the Commission.

      • AnimuX

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

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Thank you for agreeing with that, as it proves the whaling is not illegal. The police don’t call upon bank robbers to stop robbing banks.

        Scoring – take sides on the losing team if you like.

        FOR legality of current whaling:
        IWC regulations state clearly that research whaling is permitted +1
        IWC “calls upon” Japan to not issue permits, thus they must be legal (thanks to AnimuX for providing that info!) +1
        IWC website shows research whaling and lists the regulations +1
        US Judge states unequivocally that the whaling is legal +1
        IWC head states unequivocally that Japan is acting legally within the convention +100
        SSCS brought suit against Japan in Dutch court (and got nowhere) +1
        there’s more but this is plenty.

        AGAINST-
        Australia brings case in ICJ, still to be adjudicated

        Choose what to believe, the evidence is there.

      • AnimuX

        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.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        If you’d care to address the points I made, great. If you’d care to start repeating your central points or introduce straw men. I’ll simply claim victory – classic sign of the a losing position in debate is repeating one’s central points and making ad hominem attacks like your last note.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • AnimuX

        The consistent position of the IWC over DECADES has been that Japan’s so-called ‘research’ is flawed, unnecessary, and should stop immediately.

        Unfortunately, pro-whaling antagonists tend t o ignore this and speak as if the IWC’s many resolutions against Japan’s whaling don’t exist.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

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

      • AnimuX

        So you have absolutely no problem with Sea Shepherd protests and it was an ‘ad hominem’ attack to suggest otherwise based on your repeated statements against them? How interesting.

      • Ames

        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.

      • AnimuX

        Article VIII does NOT state that a nation may pretend to do science in order to defy restrictions established by the IWC under Article V.

        As previously stated, and shown, the IWC has repeatedly called upon Japan to stop killing whales while Japan continued to issue itself ‘special permits’.

        These permits are not issued by the IWC. The permits are issued unilaterally by Japan.

        Try again.

      • Ames

        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.”

      • AnimuX

        Under the auspices and authority of the IWC — that’s the same IWC that has set all commercial whaling quotas to zero — established the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary where hunting is not supposed to take place — and repeatedly called on Japan to stop killing whales calling the supposed ‘research’ unnecessary.

      • Ames

        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?

      • AnimuX

        The IWC does not authorize Japan’s bogus research and never has.

        In fact, the IWC has repeatedly and officially called on Japan to stop killing whales.

        This is not a difficult concept.

      • Ames

        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.

      • AnimuX

        The IWC scientific committee has called Japan’s bogus research goals flawed and unnecessary even from the very beginning:

        IWC Resolution 1989-3

        Resolution on the Proposed take by Japan of Whales in the Southern Hemisphere under Special Permit

        Now, THEREFORE the Commission

        ACCEPTING
        that the Scientific Committee was not unanimous in its view of the research programme described in SC/39/O 4, including the improvements described in SC/41/SHM113 (IWC/41/4);

        CONSIDERS
        that the programme does not fully satisfy the criteria specified in both the 1986 Resolution on Special Permits for Scientific Research and the 1987 Resolution on Scientific Research Programmes, more particularly in that the proposed research is not structured to provide or demonstrate that any existing methodology can solve the problems or satisfy the objectives which have been set, and therefore the proposed research does not contribute information essential for rational management of the stock, neither will the proposed take of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in 1989/90 under Special Permit materially facilitate the Comprehensive Assessment, nor has it been established that the proposed
        research addresses critically important research needs;

        INVITES the Government of Japan to reconsider its research programme in light of the criticisms based on the above-mentioned criteria.

      • Ames

        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.

      • AnimuX

        And once again we see that pro-whaling antagonists consider all of the whaling regulations established by the IWC to be optional while they declare all of the many resolutions the IWC has passed calling on Japan to stop killing whales are irrelevant.

        One law for protesters and no law for poachers.

        However, throwing stink bombs at a poacher’s boat is not terrorism anymore than sitting in a tree to prevent it from being cut down.

        Thankfully, the results of Sea Shepherd’s worthy efforts against Japan’s ongoing whale poaching can be seen in the last two season where the whalers were sent home with a small fraction of the intended quota of protected whales.

        The IWC is empowered to set species protections, limits on hunting seasons, sanctuary areas, and restrictions on equipment and methods used. Japan has blatantly violated IWC regulations for decades.

        What we have here is a whale hunt during a ban on commercial whaling, in an international whale sanctuary, while the organization responsible for regulating whaling calls on Japan to stop killing whales.

        Whale poaching is wrong. It’s done in direct defiance of international conventions. And Sea Shepherd is right to directly, nonviolently, but aggressively oppose the poachers.

      • Ames

        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.

      • AnimuX

        I did not cite any false information. People don’t have to take my word for it. The IWC’s many resolutions against Japan’s whaling have been published. The evidence of Japan’s regulatory violations has been published — even by former Japanese whaling executives (seriously – look up Isao Kondo sometime).

        Unfortunately, pro-whaling antagonists — and apparently bigger jerks don’t really care about the issue of conflict as long as the greenies get screwed — are still perfectly willing to demonize protesters — who have never killed anybody and never threatened to — by making gross exaggerations and comparing them to pirates and terrorists who murder innocent people on violent rampages without end.

        They like to pretend as if the entire 20th century never happened — as if millions of whales just magically vanished — instead of being hunted to near extinction by countries like Japan purposely violating restrictions on whaling and ignoring scientific advice to reduce quotas…

        They like to pretend that poaching doesn’t exist and neither do whaling regulations as long as the poachers hold up a sign that says ‘collecting samples’ — despite repeated calls to stop the whaling by the world’s regulatory authority — the IWC.

        Sea Shepherd’s worthy efforts are indeed legitimate. In fact, Paul Watson pioneered anti-whaling direct action in 1975, with Robert Hunter of the original Greenpeace out of Canada, against the Soviet Union’s whalers in the North Pacific — and has gone to sea consistently against whalers from many countries since then — playing an instrumental role in the end of ‘pirate whaling’.

        Pro-whaling antagonists and other anti-environmentalist goons sure do love to tell others what they think environmental protest should be. :)

      • Ames

        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.

      • AnimuX

        There is nothing ‘inconclusive’ about my statements.

        The IWC has prohibited all commercial whaling since 1986 — BECAUSE — whaling nations violated previous regulations and over-exploited whale species to the point of near extinction.

        Japan has a long history of regulatory violations — including hiring foreign poachers to smuggle illegally gotten whale meat to Japan — and the latest bogus research program is just another example of bad behavior.

        The IWC has repeatedly called on Japan to stop killing whales.

        Japan refuses to stop and continues to unilaterally issue its whalers permits to kill more whales.

        That is the reality of the situation.

        A 3 judge panel in the U.S. 9th circuit in one decision on an appeal of another case doesn’t make Sea Shepherd a pirate organization or a terrorist organization. The FBI also called Martin Luther King a communist and the most dangerous negro in the USA — however Sea Shepherd is NOT designated as a terrorist group in the USA.

        The U.S. court does not have jurisdiction over Sea Shepherd Australia — a legally separate entity from Sea Shepherd USA — thanks to constitutional limitations on the powers of the courts.

        And of course, pro-whalers like to ignore the fact that an Australian court ruled Japan’s whaling is, in fact, illegal in 2008.

        Just as they want to ignore Japan’s history of regulatory violations.

        Just as they want to ignore international objections to Japan’s whale poaching.

        There is nothing racist about objections to whaling. The world’s whaling nations nearly wiped out the largest species of whales during the 20th century and many species are still endangered today as a result.

        There is absolutely no economic or nutritional need for whaling in Japan. In fact, most people in Japan don’t even eat whale these days. It only continues so corrupt bureaucrats can continue to milk tax dollars for their own benefit and their business cronies.

        For your education: Japan adopted Norwegian methods of modern whaling in 1900 — including harpoons, ships, and even actual Norwegian whalers — for the purpose of mass production of whale oil to export to Western countries. During the 20th century Japan gave rise to one of the world’s largest whaling industries.

        And Japan is not innocent of ‘hunting whales to near extinction’. This is historical fact and not pro-whaling fiction.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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”

      • AnimuX

        Was Sea Shepherd put on trial for piracy and convicted of piracy? Answer: No.

        Have ITLoS judges specifically stated that the “private ends” phrase used to define piracy in international law specifically excludes political and environmental protest? YES…

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Has Paul Watson stated he is a pirate? YES

      • Ames

        I’m afraid there is. As you state, the IWC imposed a Moratorium on Commercial Whaling in 1986. Actually they allowed subsistence whaling, research Whaling and even continued Commercial Whaling if a nation raised an objection. Norway and Iceland have continued. The USSR was probably the worst offender. The need for a Moratorium was not because of violations of existing regulations, but because of a lack of regulations. Japan’s or any other nations past history is just that, past history. Whales were brought to the brink of extinction NOT BY JAPAN but by the western nations that used Whale Oil, a practice that did not end until the 1920s when Petroleum replaced Whale Oil as our main source of energy. You are really stretching historical facts in an effort to villainize Japan.

        The IWC has called on Japan to RECONSIDER it’s research whaling program. not “CEASE” or “STOP”, as your own cited text shows. Japan continues to issue Scientific Permits in accordance and compliance with IWC Aritcle VIII which authorizes member states to issue said permits. This is far from unilateral.

        The US Court’s opinion is of utmost importance, especially to a Sea Shepherd supporter such as yourself. The court found SSCS guilty of Piracy on the basis of three separate International navigational accords, COLREGS, UNCLOS and SUA. This open the door to law enforcement action. The FBI has designated SSCS an Eco-Terrorist Group. Try to keep that separate from “terrorist” please.

        SSCS and Paul Watson as an individual already accepted the US Court’s jurisdiction when the case started in December. Acts of subterfuge, ie; transferring control to an Australian subsidiary does not exempt SSCS in Washington State or any of SSCS’s members from the US Court’s injunctive order. Although I am sure most of them will emigrate to Australia, those who return to US soil may face a US marshal with arrest warrants.

      • Ames

        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.

      • AnimuX

        Once again, you are historically and factually incorrect — Japan started using Norwegian modern whaling ships, explosive tipped harpoons, and even actual Norwegians as whalers starting in 1900. That’s a historical fact.

        You are somehow confused with Japan’s use of factory ships which didn’t start until the 1930s when the whale stocks close enough for profitable shore stations in Japan were depleted by over-hunting. :-P

        Do I have to get page numbers for you on this? Or are you just going to accept you’re wrong about the timeline?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • AnimuX

        You can start with “The History of Modern Whaling” pp 135–146
        …and “Men and Whales” pp 266–267

        Then you can explain to Ames that the Olga, the Rex and the
        Regina were all Norwegian ships used by Japan — with Olga replaced by the Norwegian built Togo in 1906 — that’s 06, as in prior to the 1930s. :-P

        Pointing out the fact that the International Whaling Commission has repeatedly called on Japan to stop killing whales is neither parroting nor inconsequential. It is FACT.

        * The IWC has prohibited commercial whaling since 1986.
        * The IWC established the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in 1994.
        * The IWC has repeatedly called upon Japan to stop killing whales.
        * Japan defies the IWC and unilaterally issues itself permits and continues to kill whales.
        * Japan has a long history of regulatory violations.

        That is the reality of the situation.

        Furthermore, it’s interesting that, despite multiple majority votes by IWC members demanding Japan stop its whale poaching, pro-whaling antagonists arbitrarily decide that one IWC chairman with absolutely no power other than to run IWC meetings suddenly invalidates decades of official objections to Japan’s actions — and suddenly erases decades of regulatory violations by Japan’s whaling industry.

        Of course, that’s what this boils down to. Pro-whalers and Japan expect the world to pretend as if — Japan killing undersized whales, killing endangered and protected species, hunting in off-limits areas, hunting out of season and during a moratorium on whaling, and hiring foreign poachers to kill whales illegally and smuggle the meat to Japan — the entire criminal history of Japan’s whale poachers should just be ignored.

        In fact, they believe Japan can break as many rules as it likes and kill as many whales as it likes as long as it pretend the slaughter is done for ‘science’ with no regard for any facts.

        These pro-whalers choose to demonize Sea Shepherd for doing what national governments have failed to do — enforce international agreements to protect whales.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        “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!”

      • AnimuX

        Ignores repeated IWC resolutions against Japan’s whaling…

        Insists IWC can regulate Sea Shepherd protest in international waters… (it can’t)
        ;-) Not much of a debate.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • AnimuX

        The IWC has authority to regulate whaling — not protest in international waters.

        Thanks for finally admitting the IWC has repeatedly called upon Japan to stop killing whales.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • AnimuX

        No. The IWC cannot ‘regulate anything’. The scope of the IWC’s authority is limited to whaling regulations according to the ICRW — protest is not included.

        Furthermore, IWC resolutions do have merit according to the ICRW. However, the ICRW does not empower the whaling commission to regulate international protest anymore than it does nuclear power plants.

        * The IWC has established a moratorium on commercial whaling.

        * The IWC has established the Southern Ocean as a whale sanctuary.
        * The IWC has repeatedly passed resolutions calling on Japan to stop killing whales.

        The International Whaling Commission is responsible for regulating whaling — not protesters. This is not a difficult concept.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • AnimuX

        *yawn*

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Repeating yourself again I see. SQUAWK!

      • AnimuX

        *yawn*

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        *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.”

      • AnimuX

        Thanks for finally admitting the ICRW does not cover the regulation of international protest and merely concerns the regulation of whaling. :-P

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        “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.

      • AnimuX

        IF (to satisfy your fictional scenario) signatories to the ICRW modify the convention itself to include ‘suppress protest against whaling’ — by 2/3 majority vote — and then all signatories ratify the new ICRW — then maybe the IWC will have empowered itself to ‘regulate’ international protest. At least until the UN gets wind of what the IWC is attempting… ;-)

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • AnimuX

        No. The IWC can only regulate what the commission is empowered to regulate according to the ICRW. It really is that simple.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • AnimuX

        Completely unrelated to the article concerning Japan’s whale poaching in defiance of the International Whaling Commission — and Sea Shepherd’s direct action against poaching in support of multiple international conventions protecting whales…

        Running afoul of Canada — as in seized on the charge of approaching within half a nautical mile of a seal hunt — another waste of tax dollars on a cruel boondoggle. International embargoes on seal products are apparently taking their toll on Canada’s brutal slaughter of baby seals.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • AnimuX

        The 9th Circuit will do whatever the 9th Circuit will do. Just as the Canadian government wastes money sending Coast Guard ships out to ram unarmed protesters for sailing ‘too close’ to a government subsidized seal hunt.

        Regardless, the 9th Circuit has no jurisdiction over an Australian organization, or foreign flagged ships in international waters. As Sea Shepherd Australia recently demonstrated, Japan’s whale poaching will be opposed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

      • AnimuX

        Oh, considering Japan has lost past international cases regarding violating other fisheries agreements through lack of good faith adherence and ‘experimental fishing programs’ — specifically for southern bluefin tuna — I think there is a very good chance the ICJ will rule against Japan in light of its long established history of violating whaling regulations. :)

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        How much shall we wager?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Yes, probably best not to reply to the offer of a wager given that when Australia sued Japan over bluefin they LOST the case on appeal – Intl Tribunal for Law of the Sea tribunal judging that the only jurisdiction in the case was under the international treaty on bluefin… thanks for pointing to new information that supported my original point, though!

      • AnimuX

        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. ;-)

      • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

        Why isn’t it for me you or any other concerned citizen to decide? When it comes down to it the icj is either to busy or paid off to intervene. No man, and I mean no one has the right to decide what life is or isn’t worthy of being. Mans arrogance has done more damage to our planet, than any natural disaster ever could. Support greenpeace if you want but facts speak for themselves. Whale killing in the southern ocean has been on the decline ever since SSCS started getting involved. Thousands of whales are alive today BECUSE people volunteer their time to go out and actually put into action their words. If greenpeace alone had been there the hunters would have gotten their quota. Which brings up a point where the hell was greenpeace during this time? Probably somewhere writing letters.

      • Ames

        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”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

        Laws are fine, I believe in law. But when a country thinks it can skirt the law and use a loophole to violate the law then good people need to take up and enforce the law. When govts can’t or won’t step up to do the job then it falls to the individual. SSCS is defending citizens of this planet. Maybe they don’t drive cars or spread like a virus all over the world using up every resource, and polluting the atmosphere. But they are a part of this world and worthy of protection. Whales, sharks, dolphins, have been around a long time before humans and God willing they’ll be here long after we’re gone . There are no acts of violence, unless you consider throwing concussion grenades, pieces of metal, and using long poles to injure people. Is that the violence you’re talking about? Or maybe a ship that is sailing a straight line to block transfer of “product”, and gets rammed by a much larger . Is that the violence you’re talking about? It’s all on video. You keep defending greenpeace, how can you defend whalers and greenpeace at the same time? It’s people like you that give any conservation effort a bad name by being so indecisive. If they’re Eco terrorists as you say why aren’t they on no fly lists? Why no arrest warrants here in the us? The court decision you speak of, like they’ve never been wrong, right? This is the same court system that upheld segregation not so long ago.

      • Ames

        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 O’Brien

      The Japanese have been hunting whales, dolphins and other sea creatures for centuries, it is a central part of their culture. They say that they are doing research, but have not produced any real scientific results of their research, and whale meat is a favored food of the Japanese people. The sanctuary is not defended by the Australian government, so they come there yearly to illegally poach whales. Whales and all marine life must be protected from extinction from those that would plunder this resource.

      • Ames

        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.

  • HereHere

    Thank you, everyone who worked with Sea Shephard Society this season, as well as all season previous. And thanks to media, like Eco-Razzi, for covering this issue – an important one among many.

  • T-dot

    The “research” being conducted, according to the Japanese, is simply to evaluate whether certain whale species have sufficient populations, food sources, and reproductive capacities to allow for full scale whaling to resume. That’s it. Now, why it should take 1000 whales killed every year to determine the population, stomach contents, and fertility seems a bit dubious – it appears to be an overlarge “sample”.

    But here’s the real deal. All that “research whaling” would end overnight and forever, if the whalers were prohibited from keeping the whales they kill, selling the carcasses for meat and blubber. The fact is, they sell the meat specifically to pay for the research, and they do the research in order to sell the meat. And by the way get some token measurements and samples.

    This is where the International Community needs to step in and change the exemptions on the moratoriums. Delete the clauses that permit taking of the whale meat following a “research kill”. The IWC and ICR should mandate that any and all whale remains, aside from perhaps very small tissue samples, and stomach and intestinal contents, and perhaps some sperm and egg samples, be immediately returned to the sea as food for sea predators, and the rest of the ecosystem.

    Of course the whalers would then have no “profits” from taking the meat, and the “research whaling” would be terminated.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

      This is true – you have hit on the stated logic of the research program. The Japanese wish to show that limited commercial whaling is sustainable. Don’t forget that there was nearly a compromise vote on ENDING the commercial whaling ban as recently as 2010, in favor of more tightly controlled limited whaling permits. Basically, the IWC recognizes that any country has the right to completely back out with zero repercussions short of military might used against whaling ships by other countries, and whale all they want. The IWC’s interest is instead to create a framework where there is some level of international control. Japan has remained within the system to date, while Iceland and Norway have not. Japan can leave any time it likes, honestly. In my humble opinion Japan has shown alignment with conservation principles – note that they take extremely small numbers of non-minke whales because they agree with conservationism. Best to work with them rather than drive them away from the IWC, again, IMHO. Greenpeace and the WWF agreed with that, supporting the lifting of the ban in 2010, for reasons somewhat like I state here in regards to keeping overall international control.

  • Joseph Kool

    I just checked the weather forecast for that part of the southern ocean and the weather is fine. This is just another lie from Watson lieing mouth. With 3 weeks left in the season the whalers can take at least 200 whales so sea shepherds miscalculation of the fuel needed has cost them dearly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

    Hopefully my previous comment is stuck in moderation due to the link I provided. Note: please go to iwc dot int slash permits to find support for the below.

    The international body that governs whaling is the International Whaling Commission. IWC head Ray Gambell weighed in on if what Japan does is illegal in a BBC interview that you can Google today:

    “I have to say at the outset that Japan is not doing anything illegal by catching the whales that it does and it is acting legally within the terms of the Convention that we operate. One of the things that we are working on at the present time is inspection and international observer programmes that will have oversight of any whaling which is under IWC control, to make sure that all regulations are followed covering areas such as size and species. ”

    In fact, the current IWC website describes the legal research whaling on a specific website page – and again, the whaling ban that everyone refers to is the IWC’s moratorium, and as they describe the research whaling on their own website with no mention of illegal activity they clearly consider it sanctioned. They even quote the relevant law from their charter. Courtesy warning: they also show pictures of dead whales being researched, please do not click through if you would be unwilling to see that (I personally find it even more telling that IWC doesn’t consider the moratorium to be complete and total if they are comfortable showing such images).

    • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

      I’ve asked before what gives man the right to decide how many whales are killed? What the hell makes us so superior? The iwc is a sham

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        What’s the sense in asking rights questions about governance of levels of some activity that is seen as taboo? That’s like me being fine with Texas using the death penalty but saying they don’t have the right to decide how many people can be executed by it per year.

        Perhaps you mean to ask “What gives man the right to kill whales at all?” At least that would make sense as a philosophical question.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

        Thanks that does sound better

      • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

        I did ask earlier what gives humans the right to decide what is worthy of life and what isn’t

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Every pea I eat has signed a consent form to be consumed.

        To which you say “well animals and plants are different things”. To which I say “what gives any human the right to decide what life form is more worthy of life and what isn’t”. Touche.

        In my favorite mode of thought, humanism, one can give humans primacy and total equality, including the right to judge for oneself what lives to take in the natural cycle of consumption of other life forms. I don’t judge the Dutch for eating horsemeat, and I don’t want Hindus to judge me for eating cow. Conservation of species can be dictated within this system by requiring humans not to deny other humans the opportunity to interact/coexist with a given species.

        In truth nothing gives us any rights over animals except the ability to do it. Just like nothing gives a bear in the wild the right to kill a human, but also nothing stops them from doing it. Life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short. Life in a state of civilization gives us the opportunity to dwell on what rights we have versus animals.

  • Sandy Snide

    There is a guy on the internet claiming to have tortured and killed over 1000 animals in protest of Sea Shepherds actions against the whalers this year.

  • http://www.facebook.com/art.faucett Art Faucett

    Let’s see, the season is over because he says it’s over? He says it’s over because they’re low on fuel? I’m calling BS on this. Someone forgot to tell the whalers that because they headed back south full of fuel. It won’t stay stormy, and now they will be free to do everything they want now that the SS crew has left. How is this considered a success at this point?. i can hardly wait to see how this is spun when it hits the air.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

      BECUSE the food is going away he whales will be migrating outa the southern ocean. That’s why they call it a “season”. Even if they kill a few more, and God willing they won’t, it’s still a far cry from their quota.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

    I took the advice and went o he ICW website and read about Japan’s whaling. People I was wrong the Japanese have done nothing wrong! They are out there purely for scientific purposes. Yeah right! What kind of research can you do with a cannon loaded harpoon? Answer none! That whole website is a joke, the Japanese obviously paid some good money for hat bit of propaganda. If the IWC was out doing its job then SSCS wouldn’t have to. Go to the page it’s really sick they got pics of some deckhand taking blood. And some othe gu with a real scientific sign about weight or length, all of which could’ve been accomplished without killing the whale. I read a question in this thread no one answered, asking would japan still do ” research ” if there was no money in it? Answer no.

    • Ames

      Kevin, the ICR site is not a joke at all. Whether you believe they are simply conducting research, or whether it is merely a cover for hunting whales for food, the fact remains that they are doing it in compliance with the IWC Scientific Permit program, and the data they are required to submit has never been rejected as invalid by the IWC Scientific Committee. A loaded harpoon can be used to kill and capture a whale, the dissection of which is required to determine feeding contents and habits. Now why are they doing this? Because
      the IWC Scientific Permit system exists for the purpose of determining stock numbers. That means population count. Why? Because the IWC stands for the International WHALING Commission, created and existing to regulate the WHALING INDUSTRY. Your statement that “the IWC isn’t doing it’s job” suggests that you mistakingly think the IWC is some Whale Conservation organization. It is quite the opposite. But Conservation of whales is important to the IWC so that their populations will be healthy and abundant to allow Whaling. Killing animals for sampling is done by all biologists in all fields of animal conservation. not just whales. And to answer your question, if Japan were not allowed to keep the whales, as presently required by IWC Article VIII, I believe they would continue because they are conducting research for the purpose of eventually being able to resume Commercial Whaling. Right now Norway and Iceland are conducting Commercial Whaling by having raised objections to the 1986 IWC Moratorium. But that probably doesn’t bother you does it?

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yzaguirre.9 Kevin Yzaguirre

    Can’t believe you used to word researched

  • AnimuX

    IWC Resolution 2007-1:

    ——————————-
    CONVINCED that the aims of JARPA II do not address critically important research needs;

    NOW THEREFORE THE COMMISSION

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

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

      You’re almost well-versed in this stuff:

      IWC Resolution 2011-2

      RESOLUTION ON SAFETY AT SEA

      WHEREAS

      the safety of vessels and crew, the order of maritime navigation, and environmental protection, are, and have long been, the common interests of nations worldwide;

      WHEREAS

      the Commission and Contracting Governments support the right to legitimate and peaceful forms of protest and demonstration;

      RECALLING

      that the 58th Annual Meeting of the Commission adopted Resolution 2006-2 in which the Commission agreed and declared that the Commission and its Contracting Governments did not condone any actions that are a risk to human life and property in relation to the activities of vessels at sea, and urged persons and entities to refrain from such acts;

      ALSO RECALLING

      that the 59th Annual Meeting of the Commission adopted Resolution 2007-2 in which the Commission urged its Contracting Governments to take actions, in accordance with relevant rules of international law and respective national laws and regulations, to cooperate to prevent and suppress actions that risk human life and property at sea and with respect to alleged offenders, and to cooperate in accordance with UNCLOS and other relevant instruments in the investigation of incidents at sea including those which might pose a risk to life or the environment;

      REAFFIRMING

      the statement on safety at sea made at the Commission’s Intersessional Meeting held in Heathrow, UK, 6-8 March, 2008, which noted reports of dangerous actions by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in the Southern Ocean directed against Japanese vessels, called upon the SSCS to refrain from dangerous actions that jeopardise safety at sea, and on vessels and crews concerned to exercise restraint, condemned any actions that are a risk to human life and property in relation to the activities of vessels at sea, and again urged Contracting Governments to take actions, in accordance with relevant rules of international law and respective national laws and regulations, to cooperate to prevent and suppress actions that risk human life and property at sea and with respect to alleged offenders

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

      IWC Resolution 2011-2

      REAFFIRMING the statement on safety at sea made at the Commission’s Intersessional Meeting held in Heathrow, UK, 6-8 March, 2008, which noted reports of dangerous actions by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in the Southern Ocean directed against Japanese vessels, called upon the SSCS to refrain from dangerous actions that jeopardise safety at sea, and on vessels and crews concerned to exercise restraint, condemned any actions that are a risk to human life and property in relation to the activities of vessels at sea, and again urged Contracting Governments to take actions, in accordance with relevant rules of international law and respective national laws and regulations, to cooperate to prevent and suppress actions that risk human life and property at sea and with respect to alleged offenders;
      In summary IWC “calls upon” Japan to change its activities.
      IWC “condemns” Sea Shepherd activities.
      Yes, everyone, this is the body that controls the moratorium on whaling, and they have denounced Sea Shepherd’s activities. I know, I know, “join the club”… not exactly thought leadership there.

  • romika3

    Funny how all the news about the success of Watson’s antics come from Watson himself. The bottom line is that the Japanese are expiating a loop hole and Watson is exploiting the Japanese as he can get away with his violence. If have followed Watson over his career you realize that he selects issues based on media and money making potential, divorces his organization from working directly with stakeholders and proceeds to demonize people and culture. His record is clear on this…

    • AnimuX

      Wrong. Watson has confronted whalers from the Soviet Union in the North Pacific — to pirate whalers off the coast of Portugal — to whalers in Iceland and Norway, the Faroe Islands and much more prior to Japan.

      Sea Shepherd has never killed, kidnapped, or beaten anyone up — and never attempted to in over 30 years of direct action protest.

      The same cannot be said for opponents of the environmental movement responsible for brutally attacking and murdering eco-activists all over the world for everything from protest against mining and logging to the illegal ivory and the live dolphin trade.

      Pro-whaling antagonists have a habit of exaggeration. They like to pretend stink bombs are WMDs and allege that people who have never killed anyone are realy super-dangerous terrorists. But you won’t hear them condemning the murder of hunders (if not thousands) of good people who are murdered by criminals, industry thugs, and even corrupt police and military around the world.

      • romika3

        “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….

      • AnimuX

        Watson did not attempt to murder anybody in Costa Rica. Poachers who were illegally killing sharks were rammed by a Sea Shepherd boat and nobody was hurt.

        Funny how quickly pro-whaling antagonists latch on to activities conducted for organized crime — like shark finning — in their efforts to demonize activists who have never killed anybody and never attempted to.

        Watson does not attack people’s cars or homes. But if you’ve just killed an endangered rhino and are attempting to smuggle out the illegally gotten horn — watch out.

      • romika3

        ” 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….

      • AnimuX

        The Faroe Islands is probably the world’s most pointless slaughter of animals where doctors there even tell people not to consume whale meat and blubber due to health risks and there is no economic need for the killing.

        They literally kill the pilot whales because they have a sick enjoyment of slaughtering the creatures with their own hands and standing in the blood soaked waters.

      • romika3

        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…

      • AnimuX

        Thanks for acknowledging that because pilot whales eat nothing but contaminated fish that levels of toxins build up in the animals making them unsafe for human consumption — as confirmed by Faroese doctors who recommend people do not eat pilot whale meat or blubber in their own country.

      • romika3

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

      • AnimuX

        Indeed — people shouldn’t eat whales anywhere if only for health reasons.

  • romika3

    Watson is leaving the Southern ocean because his gimmicks are not bringing in the money. People are tired of his tee shirts, sick of “Whale Wars”, a reality series about nothing and cleverly edited “clips” and are realizing that SSCS is not a conservation organization and may actually be prolonging the whale harvest nations don’t like pirates telling them what to do. Watson has no legal authority to do what he is doing. Here is there because of ‘opportunity’ and nothing more….

    • AnimuX

      Wrong. Watson receives increasing donations from supporters because Sea Shepherd has successfully reduced Japan’s whale kill in the Southern Ocean — as admitted by Japanese officials publicly — sending the poachers home with a small fraction of the intended quota for the last two seasons already.

      What we have here is a whale hunt during a moratorium on whaling, within a whale sanctuary, while the organization responsible for regulating whaling calls on Japan to stop killing whales.

      So, of course, Sea Shepherd — which has a long history of interfering with whaling and other cruel, destructive or illegal wildlife trade — has focused on the world’s worst offender when it comes to killing whales, Japan.

      • romika3

        “Wrong. Watson receives increasing donations from supporters:”, wrong, Watson’s funding stream has decreased substantially over the last two years…

      • AnimuX

        Riiight…. That must be why Sea Shepherd was able to purchase and field yet another ship on its Southern Ocean campaign this year. ;-)

      • romika3

        Hmmmm… something fishy here. Watson stated publicly that is was donated….

  • romika3

    Another fact that Watson fails to tell people is that the number of whales harvested by the Japanese have be decreasing over the years and that the minke whale (healthy populations) makes up the majority of the harvest. In fact here we have this organization, SSCS who states that their interest is the whale and when Watson was asked by Larry KIng (CNN interview) about the status of whale populations in the Southern Ocean Watson attempted to dodge the question had no clue.

    • AnimuX

      Japan annually kills endangered fin whales, endangered sei whales, vulnerable sperm whales, rare bryde’s whales, common minke whales (from the threatened J-stock), and Antarctic minke whales (according to the IUCN this species is also in decline). Not to mention up to 20,000 small cetaceans like dolphins including rare beaked whales and a dall’s porpoise hunt called ‘clearly unsustainable’ by the IWC scientific committee.

      • romika3

        They have licence to harvest these endangered speces but they rarely do….

      • AnimuX

        No. Japan unilaterally declares it will kill the whales — the International Whaling Commission calls on Japan to stop killing whales.

      • romika3

        Check the data……

      • AnimuX

        I already checked it — and I’m right.

      • romika3

        Watson states in his book “Earthforce” that it is acceptable to lie and distort data. He and his followers practice this…..As you work for the SSCS your numbers are questionable….

      • AnimuX

        Well you don’t have to take my word for it — there are many many many books on modern whaling that describe Japan’s repeated regulatory violations.

        Edit: And I do not work for SSCS. I am also not a member of SSCS. I do not represent that organization in any way.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Books written on a topic are opinions. I can describe you violating regulations, doesn’t make it factual.
        No international regulatory body or court has found Japan to be violating the law.

      • AnimuX

        How very interesting! Pro-whaling antagonists want everybody to ignore history books and accept their ‘internet opinions’ as fact! What a surprise. :)

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        What a surprise – AnimuX cites that we should just all trust his reading of information in unnamed books as history beyond criticism, but never speaks to the actual facts laid out before him that are readily verifiable by the citations provided.

      • AnimuX

        Want names? Here you go:

        Whaling in Japan: Power, Politics, and Diplomacy by Jun Morikawa
        Harpoon: Into the Heart of Whaling by Andrew Darby
        Men and Whales by Richard Ellis
        The History of Modern Whaling by Tonnessen and Johnsen
        The Sounding of the Whale by D. Graham Burnett
        The Whale War by David Day

        Like I said, people don’t have to take my word for it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Thank you very much. I’ve read both History of Modern Whaling and Men and Whales, which I respect as valuable historical references. I hope that you are prepared to respond to the many passages therein that support my points, having cited them as valuable sources. I further refer you to “The Cambridge Companion to Modern Japanese Culture” (Y. Sugimoto) and its passages on why Japanese don’t see whales the same as you do.

      • AnimuX

        Awesome. Then you can surely check out Jun Morikawa’s “Whaling in Japan: Power, Politics, and Diplomacy” to help understand that most Japanese people don’t see whales the way you think they do. :)

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        You mean to understand how one man claims Japanese people see whales, kinda like Pete Bethune doesn’t see SSCS quite the way you do. You referenced two history books, hopefully you don’t give Morikawa the same weight.
        At issue is less how much whale the Japanese eat and more on whether or not we should tell them how to view the animal world. Hindus from another hemisphere don’t have any right to govern my thinking or actions on whether or not I choose to be vegetarian.

      • AnimuX

        No. The issue is not about how Japanese people eat or view anything. These are known. Most Japanese people do not eat whale meat and are indifferent to whaling — but do not approve of their government spending tax dollars on whaling.

        Morikawa explains in his book that Japan’s whaling continues entirely for the benefit of corrupt bureaucrats who ensure tax based subsidies for whaling in the fisheries budget only to later leave public office and take high paid jobs in the commercial whaling industry. This sort of corruption is so common in Japan’s government they have a word for it: ‘amakudari’.

        Morikawa points out that whale meat was only a substitute source of protein during posts WWII food shortages and when Japanese families could afford other meat they stopped buying whale. The ‘national tradition’ of whaling is manufactured by Japan’s government. In fact, if whale meat wasn’t included by the government in compulsory school lunches most Japanese children would never know the taste.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        By saying that the Japanese are indifferent to whaling, that’s the point. They don’t see it as a horrible thing, that’s the difference between the West and Japan. I respect that difference and their right to whale if they are indifferent to it.
        Pete Bethune explains in his writings that Sea Shepherd are “morally bankrupt”. They “routinely conspire and lie”. They “misrepresent themselves to the public.” He gives specific evidence of lies in press releases and discusses the order he was given by SSCS to scuttle his own boat. But don’t take his word for it, another former SSCS donor, Ady Gil, is suing them too. You can bet that you really want to be supporting a group that can’t even keep its friends. All of this is in stories on Ecorazzi, BTW. Here’s betting you won’t even comment on Bethune – that’s one you have no argument for.

      • AnimuX

        No. The point is the whaling conducted by Japan is not done for any economic or nutritional need — in fact it’s not even for tradition — and it’s definitely not for science.

        The whaling continues for the benefit of corrupt officials who misuse tax dollars by propping up whaling to enrich their business cronies and secure for themselves high paid jobs in the commercial whaling industry.

        Bethune is irrelevant and despite any claims about the Ady Gil — which was purposely rammed by a Japanese whaling ship called the Shonan Maru #2, knocking off the bow of the boat and nearly killing 6 activists in the process — he’s shown on video declaring the boat could not be salvaged once the engines had flooded and making the call to cut it loose to finally sink due to the damage done by Japan’s whale poachers.

        As usual, pro-whaling antagonists would rather condemn activists, citing gross exaggerations of ‘violence’, while completely ignoring real and devastating acts of violence against activists by poachers. In fact, non-violent environmental protesters are brutally murdered all over the world every year at a rate of almost 1 per week, but you won’t see pro-whalers condemning the murderers. They’re too busy demonizing unarmed protesters who never killed anybody.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Someone once pointed out to me that the Japanese were indifferent to whaling. Sure, not most of them eat whale, like I don’t eat crawfish. But if someone from another country tried to make Louisiana stop serving crawfish, I’d care – even though I’m indifferent to crawfishing.

        Point out any pro-whaling or pro-crawfishing antagonists you see, because me and my anti-vigilante and anti-culture-superiority friends would like to help convince them they’re wrong.
        I like that your test for acceptable behavior is “never killed anybody” – that’s tellingly rich.

      • AnimuX

        Your straw man is irrelevant. Japan is a signatory to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

        And so, Japan has an obligation to adhere to the decisions of the International Whaling Commission in good faith.

        This isn’t about crawfish and it isn’t about Louisiana.

        What we have here is a whale hunt during an international moratorium on commercial whaling — within the boundaries of an international whale sanctuary — while the international organization responsible for regulating whaling calls on Japan to stop killing whales.

        In other words, it’s poaching.

        Poaching is illegal in Louisiana, by the way.

        Thankfully, Sea Shepherd works to stop Japanese whale poachers in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary. :)

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Repeating it doesn’t make it true. SQUAWK!

        I think you don’t know what a straw man is. If I said “you just want to stop all fishing and that’s wrong”, arguing with something you didn’t say because it’s easier to attack, that would be a straw man.
        The word for what I laid out is an analogy. The analogy holds.
        Japan adheres to all decisions, and listens to all requests. Your continued repetition of a claim that a resolution with “calls upon” language as binding, while rejecting resultions you don’t like, is comical. I wish I had a dollar for every time you repeated your basic argument without added detail, as if that made it stronger. Thanks for all of the opportunities to poke holes in it while you didn’t mend them or damage my points – mostly because you don’t address them, you simply call them irrelevant and restate your parrot-talk argument over and over. That’s a rhetorical tool, but it only fools the choir.

      • AnimuX

        Japan’s long history of whaling regulatory violations is a reality which pro-whaling antagonists like to ignore…

        * Reality is the IWC has prohibited commercial whaling since 1986. Japan kills whales anyway.

        * Reality is the IWC established a whale sanctuary in the Southern Ocean in 1994. Japan kills whales there anyway.

        * Reality is the IWC has repeatedly called on Japan to stop killing whales.

        In case you really don’t understand how a straw man works:

        You substituted your own weak argument about crawfish in Louisiana and then attacked your own weak argument as if it was somehow equivalent to my position on whales. Classic use of a straw man.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        And the IWC condemns SSCS in resolution 2011-2. Condemning is stronger than “calling on”, and police don’t “call on” lawbreakers to stop breaking the law. The reason they “call on” them as a request is that the actions are legal.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        From IWC documents, this is a lie. You might want to back the claim down to “has killed” from “annually kills”, because there has not been annual take of all species. Just trying to help.

      • romika3

        Your number , 20,000, is inflated by one-hundred times… check the data…

      • AnimuX

        I have checked their data — you’re thinking of Taiji where only about 2,000 are annually killed. The rest are hunted all over Japan. The 20,000 number comes from Japanese fisheries data.

  • romika3

    “We’re not a protest organization, we’re a policing organization,” Paul Watson has said of his Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS). A pirate organization is more like it. Sporting the skull and crossbones, his black or battleship-gray ships sail menacingly through the waves. They are painted with the names of the boats Watson has rammed and sunk.

    On SSCS

    The ships are fitted with water cannons, a concrete-filled bow made for ramming, and an attachment dubbed the “can opener” that can tear open a boat’s hull. In his book Earth Warrior, David Morris writes that Watson wears a long bowie knife at his side and carries AK-47s on board. He blasts Richard Wagner’s rousing “Ride of the Valkyries” to herald his arrival and terrify his victims.

    SSCS’s mission is to stop fishing of which it disapproves. Its preferred methods? Ramming and sinking fishing ships, throwing butyric acid on their decks, and firing machine guns. Watson argues that United Nations resolutions authorize him to commit violent acts. But he regularly interferes with fisherman and hunters who are committing no crime. He serves as judge, jury, and executioner — while enjoying the same tax-exempt status as universities and churches.

    Some of the animal-rights movement’s most notorious terrorists got their start with SSCS. One of them, convicted arsonist Rodney Coronado, had Watson’s approval to plan and execute an attack on Iceland’s whaling industry. He and a colleague sank two of the fleet’s four ships and destroyed a processing facility.

    • AnimuX

      The world’s whaling industries literally drove nearly every species of large whale to the brink of extinction and many species remain endangered today as a result.

      Watson has confronted whalers from the Soviet Union in the North
      Pacific — to pirate whalers off the coast of Portugal — to whalers in
      Iceland and Norway, the Faroe Islands and much more (baby seal killers
      from Canada, etc) prior to Japan.

      Sea Shepherd has never killed, kidnapped, or beaten anyone up — and
      never attempted to in over 30 years of direct action protest.

      The same cannot be said for opponents of the environmental movement
      responsible for brutally attacking and murdering eco-activists all over
      the world for everything from protest against mining and logging to the
      illegal ivory and the live dolphin trade.

      Pro-whaling antagonists have a habit of exaggeration. They like to
      pretend stink bombs are WMDs and allege that people who have never
      killed anyone are realy super-dangerous terrorists. But you won’t hear
      them condemning the murder of hunders (if not thousands) of good people
      who are murdered by criminals, industry thugs, and even corrupt police
      and military around the world.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Paul Watson has explicitly stated SSCS are pirates. You don’t have to make the claim, he said so himself.

  • romika3

    Where does Watson get the funds for his exploits? In part, from an eclectic cadre of shadowy personalities.

    That includes Susan Bloom, a long-time donor to the most extreme factions of the environmental and animal-rights movement. Bloom was the founder and main financier of the British Columbia animal-rights group Bear Watch, which employed David Barbarash, a former “spokesman” for the terrorist Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Paul Watson has hosted at least one Bear Watch fundraiser.

    Ann Johnston gave SSCS almost $2.7 million in stock in 1997. Her husband, Pritam Singh, is a real estate developer and a member of SSCS’ financial and management advisory board. According to the Key News Journal, he’s under investigation by the FBI for his questionable business dealings. One Key West attorney has also filed a civil lawsuit against Singh, alleging almost 20 years of criminal activity — including racketeering and fraud. Singh was fined $1.2 million by the federal Office of Thrift Supervision in 1995. And he quietly settled a lawsuit filed by members of his sales staff who said he illegally withheld their commissions.

    Johnston’s 1997 stock donation included shares of a company named Northern Development Associates, a for-profit business which is now 100-percent owned by Sea Shepherd.

    Corporate records show that the company’s officers include Watson’s ex-wife Lisa DiStefano and longtime associate Michael Kundu. Northern Development’s mailing address is the same as Pritam Singh’s Key West Golf Club. Watson and DiStefano also serve, with Singh, on the board of something called the Sea Trek 2000 Foundation. The mailing address for that group is the same as one of Singh’s Miami lawyers.

    • AnimuX

      Sea Shepherd continues to receive high ratings from charity evaluations because the organization puts the vast majority of its donations toward operational expenses rather than administrative overhead.

      In fact, Sea Shepherd’s donations continue to increase from supporters all over the world because the group has successfully and repeatedly thwarted Japan’s whale poaching in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

      Saving endangered and protected whales from poachers is a truly noble goal.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        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.

  • romika3

    Though self-named a “Conservation Society,” Sea Shepherd is a violent organization. Its purpose is to ram and sink ships. Earth Warrior author David Morris details one such voyage in search of driftnetters. Even in this gushing account, Morris notes, “The gunfire that accompanied our attack on the Japanese ships was not defensive.” So it’s no surprise that Sea Shepherd’s expeditions have served as a fitting training ground for other animal-rights militants.

    Rodney Coronado has long been involved with criminal groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which the FBI has identified as the country’s most dangerous domestic terrorist threat, and the special-interest ALF subset known as SHAC. He was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison for the 1992 arson of a Michigan State University research laboratory. He admitted to at least six other arsons in a November 30, 2002 speech. In January 2003, he demonstrated to a group gathered at American University the “correct” way to build a firebomb out of household materials. And Paul Watson gave him his start.

    Coronado joined SSCS immediately after graduating from high school in 1984. Two years later, he proposed a plan to covertly attack Iceland’s whaling industry. He and David Howitt, a British bicycle mechanic, destroyed a whale-processing facility there, and sank two of the Icelandic whaling fleet’s four ships. Watson supported the plan and SSCS took responsibility for the destruction.

    In the mid-’90s, Coronado again wanted to join a SSCS expedition. But he was wanted for questioning by the FBI and Watson said no. Watson was regretful, however, calling him “an excellent crew member and the best damn activist I ever had.” These words give the lie to Watson’s claim that “we have absolutely no links with the so-called Animal Liberation Front.”

    SHAC organizer and spokesman Joshua Harper has also served as a SSCS crewmember. Harper describes his goal as “the complete collapse of industrial civilization.” A young man with an impressive criminal record, Harper was jailed in 1997 for assaulting a police officer, and in 2001 for violating a summons to testify regarding ALF and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). He was also incarcerated in 1999 for attacking Native Americans on a whale hunt; Paul Watson’s ex-wife Lisa Distefano, and current wife, Allison Lance Watson, were also charged in that attack.

    In April 2002, Allison Lance Watson was ordered to appear before a federal grand jury along with a number of other animal-rights activists. Former ELF spokesman Craig Rosebraugh issued a press release announcing her subpoena. Watson’s attorney was Stuart Sugarman, the same lawyer who represented Rosebraugh when he appeared before a U.S. House of Representatives committee in 2002 and refused to answer questions.

    Alex Pacheco is another activist who started his career with SSCS, in the late 1970s. He now serves on one of its advisory boards. Pacheco is co-founder and former chairman of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization whose leaders openly advocate terrorist violence. “Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause,” he once said. Pacheco is rumored to be a “commander” of ALF and has been subpoenaed in connection to ALF activities.

    Watson once held a fundraiser for the “Kentucky Fried Five,” a group of animal-rights activists who vandalized a fast-food outlet in Toronto in 1987, claiming they were “scapegoats.” An empty KFC chicken bucket was passed around for donations. The hooligans pleaded guilty to mischief resulting in willful damage, and possession of burglary tools and stolen property. Two of the five were also accused of possessing explosives, carrying weapons, and vandalizing the Toronto University dentistry school, but those charges were dropped as part of a plea-bargain. One of the latter two, David Barbarash, has served as an ALF spokesman, and The Oregonian said the group was an ALF cell.

    • AnimuX

      The fact is, the world’s whaling industries literally drove nearly every species of large whale to the brink of extinction and many species remain endangered today as a result.

      Watson has confronted whalers from the Soviet Union in the North Pacific — to pirate whalers off the coast of Portugal — to whalers in Iceland and Norway, the Faroe Islands and much more (baby seal killers from Canada, etc) prior to Japan.

      Sea Shepherd has never killed, kidnapped, or beaten anyone up — and never attempted to in over 30 years of direct action protest.

      The same cannot be said for opponents of the environmental movement responsible for brutally attacking and murdering eco-activists all over the world for everything from protest against mining and logging to the illegal ivory and the live dolphin trade.

      Pro-whaling antagonists have a habit of exaggeration. They like to pretend stink bombs are WMDs and allege that people who have never killed anyone are realy super-dangerous terrorists. But you won’t hear them condemning the murder of hundreds (if not thousands) of good people who are murdered by criminals, industry thugs, and even corrupt police and military around the world.

  • romika3

    Paul Watson craves attention. His dramatic physical attacks are designed to gain maximum media exposure. He has written that “The hint of romance and piracy or the possibility of violence guaranteed coverage.”

    In addition to taking credit for inventing tree-spiking, Watson says he was the first to put his body between a whale and a harpoon. Indeed, he is known in the environmental movement as something of a show-off. Even long-time terrorist colleague Rodney Coronado joked, “If lightning struck a whaling ship, Paul would accept responsibility for it.”

    Of course, the money doesn’t hurt, either. Crewmembers are charged $1,000 for the honor of working long hours on an expedition. Watson has long claimed (as recently as his 2002 memoir) that he has kept his vow to “never accept a single dollar for myself from charitable donations.” The group’s 2001 tax return, however, indicates Watson was paid $40,000 as president and CEO. He also makes money from lectures, books, and teaching at the Arts College of Design in Pasadena.

    But neither fame nor fortune is really Watson’s primary motivation. He’s a misanthrope who prefers porpoises to people. “I couldn’t understand her compassion for humanity,” he says of an old girlfriend. “She chose people and I chose the Earth, and thus we began to drift apart.” He likes to accuse those who care about people of being “anthropocentric.” And he constantly refers to humans as mere apes.

    Watson also has a seething hatred of the people whose livelihood he threatens. He’s an elitist who, despite his upbringing among maritime fishermen, has no sympathy for those who make their living from the ocean. He begins his book Seal Wars by calling Canadian sealers “the uneducated and the institutionally unemployed,” “barbarians,” and “piss-drunk on cheap booze.” Western Canadians who support a wolf control program are likewise branded “rednecks.”

    Of his native Canada, Watson has said he “despise[s] its government and dislike[s] its people.” Scandinavians, meanwhile, are “the children of the rapers of Ireland and executioners of the Celts.” The “bloodlust of these Viking offspring” who hunt whales made him “ashamed” of his Danish ancestry. And Watson once shouted through a megaphone at Makah Indians on a whale hunt: “Just because you were born stupid doesn’t give you any right to be stupid.”

    Watson has wrangled with Sierra Club head Carl Pope, asking why the group wasn’t more concerned about human population growth, particularly in the U.S. He has no sympathy for immigrants wishing to leave behind the horrid conditions of third-world countries to make a better life here. In fact, the desire to eat and have leisure time is almost a crime for Watson: “When an immigrant becomes an American citizen, they increase their rate of resource consumption by a factor of twenty.”

    To Watson, saving seals is more important than saving human beings.

    • AnimuX

      Sea Shepherd has never killed, kidnapped, or beaten anyone up — and never attempted to in over 30 years of direct action protest.

      The same cannot be said for opponents of the environmental movement responsible for brutally attacking and murdering eco-activists all over the world for everything from protest against mining and logging to the illegal ivory and the live dolphin trade.

      Pro-whaling antagonists have a habit of exaggeration. They like to pretend stink bombs are WMDs and allege that people who have never killed anyone are realy super-dangerous terrorists. But you won’t hear them condemning the murder of hundreds (if not thousands) of good people who are murdered by criminals, industry thugs, and even corrupt police and military around the world.

      • romika3

        Deflecting… is a form of propaganda….

      • AnimuX

        The truth is not propaganda — something you should consider before demonizing people as terrorists who never killed anybody and never threatened to.

      • romika3

        A analyses of the behavior of Watson and his organization places them in the same category as terrorists. That is not demonizing

      • AnimuX

        Comparing protesters who never killed anybody to violent murderers responsible for killing thousands of innocent people — just because you don’t like the subject of the protesters — is demonizing.

      • romika3

        We are talking about “behaviorism” here and there was no comparison made….

      • AnimuX

        You’ve repeatedly claimed that protesters who never killed anybody and never threatened to are the same as violent murderous terrorists — don’t try to deny it now.

        You’ve made a hobby out of demonizing Sea Shepherd like other pro-whaling antagonists.

        Unfortunately, you continue to ignore all of the murdered eco-activists around the world. Funny how pro-whalers don’t seem to mind violence as long as unarmed environmental protesters are being assassinated in South America, Africa and Asia.

      • romika3

        We are dealing with behavior here. SSCS is basically andorganization that uses terrorist methods. Mostly in the southern ocean (international waters) because Watson knows he can get away with it there. If you study Watson you will learn that he is linked with sub organizations that do ‘dirty’ work. And just what does those “murdered activists” have to do with Paul Watson and the SSCS

      • AnimuX

        Wrong. Sea Shepherd does not attempt to kill or kidnap or beat up people — and never threatened to.

        Throwing stink bombs at a boat is NOT terrorism.

      • romika3

        Really…. do some “deep” background research on Watson….

      • AnimuX

        Really — Any reasonable person can see that Watson and the other members of Sea Shepherd are not murderers.

        However, the opposite is true of those who don’t like eco-protesters very much. Hundreds, if not thousands of activists have been brutally assaulted and murdered all over the world for opposing logging, mining, illegal ivory, the live dolphin trade, and more.

        Funny how pro-whalers don’t seem to care about violence when unarmed nonviolent activists are slaughtered like it’s a sport.

      • romika3

        Again, we have an example of how supporters of the SSCS ‘deflect”, as Watson does, when they can’t justify their actions. The bottom line, Watson is all about the media and the money.

      • AnimuX

        Again we have an example of pro-whaling antagonists demonizing protesters because they don’t like the subject of the protest.

      • romika3

        A review of the media and of social media turns up very little evidence of pro-whalers “demonizing” the SSCS but plenty of documented evidence of SSCS supporters and Watson himself demonizing people, culture and spreading hate and racism..

      • AnimuX

        You’ve provided plenty of evidence of ‘demonizing’ right here in your own comments.

        Please let me know when you realize what you’re actually doing here.

      • romika3

        Watson preys on youth who blindly support him without knowing anything about his past or having a firm understanding of the social, economic and environmental concequeces of what they are doing…

      • AnimuX

        Sea Shepherd volunteers are adults and they must accept responsibility for their actions as adults. Watson does not prey upon them — they volunteer to help protect whales and other animals from poaching and more.

      • romika3

        Many supporters of Watson are “pirate” want-to-be and see SSCS has a opportunity to practice “violence” without consequence. He also draws clients and supporters from the upper middle class.

      • AnimuX

        Watson doesn’t ‘draw’ on anybody. They show up as willing volunteers because they believe in the cause of protecting whales from poachers and taking action for the benefit of marine conservation.

        Edit: As Watson is fond of saying, his clients are the whales.

      • romika3

        Volunteers pay their own flights and contribute $1000. This immediately filters SSCS clients.

      • AnimuX

        When you ask someone to put their money where their mouth is — to do rather than just talk — Sea Shepherd volunteers step up to the challenge.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        You seem to be consistent in simply stating your “truth”s rather than speaking to the matter at hand in the debate. Classic style for someone who has a tough position to sell. You do this consistently in arguing below, as well.

  • AnimuX

    Uh huh…

    Please refer (again) to IWC Resolution 2007-1:

    NOW THEREFORE THE COMMISSION

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

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

      I hope you realize that to a third party reading this your case is lost when that’s your “argument” and you haven’t replied to any of the comments above about it. Post it again to look more like a fool.

      • AnimuX

        *yawn*

  • romika3

    Paul Watson has chosen to “attack” Japanese whalers for one reason and one reason only.. in the southern ocean, in international waters he can get way with his attacks, his ramming, fulfill his pseudo-warrior fantasy, get the violent video to recruit kids, get media attention and support his lifestyle and ego….

    • AnimuX

      Wrong. Sea Shepherd Australia has interfered with whale poaching in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary to enforce international conventions.

      • romika3

        This is Mr. Watson’s justification…for his actions…and no one else’s .. he has no authority…under any law or convention….

  • AnimuX

    LOL….

    1) Person 1 has position X:

    * Most Japanese people don’t eat whale (so much for tradition). Japan is poaching whales and Sea Shepherd is right to directly interfere (with no intention to harm people).

    2) Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y:

    * I don’t eat crawfish but if someone from another country tries to make Louisiana stop stop serving crawfish, I’d care.

    3) Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed:

    * Point out any pro-whaling or pro-crawfishing antagonists you see, because me and my anti-vigilante and anti-culture-superiority friends would like to help convince them they’re wrong. I like that your test for acceptable behavior is “never killed anybody”.

    ————————-
    Once again, this is not about Louisiana or crawfish. And your straw man is irrelevant.

    What we have here is a whale hunt during an international moratorium on commercial whaling — within the boundaries of an international whale sanctuary — while the international organization responsible for regulating whaling calls on Japan to stop killing whales.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

      LOL, it’s bitterly ironic that you present a superficial and erroneous abstraction of that definition, leaving out the key quotes that disprove you.

      “Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. *The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including: [Possible ways 1-5 given]”
      Crawfish as an analogy
      *does not disregard any points of the whale case
      *is not a distorted version of the whale case, it’s a separate analagous case entirely
      *does not meet any of the 5 criteria given
      *is not a straw man argument, which is inherently an argument meant to decieve by twisting the opponent’s position
      If you can’t understand this and choose to read a Wikipedia page selectively in a way that suits your argument, it just puts more info out here for people to judge you and your positions by.

      • AnimuX

        LOL

        Your inept failure to grasp the context of your own logical fallacies is quite amusing.

        A straw man is producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it (ie: attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent’s position).

        Indeed:
        Whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in breach of international conventions is NOT analogous to legal crawfishing in Louisiana.

        Whale consumption in Japan is NOT analogous to crawfish consumption in Louisiana.

        Opposing whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is NOT analogous to opposing serving crawfish in Louisiana restaurants.

        ***
        However, you presented an argument about foreigners interfering with crawfish consumers in Louisiana — a straw man — in response to my statements about protest action against Japanese whale poaching.
        ***

        This is not a difficult concept…;-)

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        OK, so in your logic, Louisiana crawfish are “a weaker version of the truth” and a “version of [your] position” on southern ocean whales. Yes, those two things are simply distorted versions of the same thing, even though you finally started to address them as analogies, which is what they are, and meet the test of “Y being a distorted version of X”. Yes, it’s very clear that my goal with bringing up crawfish was to distort your argument to attack an untrue version of it. Or, maybe you need to read the true examples of straw man I pointed to. Keep flailing bro, this is fun.

      • AnimuX

        *yawn*

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        I said keep flailing, not give up.

      • AnimuX

        *ZZzzzzz*

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Malloy/100002020385349 Karl Malloy

        Oh I percieve the flailing now, thanks.

  • Mizusan

    Anyone that justifies the termination of sentient beings for such reasons as self sustenance, scientific research, fashion or entertainment is a speciesist. It is not possible to morally justify the use of sentient beings for any of these things when alternatives exist.

    Speciesists are a dying breed and just like racists, homophobes, genderists and every other class of discriminator in civilized society will soon be the minority. Speciesist fear the unknown, one of human kinds greatest fears, and fight to preserve that which they are emotionally charged to, however it is simply not viable or logical to persist in a practice that causes environmental degradation, preventable diseases and untold suffering.

    It isn’t a question of “if” but a question of “when” regarding the day that we will see true universal freedom for the sentient beings of this unique world, seemingly so alone in the universe. The next step of evolution and enlightenment for the denizens of this planet will come upon this achievement. Perhaps this will be the sign that Earth is prepared to begin networking with higher forms of intelligence.