Japan whaling authorities sue Sea Shepherd in U.S.

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -13

    MaboDofuIsSpicy

    Excellent. I hope they win and put SeaS. out of business.

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    However, it makes no secret of the fact that whale meat from this research ends up on dinner tables and in restaurants.

    Thus adhering to the rules stipulated by the IWC.

  • 14

    gaijinTechie

    Japan has confirmed it planned to use some of the public funds earmarked for quake and tsunami reconstruction to boost security for the hunt.

    I guess J-gov will blame Sea Shepherd if fallout refugees are left without housing because of this. Typical.

    Sorry, but as long as J-gov continues to misuse disaster aid, I will not support "Tohoku" (i.e. whaling, drinking parties and cheaper housing for civil servants, Tepco's criminal and continuous behaviour etc.).

  • 3

    Elbuda Mexicano

    How about somebody sues Japan??

  • 7

    smithinjapan

    "The Japanese statement said the whaling program was “greatly contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge of whale resources in the Antarctic.”"

    HAHAHAHA!!! But the best is this:

    "Tokyo says the whale hunts are needed to substantiate its view that there is a robust whale population in the world."

    So... they need to kill a bunch to prove there's some left? and they call that 'science'??

    Man, this just gets funnier and funnier. And given the propensity of Japan to ignore foreign claims and lawsuits who cares if Japan files an international suit against someone else? SS should in turn, if they want to bother, file a suit for the sonic weapons Japan has used to attempt to bring down their helicopter, or for ramming their ship, etc. They should also encourage the US and other nations to sue Japan for their donation money back, since clearly it has given the government a means to free up their own money to send their coast guard to the Atlantic Ocean instead of helping the people in need. Would Japan abide by such a lawsuit if they lost? Nope! They would be shocked and surprised and play victim and what not before saying it doesn't matter what a foreign court says in regards to domestic matters.

  • 3

    cl400

    Japan is shooting itself in the foot on this one. If it's for scientific research why are they serving the meat at restaurants? When the whales are all gone because of greedy whalers and supporting governments the whole world will suffer. Mostly Japan though. 1st they will be blamed for extincting an animal. 2ndly they will have lost allot of trust from the rest of the world for lying and 3rdly... well, they wont get to eat their beloved whale meat anymore. Someone please teach these people that animals are breeded for human consumption, whales don't fall under that category.

  • 2

    Disillusioned

    Reading Japan's defense of their "uhum" research is nothing short of rhetorical double-Dutch! Although, I think they have a pretty good case against SS. However, the US judge/s will also look at Japan's loop-hole research and hopefully throw their case into the south ocean.

  • 1

    globalwatcher

    J. Govt does not realize how much Americans are against this. We probably see this on the news over and over again. Good luck Japan.

  • -1

    It"S ME

    Disillusioned.

    I think that japan has a case.

    As for the Judge/s looking at the loophole he won't as that is not part of the lawsuit and not for them to decide/act upon. That is just wishful thinking and not understanding how courts work.

  • 4

    minello7

    Now they can afford the law suit thanks to the public funds they have just received.Well huge farm subsidies and the governments support of the whaling,just show where the priorities lie. Sorry for all those still suffering in the north east,but they must be happy knowing how the government is managing the countries finances.

  • 2

    anglootaku

    Wouldn't an international court be a better..

  • -6

    Foxie

    Japan should just use extreme methods against them and get rid of them instead of nicely sueing them.

  • 1

    globalwatcher

    FoxieDec. 09, 2011 - 04:08PM JST

    Japan should just use extreme methods against them and get rid of them instead of nicely sueing them.

    Shoot them? That would make things worse.

  • -11

    davidattokyo

    smithinjapan,

    they need to kill a bunch to prove there's some left? and they call that 'science'??

    1) Whales reproduce - they are renewable resources, providing they are properly managed. 2) Wrote the late Dr John Gulland who represented the FAO at IWC meetings:

    "... the best, if not the only, way to determine the sustainable yield of a whale stock is carefully monitored harvesting. Certainly our knowledge of whale stocks is far from complete, and there can be considerable argument on just how large a catch can be sustained from individual stocks. However, these doubts are no reason for not taking moderate, and carefully monitored catches from stocks which appear to be in a healthy condition."

    This is precisely what Japan is doing.

    globalwatcher,

    J. Govt does not realize how much Americans are against this.

    I think most Americans think Watson is a douche.

  • -1

    Cricky

    A new way to waist money! That could backfire. As stated the ships don't fly under an American flag, the incidents are in international waters and unlike J-courts a cofession can't be "obtained" so easy in an American court.It will highlite the "Reaserch" to a global audience and throw the onus on Japan to spend more money on a education program and again play as Smithy says play the vicim card once again making Japans excuses look as pathetic as they are. Good move Japan

  • 5

    MasterBape

    The lawsuit is for endangering lives. They may have a case. However, both parties have been aggressive and it has far from being one sided. Japan used some dangerous weapons and sea shepherd used rotten butter and boarded ships. Whalers actually look worse in this case. Also the govt. confirmed funds were to support whaling where fishing communities rely on it. Australia offered to fund non-lethal research. Another sham now that the greedy govt has dipped its hands in the Tohoku funds pot. Disgraceful. Japan comes off bad no matter how they put it.

  • 9

    cleo

    Tokyo says the whale hunts are needed to substantiate its view that there is a robust whale population in the world.

    So they decide what the result is going to be first, and then look for the data to prove what they've already decided? That's not scientific, and it's not research. On a par with testing food 'to show that it's safe' as opposed to testing food to check whether it's safe or not.

    As for suing SS in Seattle - maybe the whalers are unaware that the SS fleet will be sailing from Australia (not under US jurisdiction) in a few days to stop the hunt. It would have been more sensible to sue in an Australian court, though I doubt they'll garner much sympathy in either country.

  • 5

    billyshears

    Sea Shepherd, through its actions, does more harm than good for its cause not only as far as worldwide PR is concerned but also as far as Japanese public opinion is concerned. Neither the Japanese government nor many Japanese people (the vast majority of whom have never eaten, and will never have the inclination, to eat any whale meat) want to be seen controlled by a group of adventurers in a speed boat. Having seen those running the SS organization on TV, I get the feeling they'd be very disappointed if Japan ever did give up whaling. What would they do for a living then?

  • -4

    JapanGal

    I am American and am not against the whaling, so some posters here are just talking from the cuff.

    I think whaling is good and it should continue.

    Sea Shepard is illegally being obnoxious.

  • -2

    YongYang

    Err... yeah. Right. Good luck with that. LOL.

  • 8

    JoeBigs

    I am not pro whaling, but if you wish to fight something as veil as it you must do it within the law.

  • 5

    genji17

    Nice! Sea shepherd is gonna lose this one, since they are the only ones ACTUALLY breaking laws here. You might not like whaling, but the Japanese are abiding by the law...albeit a loophole, but because of the loophole it is LEGAL

  • 5

    Maitake

    the sea shepherd is butter! I hope they continue preventing Japanese from meeting their quota for whale meat consumption, i mean, "research purposes". and the fact that Jgov is funneling yen that should be for funds to relieve those who have lost their homes etc from 3/11 to guard the whaling enterprise is just f&%kd.

  • 5

    gogogo

    greatly contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge of whale resources in the Antarctic

    Huh? 14 publications on in 24 years, here are the titles of all the publications

    • Feeding Habits and Prey Consumption of Antarctic Minke Whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science

    • Population structure and possible migratory links of common minke whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata, in the Southern Hemisphere.

    • Effects of Semen Extenders and Storage Temperatures on Characteristics of Frozen-Thawed Bryde's (Balaenoptera edeni) Whale Spermatozoa.

    • Feeding strategies and prey consumption of three baleen whale species within the Kushiro-Current Extension. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science

    • Production of cloned sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) embryos by interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer using enucleated pig oocytes

    • Measurements of density contrast and sound-speed contrast for target strength estimation of Neocalanus copepods (Neocalanus cristatus) in the North Pacific Ocean.

    • Acoustic characterization of biological backscatterings in the Kuroshio-Oyashio inter-frontal zone and subarctic waters of the western North Pacific in spring. Fisheries Oceanography.

    • Application of a generalized additive model (GAM) to reveal relationships between environmental factors and distributions of pelagic fish and krill: a case study in Sendai Bay, Japan.

    • Production of Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Cloned Embryos by Inter- and Intra-Species Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.

    • Cetacean Toll-like receptor 4 and myeloid differentiation factor 2, and possible cetacean-specific responses against Gram-negative bacteria.

    • Effects of equilibration steps, type of sugars and addition of whale follicular fluid on viability and in vitro maturation of vitrified whale oocytes.

    • Spatial analysis of isada krill (Euphausia pacifica) distribution in frontal environments in the North Pacific Ocean. GIS/spatial analyses in fisheries and aquatic science.

    • Migration of Antarctic minke whales to the Arctic.

    • Seasonal distribution of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in Japanese waters inferred from stranding and bycatch records.*


    Take a look at this "research", how many of those actually require killing of 1000's of whales in the southern ocean? Heck even one of them says "a case study in Sendai Bay, Japan"

    Just needs to just say... "hey we eat whales".... stop the "research" BS please! NO ONE is taking Japan seriously.

  • -2

    JapanGal

    I take them seriously.

    The above are great Doctoral Thesis research areas. Unless you have not gone through the grueling time of obtaining a PhD then you will not understand those topics and how important they are. Case rested.

  • 3

    Cricky

    All of which could have been done non-leathery , and certainly for far less tax dollars.

  • 3

    cleo

    The above are great Doctoral Thesis research areas. Unless you have not gone through the grueling time of obtaining a PhD then you will not understand those topics and how important they are. Case rested.

    That number of PhD theses wouldn't get anyone permission to sacrifice a handful of lab rats, never mind thousands of wild animals.

    (Semen Extenders......interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer.....pig oocytes.....Cloned Embryos.... vitrified whale oocytes??)

  • 0

    kwatt

    Japan would win lawsuit against Sea Shepherd as the name of Paul Watson is already in the black list of FBI and also extreme violence is illegal in high seas.

  • -9

    Kentaro75

    I am happy at least my goverment is standing up to the culture imprerialist American and Australians, and others. I am getting sick of my country being bullied for something we have in part of our culture, whaling. I m sure justice will prevail and we win. STOP CULTURE IMPERIALISM Sea Shepard Pirates, STOP ALWAYS BULLYING JAPAN BULLY USA AND AUSTRALIAN!!!

  • 3

    Mike Bird

    The rest of the world knows that Japanese whaling has nothing to do with scientific research, it's simply about making money in the Sushi industry. Whilst the Sea Shepherd might be infringing the law in it's efforts to stop whaling, the Japanese whalers (backed by a government) are simply bending international law to justify profit. Pity the Whales can't get sue!!!!

  • 0

    Utrack

    Excellent Post GoGoGo, Research can and should be conducted through observation of Whales in there Natural Habitat it does not mean lets go Hunting, The Hunting and Subsequent consumption of WHALE meat is Illegal in the US.

  • 1

    Utrack

    Japan should Hunt Whale in it's own waters NOT In a Whale Sanctuary where Whales are supposed to be safe from predators and or Hunters, That is a place where it is illegal to Hunt. So no I don't think this case will win.

  • 1

    Cricky

    Goodness 1 Issue, sure evocative. Bully? Don't agree with SS but do agree with the Southern Nations that have simply asked Japan to cease it's research in a designated Whale sanctuary. If it's traditional then do it in traditional areas. Arrest SS if they presume to interfere in Japan's territorial waters. Think raising battle flags is going a bit too far. Met to be modern nations secure in our own maturity.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Cleo: "So they decide what the result is going to be first, and then look for the data to prove what they've already decided? That's not scientific, and it's not research."

    Bang on, and exactly what I was saying. Killing whales to prove some are left cannot possibly be called science. What's amazing is how pro-whalers will try and spin it so that Japan is the victim in all this (look at Kentaro's comment as a prime example) instead of the aggressor (sending out its coast guard, I might add), or how spending money that could go towards people suffering in the north of Japan on said defense of whaling is somehow helping the suffering people and is justified. Now they're crying and want to sue SS in the USA? When the case is thrown out of court, and rightly so, they'll cry victim yet again and probably ask for Australia's help again to boot.

  • -2

    kwatt

    It really doesn't matter whether Japan's scientific research is legal or illegal as for the lawsuit in US. the big point is Sea Shepherd's extreme violence against vessels/ships is legal or illegal in high seas. It is very obvious that any violence is illegal in high seas, I think, never accepted it in any country. FBi think Paul Watson has been dangerous eco-terrorist. So Japan would win the case.

  • 0

    888naff

    its all about education to the american public for starters(as they wont have a good world view news)...if they then win their case all the better.

  • 2

    Jared Norman

    The sea shepherd guy is canadian not american. Whale wars will be fun to watch this year.

  • 3

    Cricky

    Never knew rancid butter was such scary weapon, must be a very bitter cow indeed! Sue the cows, they are udderly to blame or at least a contributing factor.

  • -1

    codomo

    good job j-gov. its very rare case of japan trying to fight against other countries. and i agree japanese have the right to preserve their own culture.

  • -1

    BlueWitch

    @condomo

    i agree the japanese have the right to preserve their own cutlure.

    Since when it is japanese culture to eat whale meat?! Since we lost WW2? Be kind to answer that.

  • -1

    Chris Jacques

    @Cleo. Actually coming up with a hypothesis, in your words "deciding what the result will be" and then trying to prove is 100% scientific, and it is research. You have an idea, you either prove or disprove it. That's what Japan is doing.

    @most people here- So because they don't do the american thing which would be kill the animal then throw it in the trash, instead they use it for food as they have done traditionally for hundreds of years, somehow this negates any research they're doing? WRONG, you can do both.

    Again, all you seem to know about this issue is what SeaShit tells you. Try reading up on it. Japan can legally whale, they are far under the safe quota, and SeaShit is a drug addicted hippie that needs to go to rehab.

    It's sad people treat the Japanese as if they are substandard. Why are you even on this site? Just to mock them?

  • 1

    Barbara Reder

    Sea shepherd are terrorist! Warson is too.. The reason i say that watching the show their methods against whaling could kill the person on the ship... Glad japan took them to court... Not that ot will help... The judge will favor watson ... That is what i think...

  • 3

    BlueWitch

    @Chris Jacques

    It's sad people treat the Japanese as if they are substandard. Why are you even on this site? Just to mock them?

    I've had the pleasure to know many posters in this forum and there are a few half-japanese and japanese among them, so are you trying to say that they are mocking Japan too?

    I don't see anyone here mocking Japan. What I see is people (including myself!) expressing their disgust at the Japanese government's lies, deceit and corruption.

  • 1

    vinnyfav

    Culture is not tradition. Just because something is "new" doesn't mean it is not cultural. Pop culture is a prime example. It is "pop culture" only because it is popular now. The moment the fad passes, it is no longer considered "pop" culture. Yet, it is culture all the same.

    That said, I don't believe the large majority of Japanese actually eat whale meat, either as culture or as tradition. There is some amount of stigma associated with whale meat, partly because of all the international attention on whale hunting, and partly because it is supposedly an acquired taste. Apparently, whale meat can taste pretty bad for some people.

    The Japanese rationale for whale hunting is supposedly based on scientific research. Whether or not this can be proven will require a qualified scientist to say. I doubt any of the posters here, me included, can claim that authority. Even amongst international authorities, however, the debate has not been concluded. It is safe to say, however, that the rationale Japan uses to support its hunts is barely acceptable at best, and an unsubtle veil to maintain the whaling industry at worst.

    Despite that, however, the Sea Shephard is one of the most obnoxious "environmental" groups out there. Besides using rotten butter and harrassing ships, they have been known for violent and life-endangering tactics. It is fact that such actions have been largely successful at stopping several hunts in the past, but the end does not justify the means. In any country other than Japan, the SS would have been met with a hail of bullets from the respective coast guards. The reason why Japan's whale hunts are targetted amongst all the countries that hunt whales is largely because the SS do not fear such retaliation.

    Going to the courts is an empty threat, lawyers can easily tie up such a case for years on end. However, it is the first step toward confronting illegal, violent, life-endangering antics on the seas.

  • 12

    Utrack

    The SS is no more violent than the Hunting of Whales in a Whale SANCTUARY which is extreme Violence. It's like Killing the Fish and Mammals is your local Aquarium for research purposes.

  • 12

    'Tadd' Armbruster

    Why do you need to KILL whales to see if whale stocks are robust? A simple radio tag can tell you more. Stop the Madness you know that all the meat is taken back and eaten. Own up to it Japan!

  • -1

    codomo

    bluewitch since around 5k years ago.

  • -2

    BlueWitch

    @codomo

    any verifiable resource/link?

  • 1

    codomo

    bluewitch

    sure. hope you can read japanese. ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/捕鯨

  • -3

    Iowan

    Many people do support whaling.

  • -7

    Alexandra Dickens

    JapanGalDEC. 09, 2011 - 04:57PM JST I am American and am not against the whaling, so some posters here are just talking from the cuff. I think whaling is good and it should continue. Sea Shepard is illegally being obnoxious.

    **Okay one, your name is Japan girl, implying you are Japanese but, you say you are American, well are you American or Japanese? In what way can whaling ever be good? I can not think of one reason in which it would be good.

    genji17DEC. 09, 2011 - 05:30PM JST Nice! Sea shepherd is gonna lose this one, since they are the only ones ACTUALLY breaking laws here. You might not like whaling, but the Japanese are abiding by the law...albeit a loophole, but because of the loophole it is LEGAL

    ** Which part of whaling, in a whale sanctuary and in Australian waters is legal? and also ramming, sinking and injuring (possibly killing) everyone onboard is legal? There has not been one crew member from any Japanese ship that has been injured by any doing of the Sea Shepherd.

    Barbara RederDEC. 09, 2011 - 08:30PM JST Sea shepherd are terrorist! Warson is too.. The reason i say that watching the show their methods against whaling could kill the person on the ship... Glad japan took them to court... Not that ot will help... The judge will favor watson ... That is what i think...

    ** Are you serious? have you only been watching part of the show because you clearly missed the part where the Japanese whaling vessel rammed their boat the Ady Gil to the point it sunk and various crew members had serious injuries. Now last time I checked not one crew member from the Japanese vessels have been injured by anyone on the Sea Shepherd.

    billyshearsDEC. 09, 2011 - 04:50PM JST Sea Shepherd, through its actions, does more harm than good for its cause not only as far as worldwide PR is concerned but also as far as Japanese public opinion is concerned. Neither the Japanese government nor many Japanese people (the vast majority of whom have never eaten, and will never have the inclination, to eat any whale meat) want to be seen controlled by a group of adventurers in a speed boat. Having seen those running the SS organization on TV, I get the feeling they'd be very disappointed if Japan ever did give up whaling. What would they do for a living then?

    **More harm them good, I am quite sure that Sea Shepherd has saved thousands of whales and has done this without physically harming one single person conducting the whaling. I am pretty sure that is a job well done!

  • -3

    Thomas Haynes

    the whalers messed up big-time taking this thing to court in seattle. pretty much guaranteed to lose.

  • 12

    cleo

    You have an idea, you either prove or disprove it. That's what Japan is doing.

    It isn't what Japan is doing. Japan is out to prove their idea, one way only. They start out with a preconceived result and they have no intention of disproving their idea, which is not scientific.

  • 1

    James Tanaka

    i am personally against SS and everything they do.. they are eco-terrorists and i hope their TV show gets cancelled and Paul Watson goes to prison and forced to eat prison food for the rest of his life.... and all SS ships gets sunk and/or scrapped... i can't believe people actually donate to these eco-terrorists..

  • 0

    herefornow

    Wow, cannot think of a worse PR move by Japan than this. If they think they are going to find a sympathetic court in the U.S., especially in Seattle, one of the most beautiful/natural/environmentally-concerned cities in the country, if not the world, it clearly shows how isolated Japan is from international politics and culture. The U.S. environmental lobby will have a field-day with this and Japan, even if it should somehow get its day in court, will wind up losing BIG TIME in the court of public opinion. What idiot approved this?

  • 2

    YuriOtani

    Well I would support a traditional hunt using traditional boats and spears etc. Getting no help from modern equipment. As for being anti Japanese, oh Please! It is anti whaling and is not a reflection of Japanese people. The whalers are of Japanese nationality and supported by the Tokyo government but they are not the will of the Japanese people. As for this lawsuit She Sheppard should sue in world court because Japan is breaking its agreement. The Whales are suppose to be studied not killed for food.

  • 3

    OssanAmerica

    Best news I've heard all day. Any organization with he slightest whiff of eco-terrorism is at a disadvantage in any US Federal Court. The only mistake the Whalers and ICR are making is that they aren't filing a seperate action against Discovery Channel and Animal Planet for damages.

    "Watson—who travels to Australia each year to lead activists in their efforts against the whale hunt—said that the ships his organization used were not owned by Sea Shepherd USA, nor were they US-flagged vessels. “The United States government and courts have no authority over these ships so I don’t know what they are hoping to achieve,” he said."

    Note how Watson boldy declares his intent to use subterfuge to escape any judgements against him/SS in the US court.. Well he's wrong because ships registered under foreign flags and corporate veils CAN be seized and arrested in foreign ports. Banks do it it all the time.

  • 1

    It"S ME

    YuriOtani.

    Would you also say the same for all the other natives that are allowed to hunt whales but use "modern" methods? BTW, explosive tipped harpoons and big ships were the norm 140yrs years ago.

    So define traditional or you still cling to images of 1000+yrs ago. You guys really need to sort your stuff out.

  • 3

    globalwatcher

    The Institute of Cetacean Research and Kyodo Senpaku are seeking a court order in the U.S. District Court in Seattle

    A wrong place to file the suit. Washington state is one of the most environmentally friendly state. Unless Japan can come up with research data including name of researchers, the purpose of research, Japan has no win here. Definitely, the court will issue summons to several Japanese researchers to testify in the court.

  • -3

    Alexandra Dickens

    I think every one is missing the point, whether we agree with whaling or not, whaling in a whale sanctuary is ILLEGAL whether for research or not!

    Clearly, it is not for research everyone knows this and whaling is just so completely heartbreaking and it is terrible that in this day and age it still continues. No one should have any legal right whether it be "tradition" or not to kill a whale. Many things have been traditions that just do not fit in this day and age, we are not living a hundred, two hundred years ago, this is 2011 and in mine, and many others opinions it is time to put an end to whaling.

    Also the Japanese say it will help their economy etc to continue whaling and produce whale meat for consumption. This may be true I am sure it would be of economic value to them in some ways but, I also know that millions of people would then "boycott" Japan and tourism would decrease immensely and due to the current environmental devastation tourism is already extremely low so it may be more economically beneficial for them to join the rest of the world in 2011 and leave behind whaling and make Japan the next tourism destination :)

  • 1

    Dotobock

    I fully support people to utilize in a sustainable manner a natural renewable resource. Not sure what Watson´s problem is, but the guy is fighting the wrong battles. Trying to stop Japan from hunting non endangered whales is pathetic, when for instance the most threatened whale species of all species the Right Whale is near the brink of extinction and they are in North America!! If the guy is serious about saving whales why doesn´t he focus on the Right Whale? The American government is responsible for the state the Right Whale is in at the current stage. All these hate filled posters on Japan Today are probably ignorant about the Right Whale. These people for the most parts are not driven by the love of whales but the hate of people who hunt whales for food. Does culture imperialism ring a bell?

  • 2

    Dotobock

    Global Watcher.

    A wrong place to file the suit. Washington state is one of the most environmentally friendly state.

    Is not eh Makah people from Washington State? If so, they hunt whales there too. I´d like to see Watson ramming boats into the native Americans.

    Actually whaling is very environmental friendly. As the natural habitat does not have to be turned into agricultural land and no pesticides needs to be used. It is energy efficient because you only use energy to harvest it and not to raise it like in a cow. Nor do you need to feed the whale. It perhaps is the most environmentally friendly food for human consumption.

  • 7

    globalwatcher

    millions of people would then "boycott" Japan and tourism would decrease immensely and due to the current environmental devastation tourism is already extremely low

    It is already happening. Nobody want to go to Japan for sightseeing due to high yen and radiation. This is not a great PR of Japan. When I see Yokoso at the airport, I always pray I will not be served whale meat and Fugu sashimi.

  • -4

    Alexandra Dickens

    @ dotobock

    Also the Right Whale is near extinction and is not being hunted. It does not reproduce at the same rates as other whales such as the humpback whale and is under threat from pollution, fishing nets and collisions with boats

  • 6

    OssanAmerica

    Good Bad globalwatcherDec. 09, 2011 - 03:49PM JST J. Govt does not realize how much Americans are against this. We probably see this on the news over and over >again. Good luck Japan.

    As an American I can tell you that you do not realize how much we hate all forms of terrorism. This will bury Sea Shepherd. Or at least force them to move an become an "Austalian" organization.

  • 5

    Dotobock

    Global Watcher.

    A wrong place to file the suit. Washington state is one of the most environmentally friendly state.

    People hunt whales in Washington State! The Makahs hunt whales for food there!! Why doesn´t SS ram boats into the native Americans? This is a legitimate question. Why is SS so obsessed with Japan? It looks clearly like hate against Japanese.

    I hope Japan wins but I am not holding my breath. I think education and dialogue is the way to go. Also getting new IWC members to vote for Japan.

  • 0

    Letsgo Zombies

    In an open letter to the Japanese government, published in 2002 in the New York Times and sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 21 scientists declared that they "believe Japan's whale 'research' program fails to meet minimum standards for credible science". They were "concerned that Japan's whaling program is not designed to answer scientific questions relevant to the management of whales; that Japan refuses to make the information it collects available for independent review; and that its research program lacks a testable hypothesis or other performance indicators consistent with accepted scientific standards". They accused Japan of "using the pretense of scientific research to evade its commitments to the world community.

  • 2

    It"S ME

    Where are all those millions of people boycotting japan & their products? Those the same people that boycott everything else that people don't agree with? and will bring about the changes we been hearing for the last few decades?

    Seen any Sushi or Ramen, etc shops recently closing down due to their boycotts? Japanese goods no longer selling?

    Get real.

  • 2

    Dotobock

    @Alexandra

    Also the Right Whale is near extinction and is not being hunted.

    Is this not ironic? Save the whale movement and the defender of The Whale Mr. Watson is completely ignoring whales which are clearly threatened, instead he uses his energy to stop Japan hunting non endangered whales.

  • 0

  • -2

    Letsgo Zombies

    scientific advances allow for the use of non-lethal techniques in cetacean research, such as biopsies or determination of cetatean dietary intake through analysis of DNA samples from whale feces. But of course feces doesn't sell as well.

  • -7

    Alexandra Dickens

    Environmentally yes whale meat would be more beneficial when looking at it from that stance but, I disagree with it from a different perspective which is the cruelty involved in harpooning them, the majority not dying immediately only to be dragged from the ocean.

    Whales are incredibly social animals and interact in ways that we may never fully understand and when you take away just one whale from a pod it has a devastating effect.

  • 2

    It"S ME

    But of course feces doesn't sell as well.

    Neither are they easily collected unless they are floaters. ;) Most whales spend of their time way deep down but they only produce feces on the surface?

    Asked before how can you take samples of a whales meat, etc that is under a 30-50cm fat-layer without hurting them. Still waiting for an answer it is going into years. Tried to try a needle into that layer?

  • -1

    It"S ME

    try = drive and it would take a harpoon.

  • -7

    Alexandra Dickens

    t"S MEDEC. 09, 2011 - 11:11PM JST Where are all those millions of people boycotting japan & their products? Those the same people that boycott everything else that people don't agree with? and will bring about the changes we been hearing for the last few decades?

    Seen any Sushi or Ramen, etc shops recently closing down due to their boycotts? Japanese goods no longer selling?

    Get real.

    ** Umm, maybe read my comment again, I have not said that it is currently happening. I have said that in my opinion it would be more economically beneficial for them as a large portion of the world disagrees with them. Also parts of Japan are extremely poor and after the recent environmental issues they have faced I am sure those millions of dollars people have donated here in Australia and other countries would be better spent actually fixing these communities

  • -1

    AnimuX

    What most people don't realize is this conflict did not begin recently with sea hippies throwing stink bombs at whalers on television. The fact is that Japan has a long history of violating and subverting international whaling regulations.

    The anti-whaling movement began when people were more informed about whales and that most large whale species were being decimated by the world's commercial whaling industries. The first direct action was taken against the Soviet Union and Iceland, Norway, even Australia, and other countries were soon the focus of protest and resistance.

    Historically, Japanese whalers have violated size limits, sanctuary boundaries, species protections, seasonal limits, all manner of quotas, and even facilitated pirate whaling (that's front companies - often setup by Taiyo fisheries - in foreign countries killing whales illegally in secret and smuggling the unreported meat to Japan).

    In fact, the first time Japan abused the "research loophole" was in 1976 to blatantly defy another International Whaling Commission decision. The IWC declared Bryde's whales quotas would be reduced to zero and Japan responded by issuing itself a "special permit" and then killing over 200 Bryde's whales the following season.

    So, the current abuse of the "research loophole" or Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is merely the latest incident in a long history of regulatory violations and criminal behavior.

    The research itself has been disputed as unnecessary for the management of whale stocks undermining one of the primary excuses given by the ICR and Japanese representatives. Non-lethal methods of study are perfectly adequate and the IWC has repeatedly called upon Japan to stop killing whales.

    Even the claims of interest in 'safety at sea' are entirely hollow considering video footage from Greenpeace campaigns against Japanese whaling before Sea Shepherd ever got involved. The recordings clearly show Japanese whalers firing their 80mm harpoon canons and sending explosive tipped projectiles flying just above the heads of Greenpeace activists who threw nothing but themselves between the whales and the whalers.

    The lack of concern for safety was also displayed prominently and recently with the willful destruction of a small activist boat by the whalers' "security ship". Not to mention past industrial accidents which were unrelated to anti-whaling protest that claimed the lives of whalers at sea and risked environmental disaster.

    Unfortunately, as explained by Jun Morikawa --author of Whaling in Japan: Power, Politics, and Diplomacy -- there are bureaucrats (or Amakudari) that expect to continue directing government subsidies to the commercial whaling industry through their fisheries budgets who often leave public office to take high paid jobs in that same commercial industry.

    So, the government of Japan will predictably continue to waste tax dollars on an internationally prohibited trade despite the immediate concerns of the Japanese people. The waste includes overseas development aid to developing countries to buy influence in the International Whaling Commission -- propaganda efforts within and outside of Japan -- funding the slaughter of endangered and non-endangered whales near and far from Japan -- and now legal action against the activists who work to force an ultimate end to the condemned commercial whaling industry.

  • -5

    Alexandra Dickens

    CrazyJoeDEC. 09, 2011 - 11:15PM JST Blow to whaling campaign: Sea Shepherd pilot denied visa:

    http://www.examiner.com.au/news/national/national/general/blow-to-whaling-campaign-sea-shepherd-pilot-denied-visa/2383218.aspx

    ** Clearly you aren't up to date as a Greens party politician in Australia days ago managed to get the pilot a visa :)

  • 0

    It"S ME

    Alexandra .

    It won't happen.

    1st for the simple reason that people got more important and pressing matters to worry about. 2nd that they won't go without stuff that they like regardless of what.

    Not going to quote what you said the millions would do.

  • 3

    globalwatcher

    As an American I can tell you that you do not realize how much we hate all forms of terrorism. This will bury Sea Shepherd. Or at least force them to move an become an "Austalian" organization

    Ossan America, I agreed fully.

  • 6

    Dotobock

    Anti whale is clearly culture imperialist. These people who have no tradition in eating whale meat is by force trying to make Japan quite eating whale meat as food. Also, people tend to mx up industrial whaling and the current whaling. Countries hunted whales for oil and not food. Japan, Norway, Iceland, Canada, USA hunt whales for food and not oil. Japan is hunting non endangered whales for food. This should be a non issue.

  • -6

    Alexandra Dickens

    @ its me

    I can guarantee you that thousands of people here in Australia would not visit Japan solely because of the cruelty they have towards animals, not just whales.

    Also the majority of stuff we buy here in Australia is from China haha not Japan so i don't think we would be missing out on much to be honest.

  • -5

    MasterBape

    @kentaro75: You often comment how Japan is a victim, but that's not so. When Japan hunts in international waters it can expect to have a certain amount of backlash from the international community. Both the Sea Shepherd and whalers are guilty of very aggressive tactics in the oceans. Neither side is being bullied. Japan has refused to stop whaling and has upped their tactics from the Tohoku funds. I'm sure that most Japanese would actually oppose that if given the choice. Maybe that's also part of your "culture".

  • -6

    Alexandra Dickens

    @ Dotobock

    I agree with that to an extent obviously from my view I think all whaling is terrible and should be stopped but, what the discussion is about is the legality of it all currently.

    If Japan was hunting in waters where it was completely legal for them to do so then, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on but, they are hunting in whale sanctuaries where it is illegal and this is the major problem

  • 3

    Dotobock

    I fully support whaling, and just don´t see anything wrong with killing animals for food. One should try to kill in a most humane way as possible and one should not over exploit the stock.

    The whale wars is ridiculous. I am afraid someone will get injured or even killed. It has gone too far, some kind of dialogue from both ends is needed. This is anything but good.

  • 1

    nigelboy

    It is not only Australia that is against whaling, I am quite sure that the majority of the world is against

    This is the "arrogance" that many people here have pointed out. What makes you so sure that the "majority" of the world is against it?

  • -6

    Alexandra Dickens

    @ nigel boy

    Have you watched, or read or even heard of any of the National Whaling Conferences in which every country attends and discusses the current situation?

    Well, if you had you would notice that a large portion of the world said no they did not agree with whaling so what I stated, and as you quoted was not arrogance, it was a fact.

  • 2

    It"S ME

    Alexandra.

    So the millions became thousands now, sure nearly everything is made now in China, much of which still uses japanese components same for US, etc products. Same much uses Japanese licences or patents but is not made in japan. Like I said empty gestures.

    BTw, I am not japanese but I do agree with whaling on a level that protects the whales. As for the majority that is against whaling we need proof for that.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Have you watched, or read or even heard of any of the National Whaling Conferences in which every country attends and discusses the current situation?

    There is no such thing is "National Whaling Conferences". Do you mean IWC? If so, not every country attends it for not every country is a member. Furthermore, if you are referring to the IWC, your statement that the "large portion of the world said no" is completely false.

  • -1

    kwatt

    Paul Watson and other guys of SS are so called eco-terrorists breaking international law and FBI think that way. I hardly think Judge saves/helps them.

  • -3

    BlueWitch

    @condomo

    blue witch

    sure. hope you can read japanese. ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/捕鯨

    why wouldn't I? This is my land!! Ishigakijima #1 Now if it was in English, hmm.....

  • -1

    notasap

    This whole waling things is pathetic! Japan looks the fool to the world and their argument, that it is scientific in nature, only undermines real scientific endeavors. In reality the issue is about nationalism. The neo-nationalist has found their wedge issue. The ability to whale is nothing less than nationalistic chest thumping. I guess when you choose not to reform your constitution so as to have an actual army or navy and you lose your economic status as number 2 economy to your geographical rivals you have to turn to something to feel proud about, and in Japans case that something is the slaughter of whales, despite the lack of interest in their meat as a food. It really is sad but by no means is this regressive behavior limited to Japan. The US, Russia, China and most other nations have their points of pride and many of them are as silly as whaling. In the end, going to the US courts may backfire as the venue will may bear fruit in this case but open them to being judged by the same system in regards to other points in the whaling debate. I wonder how Japanese nationalist will feel when the whaling operations are countersued over some minutia and forced to pay millions in punitive damages. I’m sure they will comply as readily as the Sea Sheppard folks will.

  • 0

    YuriOtani

    Mercury poisoning is a real danger and I think the government suppresses the health data to support whaling. So the supporters of hunting whales in a sanctuary are going to court to be able to keep violating the whaling agreement and sanctuary. What a beautiful example of doublethink.

  • -2

    Psyops

    Whale taste great! I want to have some more next time I swing by Japan. Good for Japan, its the American way to put in lawsuits for just about anything. I think Japan has a good chance of winning too. Good luck guys!

  • 5

    TigermothII

    Despite the fact that I agree whole-heartedly with their cause, I think these Sea Sheppard idiots - particularly Paul Watson - should be shot. And not even because they are liberal weirdos - but rather because they are a danger to themselves and everyone on the high seas. That they haven't killed themselves or anyone else yet is luck of the draw, but at current speed it's only a matter of time. Watching the show I've never seen a group of people less equipped from the standpoint of knowledge base about operating a vessel at sea, or about common sense regarding much of what they do. I watch the show grimacing at how inept they seem to actually be. Passion for a cause is an admirable thing (well, depending upon the cause) but does not make one expert at anything. I know they hire people that are supposedly experienced in various sea crafts, but it seems more like they just thrash about with reckless abandon. Catapulting objects onto the decks of a ship while recklessly passing dangerously close - while it has not resulted in injury or death so far, give it time.

    The Japanese research claims are known rubbish - and I can't understand why they - and others on here - argue so vehemently for whaling if most people do not eat or even like the stuff. The reason has to be purely economic.

    Also, I don't understand the human ethos that just because we speak a common language (to ourselves) and can write, that no other animal in the plain of existence has any viable thought, emotion or right to not be savagely hunted and killed in a gruelingly inhumane way. All animals (man included) are prey. We hunt - and while we've risen to an evolutionary level where not much hunts us - occasionally it still does happen. But in my mind we shouldn't have an arrogance to the point that we think no other animals have thoughts, feelings and suffer from the slings and arrows of life. It's convenient to believe when you're sitting down to a hamburger, but considering how little of nature and existence scientists really understand, it's a bit asinine to not at least not pause to consider.

    Killing whales with harpoons is best left in previous centuries when human beings did so for survival.

  • 0

    TigermothII

    that last sentence should say: 'it's a bit asinine to not at least pause to consider'.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    YuriOtani

    We live in the world where most all food items are somewhat contaminated with aflatoxin, hormones, irradiation, residual chemicals, etc. Simply singling out mercury while ignoring others has been the norm for anti-whalers. Furthermore, if you're worried about mercury contents, you should be more concerned about the whales caught in local areas as opposed to Minke whales caught in Southern Oceans for they are virtually minimal in terms of mercury contents.

    http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2003/01/h0116-4.html

  • 5

    Dotobock

    If we think about the global environment which is a concern it is not whaling which threatens this planet, it is chemicals in the oceans, cutting down the forest. To think whales is a battle for saving the global environment is fighting the wrong battles.

  • 3

    TigermothII

    Ah, but maybe it isn't about being a battle to save the planet, but rather a battle to save our humanity - at the risk of sounding very corny. Rather than being allowed to say we can slaughter another living creature just because we can, and because it makes the almighty dollar - perhaps this is a battle to say - WTF, why don't we just enjoy something in nature rather than setting about to destroy it? A few school children or old folks in Japan gnawing on whale meat isn't going to make or break Japanese society nor the world economy. Life isn't always about money or satisfying one's own selfish desires. Will people starve without this whale meat? I doubt it.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    Will people starve without this whale meat? I doubt it.

    No. But you can say that for other protein food as well. From an environmental balance standpoint, it makes sense to utilize sources that are sustainable.

  • -1

    Utrack

    If Japan were cloning and replacing the whales hunted, then I would agree about them being a sustainable food product. But the hunting of whale in a No hunt zone (whale sanctuary) is just wrong.

  • 4

    It"S ME

    A no-hunt zone that is recognised by 5/6 nations out of how many globally?

    Yet, I hear many more nations are against the hunts but yet don 't officially recognise that area. Hrm.

    Now why can that be? Or are countries playing here for political favours/rewards. Nah, can't be no-one would stoop that low.

  • -2

    Utrack

    A no-hunt zone that is recognised by 5/6 nations out of how many globally?

    And How many Nations Hunt Whale?? That should factor into the Nations who openly recognize the Whale Sanctuary as such.

  • -1

    globalwatcher

    People hunt whales in Washington State! The Makahs hunt whales for food there!! Why doesn´t SS ram boats into the native Americans? This is a legitimate question. Why is SS so obsessed with Japan?

    The reason is a type of whales Japan are going after is almost near extinction They annually hunt down 850.

  • 3

    gelendestrasse

    Lot of hyperbole and not much fact here. First, the IWC treaty allows "scientific" hunting and that definition is big enough to sail a ship through. On that score Japan hasn't done anything wrong. On the other hand it's rather amazing that Austrailia thinks they can legally declare a "sanctuary" and then enforce it if the rest of the world, or even the IWC or the UN, don't recongnize their claim. But since the Aussies aren't enforcing it I guess we have their answer. Comparing the number of countries that recognize the "sanctuary" versus the number of countries that hunt whales is a sophistry. But why sue SS in the US? Because if there is a big judgement against SS and Watson it will take money from their operation. Just the defense will cost money. And, if the judgement is large enough, liens could be placed on the SS vessels so the couldn't leave port. That would slow SS down a bit.

  • 5

    OssanAmerica

    Whaling or not whaling, sanctuaries, research are all not part of this lawsuit, which, from the extent presently made public will seek a court order restraining SS from acts of violence. It will not even seek to keep them from peacefully protesting against whaling. Contrary to the many unlearned comments above it will not be difficult to get a court order to stop SS's actions, even if for the interim period until the case is heard and finalized, because SS themselves are the biggest source of evidence against them. This may prevent SS from taking any action this season unless they are prepared to break a court restraining order. For those not aware, doing so may expose them to arrest. The Japanese whalers, having asked Australia for protection and having filed this action have covered themselves for the inevitable loss of life that will occur as a result of Sea Shepherd's continued acts of violence.

  • 1

    SSCSforever

    How do you think that Japan's case will hold? Sea Shepherd is violent? If you don't remember, the Japanese whalers threw brass bolts, golf balls, and bamboo spears into the small inflatable boats with the intent to hurt people. They also threw flash grenades and shot at the crew on the Steve Irwin. The have numerously aimed the LRAD at the helicopter pilot. FYI, it can cause him to crash into the freezing Antarctic waters where he will freeze to death in minutes. Ohh, sorry for making your boats a little smelly.

  • -3

    Alexandra Dickens

    Sea Shepherd will win, if not them, another group because I can guarantee you now, people are not going to let Japan just do whatever they want and whaling is going to stop and until it does people are going to make it as difficult as they can for every single one of those "research" ships.

  • -2

    Andre Hut

    Japan is completely without honor when it comes to whaling. The Australian government should defend its territorial waters and the whale sanctuary it created. Japan is in violation of an Australian Federal Court order to stop illegal poaching in its waters.

    I will be sending in my check to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society today....

  • 5

    OssanAmerica

    "How do you think that Japan's case will hold? Sea Shepherd is violent? If you don't remember, the Japanese whalers threw brass bolts, golf balls"

    Fortunately, in a court of law, the party that approaches the other with the declared intent to harass and interfere with their operations and takes the first hostile actions will be looked upon as the aggressor, All of the acts that the Whalers are accused of qualify as self defense, because they are not the ones approaching the SS vessels. Their only interest in in approaching the whales, a subject which is not part of this law suit. It's about time that the frothing-at-the mouth uneducated SS sheep with no concept of law and order get a lesson in growing up.

  • 0

    James Tanaka

    This is legitimate research... Japanese are researching how whale tastes!..... and one day when i go to Japan to visit..i am looking forward to a big fat juicy whale burger!!!.... oishii !

  • 0

    James Tanaka

    Only a complete moron would give SS any money at all!

  • 2

    Parmen

    The only terror I see is perpetrated on whales. The stereotypical bullying behavior I see reminds me of the exposed coward who runs to the school teacher when he gets hurt in a fight he started. Donate and defy the miserable Australian government. Support the admirable work of SS, most of us in our hearts would like to be there. These heroes put themselves in the line of danger. Respect their efforts and decease from calling them terrorists.

  • -3

    ignoranttolerance

    OssanAmerica,

    Fortunately, in a court of law, the party that approaches the other with the declared intent to harass and interfere with their operations and takes the first hostile actions will be looked upon as the aggressor, All of the acts that the Whalers are accused of qualify as self defense, because they are not the ones approaching the SS vessels. Their only interest in in approaching the whales, a subject which is not part of this law suit. It's about time that the frothing-at-the mouth uneducated SS sheep with no concept of law and order get a lesson in growing up.

    Honestly, I don't think you know how the American judicial system works. First of all, the US government does NOT have any jurisdiction over this case. Because the ships are not US endorsed (for lack of a better word) they have NO jurisdiction over them in international waters. If these ships were in American waters, yes, then there would be jurisdiction, but we are talking international waters here. If these ships were US endorsed, then there would be jurisdiction. In response to the "loophole" that the Japanese whalers are abusing, if the case was brought the US federal court, I think the judge would look past the "legal loophole" and dig deeper to see if a true violation was occurring on the title of "research". The United States legal system isn't DEFINITE. Again, the United States has no real jurisdiction over this case unless it is filed in International court. The US district court will again look at the actions of the Japanese whalers in response to the SS actions. Honestly, I don't think "self defense" will be even considered by the court because an organization acting in self defense? No. Even so, if the judge finds anything that he doesn't consider an act of "self-defense" (which will be pretty much everything that the whalers of done), the court will throw out the case. Throwing spears at another ship "in self defense" in reality, is not self defense.

  • 2

    kwatt

    Throwing spears at another ship "in self defense" in reality, is not self defense.

    I saw the videos, footages times, but I've never seen Japanese whalers throwing spears to Sea Shepherd ships. but It probably makes a sense if you were in there. Mostly SS guys threw things to Japanese whalers ships.

  • -2

    Christopher Blackwell

    Of course we must protect the whale industry millionaires at all cost. I can see the future headline, JAPAN KILLS THE LAST WHALE. Research paper discovers that the whales were not reproducing fast enough to recover from whaling ships. Whale industry millionaire says so sorry and he goes check on his big fortune and pays off his favorite politicians.

    I wishGreen Peace every success. If they need bigger and better armed ships, I am sure they can raise the money for it. The case will be thrown out of court as US courts have no jurisdiction over international seas.

  • 2

    Disillusioned

    Was just reading an article on Yahoo explaining how this action could put an end to Japan's whaling for ever. The Oz gov is gonna intervene and use this as a platform for their case against whaling. It seems Japan may have shot themselves in the foot with this action.

  • -2

    Patrick Hattman

    smithinjapan wrote:

    So... they need to kill a bunch to prove there's some left? and they call that 'science'??

    What is the problem with the whaling if the primary catch is a whale like the plentiful minke?

    I've enjoyed a lot of your contributions here over the years, but I just don't get your take on this issue.

  • 3

    Dotobock

    There is a lot of misinformation here. Japan hunting 700 or 800 mink whales from a stock of 700,000 does not pose a threat. While, I have a great respect for conservation and environmental groups such as Green Peace and in principle I can respect SS as they want to defend the oceans from over exploitation but Watson and SS has lost the plot.

  • 4

    Dotobock

    I wonder why Sea Shepherd does not use all it's resources to save the Right Whale? This is the most critically endangered whale in this world. USA is steadily driving the first large whale to extinction – the right whale. Only a few hundred of them remain. They are mainly killed by ship strikes and entanglements. Harpoons have not been pointed at them for centuries. The US government is not doing much. It may have severe economic consequences for cargo ships and thus also an economic cost for the average American if the area where the right whale exists were to be shut off from traffic.

    Ignorance of the plight of the North Atlantic right whale demonstrates that all these save-the-whale groups are not guided by love to the whales, but hate for the whalers, Japanese whalers in particular. If they were guided by compassion and love, the future for the right whale would have been bright.

  • 4

    Dotobock

    Global Watcher.

    The reason is a type of whales Japan are going after is almost near extinction They annually hunt down 850.

    Please be more specific. Japan takes 700 or 800 mink whales from a stock of 500 to 700,000. In Washington I think Bowhead whales are hunted and there are 10,500 of them. Now please do the maths. So if we were to think about whales. It would make more sense of SS to first fight the America government then the Native Americans then Japan.

  • 0

    littlebear

    Go SEA SHEPHERD! I support you. I don't see the value in whaling for school kyushoku lunches. We need a balanced biosphere.

  • -3

    codomo

    i think science isnt the only purpose of hunting whales. however j-gov doesnt want to say that to hunt for protecting their own culture in order to avoid conflicting with animal fancies.

    anyway, lets roll japan. teach the sea terrorists how to fight that not using any weapon. only my concern is if SS sends rocket launcher to the court as usual though.

  • 2

    Al Stewart

    They do need to find more peaceful ways to protest or intervene.

  • 0

    Al Stewart

    But hey is this what the 30million dollars taken from the Fukushima donations is being used for?

  • -4

    Letsgo Zombies

    Does anyone have Gojira's phone number? I've got a job for him...

  • 2

    It"S ME

    "Gojira" is now called the "Brigitte Bardot" after SS got hit with a C&D(Cease & Desist order) for unauthorised use of a copyrighted name.

  • 2

    VicMOsaka

    Instead of picking on Japan all the time, why doesn't anyone mention whaling by Norway and Iceland ?

  • -1

    SSCSforever

    kwatt, Proof that the whalers have throw a spear at the small, inflatable SS boats.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmKOFFJfkVw

  • -3

    Letsgo Zombies

    Oh, I meant THE Gojira himself >;D

  • 0

    amerijap

    Although I'm definitely not sympathetic to Sea Shepherd--not because of what they are doing--but because of the way they are practicing what they preach, the plaintiffs (i.e, Institute of Cetacean Research) are apparently going nuts by filing a lawsuit in the country that belongs to no one. Note: Paul Watson is a Canadian! It's less likely to expect the Washington State Court to put jurisdictions to the defendants--even though the group has a branch in the US. And, most of the business interests ICR shares are not under the protection of the US law because they don't have a clear connection.

  • -7

    Alexandra Dickens

    @ Dotobok

    According to the IWC in 2010 there were approximately 7,800 right whales remaining on the planet and in the year of 2010 it is estimated that the numbers rose 7-8% which is great because they also have an extremely low reproduction rate so their numbers are actually increasing.

  • -5

    Alexandra Dickens

    Also, I keep seeing all of these comments saying Sea Shepherd is "bullying" Japan and why aren't they doing anything about the remaining countries who claim they are whaling for "scientific" purposes.

    Shutting down half of the Spanish whaling fleet Documentation of whaling activities in the Faeroe Islands chronicled in the BBC documentary Black Harvest Scuttling half of the Icelandic whaling fleet and whale processing station Scuttling of the Norwegian whaling vessels Nybraena and Senet In July of 2000, the Ocean Warrior sails to the Færoe Islands to intervene against the annual slaughter of pilot whales. Once again, the issue of the hunt is brought to the front pages of the European media. Sea Shepherd brought economic pressure to bear against those companies still purchasing seafood from the Faeroes - representing 90% of their economy - most prominently Dutch-based giant Unilever. Over 20,000 European retail outlets terminated their Færoese fish contracts at Sea Shepherd's request. In the fall of 1998, at the urging of the commercial whaling industries of Norway and Japan, with promises of lucrative future trade, the Makah Indian tribe claimed a right to resume whale hunting pursuant to a guarantee in their 1855 treaty with the U.S., but in contravention of subsequent international conservation law. Sea Shepherd sent two ships to Neah Bay, Washington, to protect the gray whales. They were joined on the water by a flotilla of local citizens and other anti-whaling activists. Despite mob violence, arrest, and official harassment, the coalition of activists shields the local whales and succeeds in focusing enough media attention to the hunt to make the Makah stand down without taking a single whale. In 1998, the illegal Norwegian whaler Morild, owned by the most notorious whale killer in Norway - Stienar Bastesen - was sunk. In September 1997, Sea Shepherd Pacific Northwest Director Michael Kundu covertly enters Siberia with a media crew to document the killing of whales by Siberian natives. Although his life is threatened, he returns to report to the International Whaling Commission meeting in Monaco. The film crew brings back evidence of the illegal commercial whale hunt, including footage of butchered whales being processed into feed for fox fur farms. Russia continues to claim the slaughter as a "subsistence" hunt, exempt from the moratorium whaling.

    Now this is just some of the many campaigns that the Sea Shepherd has conducted where Japan is not involved and as you can see, they have been successful in every single one. Japan is seriously going to regret bringing this all out in the open for the world to see as Australia's court case against Japan is only growing stronger.

  • 0

    CrazyJoe

    Whales don't bother me and I don't bother them. Any animal that humans kill and eat is beautiful.

  • -1

    lostrune2

    They better hire some good U.S. lawyers!

  • 6

    davidattokyo

    Alexandra Dickens, the right whale has several distinct populations globally. In the case of the northern-right whale, they do number only a few hundred, and if this population dies out that stock of whales will be gone forever. Successful conservation requires conservation of each individual stock. The Antarctic minke whale that Japan is interested in harvesting sustainably is not in anyway endangered.

  • 4

    davidattokyo

    There are a lot of legal experts here, its enlightening.

    There is a history in the US of bringing eco-terrorists to justice, including Canadian citizens, so we will surely enjoy watching developments closely.

  • 3

    Dotobock

    Alexandra Dickens. There are 300 right whales off the coast of USA and the number is decreasing and the American government nor Sea Shepherd are not doing anything to prevent this trend. The mink whale in the Least Concern category or “widespread and abundant” species. These are the whales Japan is hunting. They are no where near being endangered. Why fight tooth and nail to protect a widespread and abundant species?

    http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/2474/0

    Instead of fighting whaling, environmentalists should promote whaling as an environmentally-friendly food production and let their go of their backward culture imperialist mind set.

    SS is obsessed with whalers, especially Japanese whalers and ignoring whales which need to be protected.

  • -6

    Alexandra Dickens

    Dotobock.

    I never said that there weren't approximately 300 in that region, what I am saying is the numbers are increasing, slowly and not enough but, it is a step in the right direction. Also I think there are also obvious reasons in which people are against whaling whether they are endangered or not. This is obvious as you have said, the whales in which the Japanese hunt are not endangered. Yes we have established this dozens of times. What I am saying is people disagree with whaling for separate reasons other then whether they are endangered or not. They may disagree with it as they view it as cruelty. I really think that you need to drop the poor Asian routine you have going here to be honest, you keep going on about culture imperialism and it has absolutely nothing to do with that, if you travelled here you would see the amount of Asian people we have living here and not just Asians, people from every culture and country. This is not an issue of "cultures" and whether certain countries feel they are "superior" to one another, it is about laws that are in place and ultimately what the final decision is on whether whaling should made legal because clearly there are a lot of people with very strong beliefs on the issue and that is for a reason so we will just have to wait and see what the world decides.

  • 3

    Dotobock

    Alexandra Dickens

    While the overall numbers of right whale might be increasing the USA and the Canadian stock is decreasing. It is almost extinct. There are 300 left. Is this not ironic? Steve Watson who is from Canada is completely ignoring the whales in his home country! Instead he is fighting Japanese whalers hunting non endangered whales. It is absurd. All though I do not have any problem with whaling I think whalers should not over exploit whale stocks. A sustainable hunt is what I agree to and support.

    Right whales are threatened by human activities which cause at least 50% of all right whale mortalities. This includes entanglement in fishing gear, habitat degradation and ship strikes. In fact, ship strikes alone account for 37% of known whale deaths since 1986.

    http://www.defenders.org/wildlifeandhabitat/wildlife/right_whale.php

    I urge Steve Watson to do something useful and save the whales which need to be protected by pressuring his own government and the American government to make a sanctuary where no ships are allowed to enter to save the right whale.

    This is not an issue of "cultures" and whether certain countries feel they are "superior"

    I think it is. Whales might be magnificent animals to some and should not be touched and that is perfectly fine, while others see it a mobile source of protein. Whalers used to call whales the gold of the sea. In Japan there are Buddhist graves for whales. Japanese have been hunting whales for 2000 years. It is obvious that many Japanese will get irritated when people from other cultures who has no culture in eating whales tell Japanese to stop eating whale meat. This decision is up to the Japanese themselves to decide and not some outsider with an imperialist mindset.

  • -9

    Alexandra Dickens

    Okay yes it is terrible about the right whales but you are saying we should continue whaling, which uses ships, continue fishing etc also uses nets/ships etc which are the very things that are killing the right whales!!! what the hell haha So the solution is to continue doing this but, all fishing boats must not leave from ports in that area?

    I agree hopefully Paul Watson (who is steve watson?) and the SS do put focus also onto the decline in other whale populations.

    Okay so would you agree if the world decided okay yes Japan can commence whaling legally but, in Japanese waters only and that is all, if they breach this they will be charged?

    I dont like how this conversation is all very separated as people, we are all living on the same planet, with matters concerning the ocean internationally then it should be an international issue in which there is a "vote" and all opinions are collected so that there then is an informed decision.

  • -9

    Alexandra Dickens

    @ Letsgo Zombies Finally someone who has some actual sense!!!

    Seriously whoever reads this, go up through the comments and you will notice that every question that is asked of someone that is pro-whaling, the response is "opinion" based and there are no actual facts. They point out bits that are convenient for them and disregard everything else

  • 0

    AnimuX

    Unfortunately, pro-whalers often use emotional arguments when defending the whaling industry against critics and activists. They like to pretend that every ancestor of Japan was a whaler to support false claims that the rest of the world opposes Japanese whaling because of cultural bias.

    It is true that Japan conducted organized whaling in the 1600s in isolated coastal villages like Taiji. There were many men in open boats with spears and nets who would hunt whales near shore with funding from wealthy individuals.

    However, at the start of the 20th century, Juro Oka introduced Norwegian whaling methods, equipment, and even actual Norwegian whalers as crew to create the first modern whaling company in Japan. These non-traditional aspects of modern whaling were intended to mass produce whale oil and starting in the early 20th century that's exactly what Japanese whalers did -- they sold whale oil to western countries for margarine production.

    Also, traditionally, Japan's whaling was conducted near shore in local waters. With the introduction of modern steel powered ships, harpoon canons, and factory ships with refrigeration, the whaling industry quickly exhausted local stocks and spread out as far as Antarctica. The culture of whaling was abandoned in favor of profitable, industrial, mass production.

    Today, the industry has secured enough political support through amakudari and nationalist propaganda to use excuses like 'culture' as a defense for violating and subverting international conventions. The anti-whaling movement formed because the world's whaling industries (including Japan) had nearly wiped out every species of large whales.

    Japan annually kills: Endangered Fin whales Endangered Sei whales Vulnerable Sperm whales Bryde's whales (population uncertain) Common Minke whales (many from the vulnerable J-stock) Antarctic Minke whales (IUCN data suggests this species may be in decline)

    Not to mention the coastal slaughter of up to 20,000 dolphins (including rare beaked whales)

    Or the fact that Japan acts as the world market for whale meat by importing endangered Fin whale from Iceland.

    Or that Japan uses its economic power to influence developing nations with aid money in exchange for votes in the IWC.

    Or that the International Whaling Commission has repeatedly called upon Japan to stop killing whales.

    Only a tiny fraction of Japan's population actually consumes whale meat and without the inclusion of whale in school lunches by the government most Japanese children would never know the taste of whale. So much for tradition...

    Whaling is not necessary for food security of economic prosperity within Japan or any industrialized nation. The industry only continues in order to profit a select few at the expense of national reputation and the subversion of international conservation efforts. Anti-whaling activists confronted the Soviet Union, Iceland, Norway, and even Australia long before working against Japanese whalers. Examination of the facts and history of modern whaling show that opposition to whaling is both legitimate and indiscriminate.

  • 6

    Dotobock

    Sorry but who says there are that many minkes? The JWA the ICR. As far as lm aware the IWC have not settled on a diffinitive number as of this moment. So you ask people to believe the group with a vested interest in hunting them for the population figures. No thanks

    Stock estimates.

    http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/2474/0

    IWC says somewhere around 500,000 to 1,000,000 with 95% certainty. Greenpeace says between 490,000 880,000. This is not endangered. If Japan hunts 7 or 800 this does not pose a threat to the stock. Minke whales are off the red list and in the least concern category. So if you want to be against whaling, it is other reasons than conservation reasons.

    > Indeed and most of the countries against whaling in the Southern ocean are in fact former whaling nations themselves.

    Which hunted whales for oil and not food like Japan, Canada, USA, Indonesia, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Russia Denmark among others.

    Again imperialist is 1 nation ignoring the wishes of at least twenty nations.

    The majority world view is not anti whale it is pro sustainable use of a natural renewable resource. In the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) the majority supported a sustainable use of a natural renewable resource including whales. Why are people so concerned about whales? Why not cows or kangaroos? Japan is not trying to change any culture. Where as countries such as Australia is, therefore Australia is acting like imperialists and not Japan.

  • 9

    OssanAmerica

    ignoranttoleranceDec. 10, 2011 - 09:46AM JST Honestly, I don't think you know how the American judicial system works. First of all, the US government does NOT >have any jurisdiction over this case.

    Yes it does. SSCS is registered and exists under the laws of the United Startes, maintaning their head office in Washington State. This of course is no secret.

    Because the ships are not US endorsed (for lack of a better word) they have NO jurisdiction over them in >international waters.

    The word you are looking for is "registered", ie; flying the U.S flag. Ships throughout the world are owned and operated by one-ship shell corporations. In must cases such owning companies are of a different country and the vessel's flag of registry is another country, It is a relatively simple procedure to prove a direct relationship between the vessels and their actual controlling interests. This is all the more so in the case of SSCS which proudly declares these vessels as their "fleet" on their website and in their literature.

    If these ships were in American waters, yes, then there would be jurisdiction, but we are talking international >waters here. If these ships were US endorsed, then there would be jurisdiction.

    If an injunction is ordered by the Federal Court for SS to cease its activities pending the outcome of this case, the SSCS vessels no matter where they are would be subject to arrest and detainment. because such an order would be recognized by a court of another country on the basis of comity. Just recently the Tuna fishermen of Malta filed an acition against SSCS in a Maltese court and were able to arrest a SSCS vessel in a UK port. In other words, unless the SSCS vessels intend to remain out at sea in international waters indefinitely with no port calls for replenishment of fuel and provisions, they will eventually be arrested and detained.

    In response to the "loophole" that the Japanese whalers are abusing, if the case was brought the US federal court, >I think the judge would look past the "legal loophole" and dig deeper to see if a true violation was occurring on the >title of "research".

    You are barking completely up the wrong tree. The complaint has NOTHING to do with whaling, research, commercial or otherwise. It has to do with acts of violence at sea. Therefore a judge and the court is not going to waste time addressing issues not in the complaint. Likewise any defense arguments going on ad infinitum about "whaling" will be disregarded.

    The United States legal system isn't DEFINITE.

    In cases where the evidence is overwhelming, Yes it is. SSCS has a long history of violence at sea and proudly sell a Sea Shepherd T-shirt listing the ships they have sunk or damaged. SSCS also has a long history of run-ins with law enforcement agencies of other countries.

    Again, the United States has no real jurisdiction over this case unless it is filed in International court. The US district >court will again look at the actions of the Japanese whalers in response to the SS actions. Honestly, I don't >think "self defense" will be even considered by the court because an organization acting in self defense? No. Even >so, if the judge finds anything that he doesn't consider an act of "self-defense" (which will be pretty much everything >that the whalers of done), the court will throw out the case. Throwing spears at another ship "in self defense" in >reality, is not self defense.

    I have already addressed all of those issues and you are simply repeating your utterly unlearned wishful thinking. Therefore please refer to my previous answers.

  • 7

    arrestpaul

    The eco-terrorist SS is based in Washington state, U.S.A., This lawsuit is intended to curtail the activities of the eco-terrorist SS USA organization. A "successful" lawsuit could allow U.S. authorities to detain and confiscate any eco-terrorist SS vessels that sail into U.S. ports to pay for any judgements against the eco-terrorist organization.

    That shouldn't bother the eco-terrorist Watson too much because he doesn't pay for his scows anyway. It's the PRO-VIOLENCE supporters of eco-terrorism who foot the bills. Eco-terrorist Watson abandonded the SS scow "Farley Mowat" after the Canadian Coast Guard seized the vessel for deliberately ramming them. Eco-terrorist Watson can always try to scam another senile old ex-entertainer/movie star to buy him something else to ram whaling and fishing ships with.

  • 6

    arrestpaul

    AnimuX - Unfortunately, pro-whalers often use emotional arguments when defending the whaling industry against critics and activists.

    Hahahaha. The eco-terrorist Watson and his SS have no legal authority to attack any vessels anywhere in the world. The whalers are operating in international water NOT Australian waters. The whalers have every right to defend themselves from attack. The minke whale is NOT endangered. The IWC is actually a WHALING organization. Scientific research is still scientific research (whether you approve of it or not). The remains of the whales are not wasted. No emotion involved, just facts.

    It's the pro-violence supporters of the eco-terrorist SS that continually resort to emotional diatribe to end all whaling because they think whales are cute.

  • 5

    OssanAmerica

    AnimuX - Unfortunately, pro-whalers often use emotional arguments when defending the whaling industry against critics and activists.

    No that is completely incorrect. In fact, there are few if any "emotional" arguments anyone can use to support whaling. It is the anti-whaling faction that relies entirely on "emotion" due to the inability to present any objective rational argument based on fact or law. That, plus denial of facts and law to suit their position.

  • 5

    Dotobock

    Anti whale is driven due to religious reasons. Stock estimates are not important. They want to ban whaling at all costs no matter the stock estimates. The objective of IWC is to promote sustainable whaling on the basis of scientific knowledge. It is totally unacceptable that Australia which is an IWC member completely ignores the purpose and objective of IWC. They have signed an agreement and work against their agreement which they have signed on. Their claim to international waters is out right stupid and childish.

    What is ironic, is that that scientific whaling is more controversial than commercial whaling. Instead of scientific whaling, one alternative is commercial whaling conducted on conditions that make it possible to gather scientific data. Accusations against scientific whaling operations are commercial whaling in disguise. Japan should do commercial whaling and scientific in disguise. It ends up in the stomach in any case. Get over it.

  • 6

    Dotobock

    I have come with 100 reasons to why whaling is OK, so I woun't bother coming with more reasons. Japan is partly to be blamed for the situation they gotten themselves into. Norway put in an objection at IWC where as Japan didn't because they were afraid of other countries. Today, Norway hunts commercial and gets no where near the same hassle as the Japanese, the only way Japan ca hunt whales is scientific. If they had been smarter though they would have by now, been able to hunt commercial. Either way, anti whalers like to put all these labels on whaling. Scientific, commercial, aboriginal. Why not just call everything whaling and get it over with.

  • 1

    AnimuX

    One comment claims the Minke whale is not classified as endangered which is correct - overall.

    However, Japanese whalers often take Minke whales from the J-stock which is quite vulnerable and objections have been repeatedly made concerning over exploitation of this stock near to Japan.

    Also, the IUCN has data which suggests the Antarctic Minke whale population has declined as much as 50% over the last three generations which would classify the species as endangered. Currently the Antarctic Minke whale is designated as "data deficient" by the IUCN.

    Of course, Japan also annually kills endangered Fin whales, endangered Sei whales, vulnerable Sperm whales, and Bryde's whales (population uncertain).

    Japan also imports the meat of endangered Fin whales from Iceland and slaughters up to 20,000 dolphins including rare beaked whales.

  • 1

    AnimuX

    Pro-whalers often claim that the rest of the world is "out to get" Japan for cultural, racial, and other conspiratorial reasons. These emotional claims of attacks from the western bogey-man are most often used to deflect any debate from legitimate objections to commercial whaling.

    1) Nearly ever species of large whale was driven to the brink of extinction (some to less than 10% of their original numbers) by commercial whaling.

    2) As a result the International Whaling Commission, in a democratic decision, prohibited all commercial whalng.

    3) Japan's whalers have historically violated size limits, species protections, seasonal limits, quotas, and sanctuary boundaries.

    4) Japan setup front companies in foreign countries (mostly though Taiyo fisheries) to kill whales outside of the IWC, without adhering to whaling regulations, and to smuggle the unreported meat to Japan. This is referred to as 'pirate whaling'.

    5) Japan has abused Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling to purposely defy whaling regulations established under Article V of the ICRW. Including the moratorium on commercial whaling and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

    6) The International Whaling Commission has repeatedly called on Japan to stop killing whales.

    7) Scientists within and outside of the IWC have asserted that lethal research is not necessary for managing whale stocks and that non-lethal methods of study are sufficient.

    8) There is no humane way to kill a mammal the size of a city bus.

    9) The Norwegian methods of whaling used by Japan for mass production of whale meat are not 'traditional'. Neither is hunting whales in Antarctica.

    10) Whale meat was only a 'substitute meat' during the post WWII recovery and when Japanese families could afford other meats they stopped purchasing whale. Today only a tiny fraction of the Japanese population eats whale meat.

    11) The 'tradition' of whaling is historically limited to certain isolated coastal villages like Taiji. However, in other parts of Japan whales were considered sacred and never consumed -- a fact that is rarely mentioned by pro-whalers who like to pretend that all Japanese people were once whalers.

    12) Whaling is not only economically insignificant, but is subsidized by the government of Japan in order to profit entrenched bureaucrats (amakudari) who often leave public office to take high paid jobs in the whaling industry they once oversaw.

    13) And of course, there is the obvious fact that anti-whaling activists confronted the Soviet Union, Iceland, Norway, and even Australia long before ever focusing on or directly opposing whaling by Japan.

    Considering these facts and the history of modern whaling it is clear that the "cultural imperialism" claims are simply emotional and irrational.

  • -7

    ignoranttolerance

    OssanAmerica,

    The word you are looking for is "registered", ie; flying the U.S flag. Ships throughout the world are owned and operated by one-ship shell corporations. In must cases such owning companies are of a different country and the vessel's flag of registry is another country, It is a relatively simple procedure to prove a direct relationship between the vessels and their actual controlling interests. This is all the more so in the case of SSCS which proudly declares these vessels as their "fleet" on their website and in their literature.

    What you don't realize is how much the United States government is against the practice of whaling. The federal government will not rule in favor of the Japanese government, just watch. The case will get thrown out of court and they will say that there is no jurisdiction because the ships are not registered in the United States and the actions they are taking are in international waters, which the US has no jurisdiction over the area they are in. This weekend, the Empire State Building was lit red to bring awareness to the dolphin slaughter in Taiji. So sir, you have no support in the United States, take it elsewhere. -- Oh and just because, let's say, an oil company owns a ship registered in Australia, but the corporation is based in the US, the US has jurisdiction over it? No, same thing applies here. The case will get thrown out.

  • 7

    gelendestrasse

    I'm still waiting to watch SS try to take on Norway or Iceland; but then they probably wouldn't get all the donations from misguided Europeons if they were acting badly right in the front yard. Picking on the Japanese is much less dangerous from a financial point of view.

    As far as the court ruling, the court will have to have it's opinion based on some fact. Even a dismissal will require some findings. Since Watson is a US citizen the US does have some jurisdiction. I imagine that, if Watson ever does turn up at US customs, he's going to get arrested for previous actions. Once the Japanese claim is in force everybody else who helps out on the SS ships might end up in the same predicament. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

  • -7

    ignoranttolerance

    I imagine that, if Watson ever does turn up at US customs, he's going to get arrested for previous actions.

    Arrested for what? He lives in the US and goes to Australia for the trip to the Antarctic every year. If the US government really cared about him, he would have been arrested already. He isn't breaking any US laws and they can't do anything about anyway it because it's in international waters. If Watson is arrested for breaking US law, the whalers that are summoned to court would be arrested as well for breaking US law. So, your logic doesn't make any sense.

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    ignoranttolerance, I have explained to you that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their position on whaling, abhor unauthorized vigilantism and acts of violence, the very issue that this suit is about. In addition most Americans consider Pasil WAtson and his SSCS to be eco-terrorists, sometying which we have little tolereance for. The "cause" does not justify violent unlawful acts, be it ramming ships or crashing planes into buildings. There is absolutely no question of jurisdiction because SSCS is incorporated as an NPO and exists under the laws of the United States. And whilst I have already attempted to explain this to you, the answer to your question is yes. If a US company owns a ship registered under a foreign flag. any court orders, injunctions or judgements against the US company apply to the foreign flagged company asset. This case will not be dismissed as it is far from frivolous as Watson is pretending it is. The cost of defense alone will but a big dent in SSCS' operations.

  • 5

    OssanAmerica

    ignoranttoleranceDec. 11, 2011 - 04:29AM JST "I imagine that, if Watson ever does turn up at US customs, he's going to get arrested for previous actions. Arrested for what? He lives in the US and goes to Australia for the trip to the Antarctic every year. If the US >government really cared about him, he would have been arrested already. He isn't breaking any US laws and they >can't do anything about anyway it because it's in international waters. If Watson is arrested for breaking US law, the >whalers that are summoned to court would be arrested as well for breaking US law. So, your logic doesn't make >any sense.

    If the US Federal court issue an injunction ordering Watson and SSCS to cease their activities against the Whalers until the case is heard, and that order is ignored, an arrest warrant will be issued for Watson for contempt of court. If the case is heard and the court rules that Watson/SSCs must cease their activities and Watson ignores it, again an arrerst warrant will be issued for contempt of court. The Whalers are not in the same position because they are not a U.S. based entity as SSCS is. Taking into account Watson's past behavior with other countries, it is likely that the US court will adjudicate against Watson and SSCI and Watson will simply avoid ever entering US territory again. I'm sure Australia will be happy to take him in.

  • -7

    ignoranttolerance

    I have explained to you that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their position on whaling, abhor unauthorized vigilantism and acts of violence, the very issue that this suit is about. In addition most Americans consider Pasil WAtson and his SSCS to be eco-terrorists, sometying which we have little tolereance for.

    Yes, that's exactly why they have a TV show on Animal Planet, yup that's exactly why a lot of Americans support SSCS, yup you're right. Personally, I think it comes down to the fact that governments and the IWC will not stand up to the Japanese government for abusing a "legal loophole". They are actually doing something to stop whaling which is NOT being conducted for research and is being abused under the title of "Research" for profit. It's a fact, the Japanese government does not do it for research because there's no need to kill 1,000 whales for scientific purposes. There are non lethal ways to conduct research on whales. "Americans don't support violence" FALSE. If there is no other way to stop something, then violence is the only way to do it. Americans really don't give a crap if there's a mess on the deck of a Japanese whaling ship because SS threw a bottle of butyric acid on their deck. BIG DEAL.

    If the US Federal court issue an injunction ordering Watson and SSCS to cease their activities against the Whalers until the case is heard, and that order is ignored, an arrest warrant will be issued for Watson for contempt of court. If the case is heard and the court rules that Watson/SSCs must cease their activities and Watson ignores it, again an arrerst warrant will be issued for contempt of court.

    Sure, but they're not going to issue an injunction against him. The US government does not like whaling and they're not going to stop a group that's doing something to help stop it. The US government is letting somebody else do their job for them, so the favor is in Watson's hand.

  • 0

    amerijap

    If the US Federal court issue an injunction ordering Watson and SSCS to cease their activities against the Whalers until the case is heard, and that order is ignored, an arrest warrant will be issued for Watson for contempt of court. If the case is heard and the court rules that Watson/SSCs must cease their activities and Watson ignores it, again an arrerst warrant will be issued for contempt of court. The Whalers are not in the same position because they are not a U.S. based entity as SSCS is.

    This is all up to the plaintiffs' ability to meet the constraints of burden of proof. Since they are not a US base entity, it's very challenging for them to provide their cultural connections with the US through their business. To bring the case to the table, they need to prove that their interests are the subject of US interests, and how leaving the defendants around the waters is not only an imminent threat to themselves but it eventually harms the local/national interests in the end.

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    amerijapDec. 11, 2011 - 10:25AM JST This is all up to the plaintiffs' ability to meet the constraints of burden of proof. Since they are not a US base entity, >it's very challenging for them to provide their cultural connections with the US through their business. To bring the >case to the table, they need to prove that their interests are the subject of US interests, and how leaving the >defendants around the waters is not only an imminent threat to themselves but it eventually harms the >local/national interests in the end.

    This isn't a criminal casek, it;s a civil law suit so the "burden of proof is basically a cakewalk. Plaintiff can fulfill nearly all of it with material taken right off Defendants website, own statements made to the media anmd youtube. And for the icing mayber testimony from the Canadian. Norwegian and Icelandic Coast Guards. The very same evidence will convince any court that SSCS are a threat the Plaintiffs as well as the welfare of their own members. There is no requirement for any plaintiff regardless of nationality to "provide their cultural connections" whatever that means, Nor, in a civil action is there any requirement for Plaintiff's intrerests to be the subject of U.S. interests or whether it harms to local/national interests. You appear to be confusing this civil action with a Federal prosecition on criminal charges where the plaintiff represents the People of the United States.

  • -4

    jic

    GO Sea Shepherd GO GO GO!

    We support you! They will eventually fail!

  • -3

    edbardoe

    Should sue the Discovery channel tv for showing the Japanese vessels without pay. The money from the tv show is what pays the freight for the Sea Shepherd folks, can't have a drama without the heavy.

  • -5

    YuriOtani

    OssanAmerica, it is not American waters and it is not American ships. The court has no Justinian in this matter. They need to make sue in Japanese court.

  • 3

    OssanAmerica

    YuriOtani, is SSCS an organization incorporated in the United States or in Japan? This is what determines the forum of any action to be brought, the jurisdiction of the Defendant. .

  • 5

    davidattokyo

    Alexandra Dickens,

    Okay so would you agree if the world decided okay yes Japan can commence whaling legally but, in Japanese waters only and that is all, if they breach this they will be charged?

    Sister, the world already has one whaling convention, and it explicitly says that rules can not be made to discriminate against any particular nation as you suggest here.

  • -6

    ignoranttolerance

    OssanAmerica

    YuriOtani, is SSCS an organization incorporated in the United States or in Japan? This is what determines the forum of any action to be brought, the jurisdiction of the Defendant. .

    The court is going to throw out the case, just watch. The US does not care to support Japanese whaling.

  • 3

    OssanAmerica

    ignoranttoleranceDec. 11, 2011 - 09:54AM JST Yes, that's exactly why they have a TV show on Animal Planet, yup that's exactly why a lot of Americans support >SSCS, yup you're right.

    And if you bothered to read the discussion forums of Animal Planet you'd see just how many American think Watson is a "douche" and SSCS are eco-terrorists. A great many Americans also make it no secret that if Sea Shephered ever did anything to a US fisheries vessel like they do to the Japanese they would be responded to with a 12 gauge, a common item found onboard US fishjing verssels. Not to mention that SSCS would be arrested by the USCG and charged with violating the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992.

    Personally, I think it comes down to the fact that governments and the IWC will not stand up to the Japanese >government for abusing a "legal loophole". They are actually doing something to stop whaling which is NOT being >conducted for research and is being abused under the title of "Research" for profit. It's a fact, the Japanese >government does not do it for research because there's no need to kill 1,000 whales for scientific purposes. There >are non lethal ways to conduct research on whales. "Americans don't support violence" FALSE. If there is no other >way to stop something, then violence is the only way to do it. Americans really don't give a crap if there's a mess on >the deck of a Japanese whaling ship because SS threw a bottle of butyric acid on their deck. BIG DEAL.

    Vigilantism, ie; taking the law into your own hands without authority or jursdiction, is illegal in all 50 states of the United States. That is exactly what Watson and SSCI are doing.

    Sure, but they're not going to issue an injunction against him. The US government does not like whaling and they're >not going to stop a group that's doing something to help stop it. The US government is letting somebody else do >their job for them, so the favor is in Watson's hand.

    How many times do I have to repeat that "Whaling" is not the issue in this legal action? How anyone feels about "whaling" one way or the other is irrelevant. Furthermore, The U.S., government's position is also irrelevant anyway as the Federal Court does not represent the U.S., governent's position on anything. It's a pretty much guaranteed thing that an injunction will be issued and that Watson and SSCI will ignore it in keeping with their criiminal nature.

    You may want to read this, from a site that has nothing to do whatsoever with the whaling issue, one way or the other. http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/347-sea-shepherd-conservation-society

  • 5

    davidattokyo

    ignoranttolerance,

    Sea Shepherd is not hugely disliked in the UK either, yet the UK courts ruled against SS in their case against the Malta fishing company.

    Anti-whaling (anti-Tuna fishing) is one thing, the law is another. The US and UK are not third world nations, they have proper institutions, and they won't harbour these eco-terrorists just because they are attacking Japanese whaling interests.

    The US itself has identified the threat to society from eco-terrorism and prosecuted against those who perpetrate it, in the not so distant past.

    Personally, I think it comes down to the fact that governments and the IWC will not stand up to the Japanese government for abusing a "legal loophole".

    Australia is trying to argue that at the ICJ. The problem is that Article VIII is not a "loophole", it's an explicitly written article of the whaling convention that actually exists, it is not a "gap". This is why Australia will fail - because they can't accept that the whaling convention is a whaling convention.

    They are actually doing something to stop whaling which is NOT being conducted for research and is being abused under the title of "Research" for profit.

    Research is being conducted, and the government subsidises the research (as do I when I eat whale meat), the operations do not make a profit.

    It's a fact, the Japanese government does not do it for research because there's no need to kill 1,000 whales for scientific purposes.

    Your fact is fiction. The IWC Scientific Committee uses biological data from the Japanese research programme in it's own research. You can see this for yourself if you read their latest report.

    There are non lethal ways to conduct research on whales.

    These methods don't produce the required biological data that the IWC's Scientific Committee it utilising.

    "Americans don't support violence" FALSE. If there is no other way to stop something, then violence is the only way to do it.

    Hmmmmm, watch out, the FBI might be on to you with statements like that...

    Americans really don't give a crap if there's a mess on the deck of a Japanese whaling ship because SS threw a bottle of butyric acid on their deck. BIG DEAL.

    What matters is what the judge says.

    Sure, but they're not going to issue an injunction against him. The US government does not like whaling and they're not going to stop a group that's doing something to help stop it. The US government is letting somebody else do their job for them, so the favor is in Watson's hand.

    We are talking about the USA in 2011, not the British harbouring pirates in 17th century Caribbean.

  • -6

    Alexandra Dickens

    Davidattokyo

    If the law became whaling is legal for any country but only in Japanese waters would that be an issue? And if Japan breached this they be arrested and shut down?

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    ignoranttoleranceDec. 11, 2011 - 12:20PM JST The court is going to throw out the case, just watch. The US does not care to support Japanese whaling.

    On what basis? Every reason you've given so ar has been irrelevant to the complaint or the result of complete miscomprehension of how courts work. How "The U.S." feels about whaling is irrelavant. You are simply spouting wishful thinking with no rationale.

  • 7

    Raymasaki

    of course once again turn this into a VS. USA debate. sea sheppards captain is paul watson From CANADA. they are in the SOUTH ocean. washington is 45'0 latitude would be like North Hokkaido! they are based in Australia! many of them get HUGE support from australia. yes international court. im an American & support the whalers, Hate sea sheppard

  • 3

    davidattokyo

    Alexandra, the law isn't going to change to be like that, so your question is mute. The whaling convention cannot be changed without agreement by all nations who have adhered to it. I'm not sure if you realise, but Japan isn't the only country in the world with whaling and whale eating populations.

  • 0

    amerijap

    This isn't a criminal casek, it;s a civil law suit so the "burden of proof is basically a cakewalk. Plaintiff can fulfill nearly all of it with material taken right off Defendants website, own statements made to the media anmd youtube. And for the icing mayber testimony from the Canadian. Norwegian and Icelandic Coast Guards. The very same evidence will convince any court that SSCS are a threat the Plaintiffs as well as the welfare of their own members. There is no requirement for any plaintiff regardless of nationality to "provide their cultural connections" whatever that means, Nor, in a civil action is there any requirement for Plaintiff's intrerests to be the subject of U.S. interests or whether it harms to local/national interests. You appear to be confusing this civil action with a Federal prosecition on criminal charges where the plaintiff represents the People of the United States.

    It doesn't make a difference in this respect regarding that the court will not apply the US Constitutions for the case if taken. I doubt if the state district court is in control of a legal due process for the case which neither plaintiffs nor the defendants are US citizens. Judges are not obligated to take the case that is totally out of the US context.

  • -6

    dpmattes

    Every year the same old story and the same lame pro-whaling rants. Though there are some fine posts that are thoughtful as well. It's not anti-Japanese to fight the Whale hunters-it's has nothing to with the Western world imposing or bullying the East. It's simply people defending part of a species against human cruelty and slaughter. I think the majority of the Japanese people would agree-upon seeing the 'scientific research' being conducted that it is barbaric and should be ended. There is much about Japan and it's people to admire and that will not change, but this whaling business and the lies constructed to continue it taint the image. Just like the Seal slaughter stains Canada's image, or practices in any number of other places. Japan is a target because of the size of the research hunts probably. Best of luck to the three ships from of the Sea Shepherd fleet participating this year. The issue is pretty cut and dry and no amount of talk is going to change the stand of those against it or for it. There's only one way to stop this:best of luck to the three ships from of the Sea Shepherd fleet participating this year. Also good luck and thanks to the fine people of Japan working for change-it's far more difficult and risky from within than working from the outside.

  • -7

    Alexandra Dickens

    davidattokyo

    Japan chooses to abide by laws when is suit them. You said

    The whaling convention cannot be changed without agreement by all nations who have adhered to it.

    Well if Japan is all about adhering to laws then why are they whaling illegally!!!!!!!

  • 3

    James Tanaka

    @ARRESTPAUL.....

    "they want an end to whaling because the anti-whalers think whales are cute"....

    lmao!

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    amerijapDec. 11, 2011 - 02:37PM JST It doesn't make a difference in this respect regarding that the court will not apply the US Constitutions for the case if >taken. I doubt if the state district court is in control of a legal due process for the case which neither plaintiffs nor the >defendants are US citizens. Judges are not obligated to take the case that is totally out of the US context.

    The "Consttution" has nothing to do with a civil lawsuit. You are confusing this with somne high profile US Supreme Court case. Furthermore the "State court" has nothing to do with this either since the case has been submitted to a Federal Court. Citizenship of either party is irrelevant, the key here is that SSCS is n organizatyion incorporated and existing under the laws of thge United States and maintaining their place of buisiness there. This is what assures jurisdiction.

  • 0

    davidattokyo

    Alexandra Dickens,

    Well if Japan is all about adhering to laws then why are they whaling illegally!!!!!!!

    They aren't whaling illegally, they are whaling legally.

    The whaling convention allows for catches for research purposes, with the added provision that any whales taken not be wasted. (It's the convention for the REGULATION of whaling, not for the "prohibition" of whaling.)

    Your confusion may stem from the anti-whalers' success in abusing the whaling convention to impose temporary zero-catch limits for commercial whaling, and designate the entire Antarctic whaling grounds as a "sanctuary". However, neither of these measures (both against the spirit of the whaling convention) override the right of nations to catch whales for research purposes and provide the forthcoming biological data to the IWC for study, which is what Japan has done in light of the temporary zero-catch limits (which were at least ostensibly imposed by the anti-whalers because of an alleged lack of scientific data).

    If you don't believe me, just wait patiently for the outcome of Australia's ICJ case against Japan. The ICJ panel of judges is in my estimation 99% certain to throw Australia's case out of court, on the basis that Japan's actions are consistent (not inconsistent) with the whaling convention. If the ICJ panel of judges agrees with me, then you'll know that I was right about this.

    Simple reality - not liking whaling is not the same as whaling being illegal.

  • -4

    AnimuX

    The reality is the the International Whaling Commission has prohibited all commercial whaling and established the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary under Article V of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling -- by democratic decision.

    Japan lost the vote on whaling.

    So, in accordance with a long history of regulatory violations, Japan now abuses Article VIII (the science loophole) in order to purposely defy the regulations established under Article V.

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

    This example of blatant subversion of democratic IWC decisions is in keeping with many other violations in the history of modern whaling which are ultimately responsible for driving so many species of whales to the brink of extinction.

    In fact, Japan continues to hunt several vulnerable and endangered species as well.

    The legality of Japan's abuse of Article VIII has been challenged and the International Court of Justice will hear arguments in coming years.

  • 3

    Nessie

    @Ossan

    Any organization with he slightest whiff of eco-terrorism is at a disadvantage in any US Federal Court. The only mistake the Whalers and ICR are making is that they aren't filing a seperate action against Discovery Channel and Animal Planet for damages.

    There's an old adage: Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the gallon.

  • 2

    Nessie

    Vigilantism, ie; taking the law into your own hands without authority or jursdiction, is illegal in all 50 states of the United States. That is exactly what Watson and SSCI are doing.

    Ossan, you're really got to the crux of things with this. It's hard to find a court in any of the 50 United States that looks favorably upon vigilantiism. I will bet a whale steak to anyone's tofuburger that Sea Shepherd will lose. And I write this as someone who thinks Japan should not be whaling -- but that Japan is in the right with respect to its case against the eco-terrorists.

  • 0

    Dotobock

    Japan and other countries agreed to stop hunting whales from 1986 to 1990 but it was also a part of the agreement that once there was enough data about the various stocks countries could start hunting whales. This was the agreement. When IWC still refused to do anything with the moratorium despite it's advice from the IWC Scientific Committee, Norway, lodged reservations to the moratorium. This is what Japan should have done.

    Because The IWC has neglected the promise that the moratorium was meant to only be a temporary measure from 1986 to 1990, I think this moratorium is null void. It has no scientific justification. I am not all familiar with the technicalities here. How can Japan hunt commercial like Norway? Norway is hunting commercial due to Norway lodging a reservation to the moratorium, cannot Japan simply do the same here?

  • 1

    Dotobock

    International Whaling Commission has prohibited all commercial whaling and established the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary

    Yes but, IWC's sanctuary was supposed to be only a temporary measure. I think Chairman of the IWC Scientific Committee, Dr Philip Hammond of the UK, summed it up nicely when he left in protest.

    What is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its unanimous recommendations ... are treated with such contempt," Dr Hammond asks in his letter of resignation. "I can no longer justify to myself being the organiser of and spokesman for a Committee whose work is held in such disregard by the body to which it is responsible. Nor can I justify asking other members of the Committee to spend their valuable time working hard ... knowing how the results of this work may be treated. (...) I am left with no alternative, therefore, but to resign as Chairman of the Scientific Committee."

    Countries agreed to stop hunting whales due to uncertainties in stocks, once when there was enough data about various stock estimates, countries still opposed whaling. It had shifted from protected the endangered whales to no more whaling period. Not due to conservation reasons. But because whales were cute.

  • 0

    Dotobock

    I got one thing wrong. Correction.

    The Southern Ocean Sanctuary was established in 1994 without any recommendation of the IWC Scientific Committee. It is reviewed every ten years. Japan lodged an objection to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as provided for under the Convention and it is therefore not bound by it.

    But this still does not explain why Norway, Iceland hunts commercial but not Japan.

  • -1

    Dotobock

    I think environmental reasons is one of the better reasons to why whaling is a good idea and eating whale meat would contribute to the global planet. Anti whalers got this up side down like most other issues. Further, whales eat more fish than humans. While whales should not be blamed for humans over exploiting the oceans one should not ignore the fact that whales consume much more fish than humans on this planet. Krill is a favorite food for many whale species, with so many minke whales in the oceans the day the krill is endangered is nearing. Watson should start a save the krill movement and start ramming boats into whales. Krill are magnificent animals.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    NessieDec. 11, 2011 - 10:21PM JST Ossan, you're really got to the crux of things with this. It's hard to find a court in any of the 50 United States that looks >favorably upon vigilantiism. I will bet a whale steak to anyone's tofuburger that Sea Shepherd will lose. And I write >this as someone who thinks Japan should not be whaling -- but that Japan is in the right with respect to its case >against the eco-terrorists.

    When you consider the relationship between Paul Watson/SSCI and people like Rodney Coronado (ALF), Craig Rosebraugh (ELF) and Alex Pacheco (PETA) one can also bet their whale steak that the FBI will be monitoring this suit very closely.

  • 0

    SwissToni

    Dotobok, so krill are in danger of extinction by whales eh? Are you advocating a whale cull so that krill can have a chance to multiply?

    Krill are a shrinking resource due to the rise in sea temperatures and reduced sea ice. Norway has shops capable of hauling 120,000 tons of krill in a season for fish farms. It isn't the whales increasing competition it's man. Drop the pseudo science and get some perspective.

    The only winners of the court case in the US will be the lawyers. Wouldn't it have been better to use the funds to research a humane killer to take any whales that may now be sustainably taken?

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    SwissToniDec. 12, 2011 - 01:42AM JST The only winners of the court case in the US will be the lawyers. Wouldn't it have been better to use the funds to >research a humane killer to take any whales that may now be sustainably taken?

    Not really. Because Plaintiffs are not seeking any damages or renumeration, merely a judgement ordering SSCI to stop their violence. It does not even seek to stop anti-whaling protests. Lawyers are the winners in cases where money is the issue,

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    AnimuXDec. 11, 2011 - 10:02PM JST The reality is the the International Whaling Commission has prohibited all commercial whaling and established the >Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary under Article V of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling -- by > democratic decision.

    And Article VIII of the same International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, made by democratic decision, allows members to issue Scientific whaling permits. In addition, the establshment of the "Southern Sanctuary" was in violatuion of the IWC's own regulations requiring the creation of any sanctuaries to be based on the recommendations of the IWC Scientific Committee. The head of the IWC Scientific Committee quit in disgust over this.

    So, in accordance with a long history of regulatory violations, Japan now abuses Article VIII (the science loophole) in >order to purposely defy the regulations established under Article V.

    Japan isabiding by Article VIII to the letter right down to comsuming the meat as required. How is that "abusing" Article VIII?

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

    While it allows the Scientific whaling and exempts it from having to recognize any Moratoriums or Sanctuaries.

    In fact, Japan continues to hunt several vulnerable and endangered species as well.

    The legality of Japan's abuse of Article VIII has been challenged and the International Court of Justice will hear >arguments in coming years.

    Australia's suit before the ICJ will fail miserably because Japan is in compliance with Article VIII and consequently set the anti-whaling movement back, as the United States and New Zealand (both anti-whaling nations) warned Australia.

  • -2

    SwissToni

    'Lawyers are the winners in cases where money is the issue'

    It's a civil case, whichever way it goes, the lawyers get paid and the longer it goes on the better they like it. The publicity for Sea Shepherd will be greatly appreciated. I imagine donations will skyrocket.

  • -1

    amerijap

    The "Consttution" has nothing to do with a civil lawsuit. You are confusing this with somne high profile US Supreme Court case. Furthermore the "State court" has nothing to do with this either since the case has been submitted to a Federal Court. Citizenship of either party is irrelevant, the key here is that SSCS is n organizatyion incorporated and existing under the laws of thge United States and maintaining their place of buisiness there. This is what assures jurisdiction.

    No, I'm not. Again, the US court is not obligated to take the case unless the plaintiffs are able to convince the District Court to hold the jurisdiction. Remember that US courts have very few track records of cases that involve the stake-holds of non-citizens. The point is how this issue concerns the US court in the first place in spite of its irrelevance to the rights of US citizens or green-card holders. That's exactly what the plaintiffs need to address in the first place. Otherwise, it's gonna be thrown out in the end.

  • -1

    AnimuX

    Unfortunately, pro-whalers believe that Japan may kill as many whales as it likes, including endangered species, even in an international wild life sanctuary, no matter how many objections are raised or the fact that international conventions prohibit the act, just as long as Japan's representatives claim the whaling is done for science.

    The International Whaling Commission has repeatedly called upon Japan to stop killing whales. The view of the commission is quite succinctly expressed in Resolution 2007-1:


    Resolution 2007-1

    RESOLUTION ON JARPA

    WHEREAS paragraph 7(b) of the Schedule establishes a sanctuary in the Southern Ocean;

    RECALLING that the Commission has repeatedly requested Contracting Parties to refrain from issuing special permits for research involving the killing of whales within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, has expressed deep concern at continuing lethal research within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and has also recommended that scientific research involving the killing of cetaceans should only be permitted where critically important research needs are addressed;

    CONSCIOUS that the Scientific Committee last year convened a workshop to analyse the results of JARPA 1, which is reported in SC/59/REP 1;

    NOTING that the Workshop agreed that none of the goals of JARPA 1 had been reached, and that the results of the JARPA 1 programme are not required for management under the RMP;

    FURTHER NOTING that the Government of Japan has authorised a new special permit programme in the Antarctic, JARPA II, in which the take of minke whales has been more than doubled, and fin whales and humpback whales have been added to the list of targeted species;

    CONCERNED that fin whales in the Southern Hemisphere are currently classified as endangered, and that humpback whales in the JARPA II research area may include individuals from depleted breeding populations overwintering in the waters of certain Pacific Islands;

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

    NOW THEREFORE THE COMMISSION

    CALLS UPON the Government of Japan to address the 31 recommendations listed in Appendix 4 of Annex O of the Scientific Committee report relating to the December 2006 review of the JARPA I programme to the satisfaction of the Scientific Committee;

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

  • 1

    It"S ME

    Isn't the SSCS a USA registered Organisations?

    If so that is what matters not the nationality of the leader, etc.

  • -3

    AnimuX

    At least one response alleges that Minke whales are eating too many krill and that whales are eating too many fish.

    There is no scientific support for this argument and, in fact, scientists have debunked such claims before.

    1) DNA research shows that minke whales always had a large population in the Southern Ocean.

    2) All of the minke whales alive today in the Southern Ocean represent less than 1% of the biomass that was present BEFORE the world's whalers drove every other large species of whale to the brink of extinction.

    3) The largest whales mostly consume krill and copepods and small fish away from important fisheries in polar seas.

    4) Krill are somewhat dependent on large whales as part of their life cycle. The whales spread nutrients (ie: fertilize) the oceans with iron rich excrement which in turn promotes phytoplankton and algae growth which in turn becomes the base of the food web for krill and copepods and so on.

    However, there is ample evidence that commercial fishing has over-exploited most fisheries and many are at risk of commercial extinction if restrictions (and in some cases bans) are not soon enforced.

    Unfortunately, whaling represents the ultimate failure of international conservation efforts due to the subversive acts of nations like Japan and others which defy and undermine the decisions of the International Whaling Commission.

  • -2

    davidattokyo

    Wouldn't it have been better to use the funds to research a humane killer to take any whales that may now be sustainably taken?

    They've got one, and practice makes perfect.

    Simple test is whether you'd rather be reborn a whale or a cow. Whale, whale, whale.

  • -3

    davidattokyo

    Animux,

    Everyone knows that IWC resolutions are non-binding, and Japan abides by all of them accept for the politically motivated ones that go against the spirit of the whaling convention.

    Why anti-whalers think a whaling convention should make it easy for whaling to be banned is beyond me. Anti-whalers are just plain dirty and dishonest and should get out of the whaling commission.

  • -1

    Wurthington

    Where do they get the money in order to hire lawyers and sue? Whale meat must be quite profitable!

  • -1

    arrestpaul

    AnimuX - Unfortunately, pro-whalers believe that Japan may kill as many whales as it likes, including endangered species, ........

    Minke whales are STILL not endangered. The other part you just made up. Conservation means both protecting and promoting the use of natural resorces. Not throwing bottles of acid and ramming ships.

    The eco-terrorist SS is being sued because they are a known eco-terrorist organization who repeatedly resort to violence to force their "opinion" on others. This won't be the first time that Watson will be called to appear in a U.S. court. He turned States evidence against his first wife and her animal rights friends after they were arrested for arson.

    Better her than him, eh.

  • -2

    JakeW

    Not only does Japan use allocated funds which were graciously donated by the international community to help and aid the vicims of the tsunami and lies about scientic reasearch (has anyone seen any evidence of their research data?). It also has an atrocious record for international child abduction. As a Left behind Parent I think it is ridiculous for Japan to condemn North Korea when it is responsible for the illegal abduction of hundreds of children! Shame on you Japan!

  • -1

    It"S ME

    JakeW.

    Slight difference between a citizen deciding to kidnap their own child and a goverment sending over military troops to do an abduction.

    Any comment on the article?

  • -3

    Dotobock

    Swiss Tony.

    Dotobok, so krill are in danger of extinction by whales eh? Are you advocating a whale cull so that krill can have a chance to multiply?

    I was being ironic. Without irony, protecting a single species in a multi eco species system is not a good way of marine resource management. In certain cases when a stock is endangered one should not hunt certain stocks and a I fully support sanctuaries then. But when the stock is not endangered it has no value. The sanctuary is not due to scientific reasons.

    Japan acted in good will when they agreed to stop hunting whales due to uncertainties in stocks, the anti whale countries then exploited Japan's kindness and played dirty, they lied and not done what they are supposed to do in IWC. Namely to work in the interest of the whaling industry by working out good sound solutions for countries to hunt whales in a sustainable manner. IWC has been hijacked by anti whalers, but a hijacked plane is still a hijacked airplane. Instead of asking Japan to leave IWC, makes more sense for countries to start respecting their own agreement which they have agreed to. If they cannot do that then they should leave the organization.

    It is no longer about ecology but whale rights. Whale rights is more important than cow rights for these anti whalers. They have put whales in the same category as human rights and by force imposing their mindset onto other people. Japan's stance is that whales are on the same level as any other animals on the planet. It makes sense to be able to utilize a non endangered source of protein when we now see an increase in world population, deforestation, agricultural land turned into desert. Whaling is by far one of the most eco friendly food for human consumption. The energy is low in relation to yield, the natural habitat does not have to be turned into agricultural land. Eating one whale a week would put less strain on the meat based diet that many people have.

  • -2

    jmonsters

    Interesting combination of arrogance and ignorance at work when it comes to Japan's Whaling. I think the world should let the Japanese be Japanese until they self destruct. No need for anyone else to interfere. Problem is so many westerners believe the BS about Japan propogated by the Japanese themselves and never get past the "tatemae" to the rotten inner core of their love-less culture.

  • -5

    Dotobock

    Krill are a shrinking resource due to the rise in sea temperatures and reduced sea ice. Norway has shops capable of hauling 120,000 tons of krill in a season for fish farms. It isn't the whales increasing competition it's man. Drop the pseudo science and get some perspective.

    The pseudo science is believing that whales are not a apart of the eco system because of religious reasons. There is no logic from the anti whale camp. Pure culture imperialism. I don't think fish farms is all that good for the environment. I think farms in general are less eco friendly than hunting wild animals or fish in a sustainable manner. Much less energy efficient. When the Amazon is being cut down to grow GMO soybeans and corn for cattle in Europe. This has far greater consequences for the planet than Japan hunting non endangered minke whales.

  • -1

    SwissToni

    Dotobok, you cant complain that the IWC has been hijacked by anti-whalers when the Japanese government spent years recruiting non whaling nations and paying their subscriptions (amongst other things) in order to gain voting influence. On levels of hijacking the IWC, Japan has been weighed and measured and found to be quite the lard arse.

    "I don't think fish farms is all that good for the environment. "

    Then you need to gather your friends and subscribe to the Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd protests in Norway and other countries where this is quite an issue.

    " I think farms in general are less eco friendly than hunting wild animals or fish in a sustainable manner. "
    With 7 billion people on the planet, you genuinely think this is a realistic option?

    "The pseudo science is believing that whales are not a apart of the eco system because of religious reasons."

    Well, if anyone had presented any scientic evidence to suggest a religious link, it would be pseudo science, but no-one has. This is just your made up issue, along with 'Culture Imperialism'. Theyre dead end arguments for you.

    Davidattokyo, please explain the humane killer available to the whaling industry.

  • -1

    Dotobock

    Swiss Tony

    Dotobok, you cant complain that the IWC has been hijacked by anti-whalers when the Japanese government spent years recruiting non whaling nations and paying their subscriptions (amongst other things) in order to gain voting influence. On levels of hijacking the IWC, Japan has been weighed and measured and found to be quite the lard arse.

    Are you Swiss btw? Not that it is that important, why does a land locked country become a member of a whaling nation. The Swiss and it's great whaling traditions. Now, Japan is playing the same dirty rules as anti whale by explaining to rational people that a sustainable hunt of a natural renewable resource is OK.

    Well, if anyone had presented any scientic evidence to suggest a religious link, it would be pseudo science, but no-one has. This is just your made up issue, along with 'Culture Imperialism'. Theyre dead end arguments for you.

    Explain to me how the minke whale is endangered. Explain to me how the RMP will endanger the minke whale stock when it is off the red list. Speaking of science. Why is it that western English speaking countries with a meat based diet oppose Japanese sustainable hunt? You and I know the reasons are not scientific nor ecological.

  • -3

    Dotobock

    If you are Swiss, it is cool. I like Swizerland.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    amerijapDec. 11, 2011 - 02:37PM JST It doesn't make a difference in this respect regarding that the court will not apply the US Constitutions for the case if >taken. I doubt if the state district court is in control of a legal due process for the case which neither plaintiffs nor the >defendants are US citizens. Judges are not obligated to take the case that is totally out of the US context.

    You are completely incorrect. Foreign individuals, organizations and entities bring action in US civil courts all the time as the only requirement is that be a basis of jurisdiction. Now where is SSCS located?

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    amerijapDec. 12, 2011 - 05:23AM JST No, I'm not. Again, the US court is not obligated to take the case unless the plaintiffs are able to convince the District >Court to hold the jurisdiction.

    As stated please state where SSCI is located. That settles anyt question you may have about jurisdiction.

    Remember that US courts have very few track records of cases that involve the stake-holds of non-citizens.

    Completely wrong. US courts are riddled with actions brought by and defendended by foreign individuals, organizations and corporate entities.

    The point is how this issue concerns the US court in the first place in spite of its irrelevance to the rights of US >citizens or green-card holders. That's exactly what the plaintiffs need to address in the first place. Otherwise, it's >gonna be thrown out in the end.

    Neither the rights of US citizens nor anyone's US immigration status have any bearing on this case whatsoever. You obviously have no experience with he US courts systems and the arguments you have posed are quite meaningless. I suggest you consult an attorney prior to posting further nonsense.

  • -2

    SwissToni

    Dotobok, 'Why is it that western English speaking countries with a meat based diet oppose Japanese sustainable hunt? You and I know the reasons are not scientific nor ecological.'

    I dont know that at all. I know its not simply western English speaking nations opposed to Japans hunt in the Southern Ocean. I know there is no way to humanely kill a whale. I know many species are endangered. I know the best population figures anyone can come up with have an error margin of +-50%. I know its not just Japan that has pressure applied to it. I know Japan has been fighting whale conservation measures since the 1930s. All of those reasons and many more are measurable and therefore scientific.

    I've seen no measure for 'Culture Imperialism' nor anti-whaling for reasons of whale as god, applied by Japan. Mostly because I think even the ICR with its woolly science would have trouble measuring that and not looking silly.

    "Are you Swiss btw?"

    Why, does it make my opinion any less valid?

  • -2

    amerijap

    Completely wrong. US courts are riddled with actions brought by and defendended by foreign individuals, organizations and corporate entities.

    Bring me evidence that the US courts are indeed good at dealing with the cases involving the international interests. How many cases out of tens of thousands of the US courts have ever taken throughout its legal history? I have never seen any of them so far, to the best of my knowledge.

    Foreign individuals, organizations and entities bring action in US civil courts all the time as the only requirement is that be a basis of jurisdiction. Now where is SSCS located?

    That’s insufficient. Again, answer me clearly what convinces the US court to take the jurisdiction in the case. What will ever be a convincing reason for them to take the case????? Just because the defendant has an entity in the US alone is not strong enough for the plaintiff to convince the US court for the jurisdiction--regardless of the issue. How does plaintiff’s interest become their utmost concern? That’s exactly the plaintiff’s job to demonstrate that.

    The US courts have way too many domestic cases dealing with the environmental justice--especially in the West Coast. I highly doubt their capability to handle these cases-if any,since so many legal scholars identify the problems with American legal system today (i.e., international child abduction). Even if they were able to hand the jurisdiction regarding the issue, it is highly questionable if it substantially hampers the SSCS from traveling the oceans outside the US to harass the plaintiff over whaling. They are NOT an alternative to an international court. It's chimerical to count everything on US justice regarding the issue.

    You obviously have no experience with he US courts systems and the arguments you have posed are quite meaningless. I suggest you consult an attorney prior to posting further nonsense

    LOL. Ditto to you. You haven't provided any compelling reason yet regarding the case--i.e.,why does the issue primarily become concern with the US court? You have started off with an ‘if’ statement regarding the likelihood of US jurisdiction, haven't you?

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    Amerijap- SSCI is incorporated in and exists under rhe laws of the United States. That is sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the US fEdral Court for the Southern District.. End of dicission.

    <Moderator- why do you permit a user to have a sign-on name that contains a degrogatory word for Japanese people and is considered offensive especially by Americans and Canadians of Japanese descent? And no, the abbreviation for Japan was changed from JAP to JPN years ago.

  • 1

    davidattokyo

    SwissToni,

    I know many species are endangered.

    I'm sure you also know that the Antarctic minke isn't. If you had conviction in your "humane killing" argument I don't think you'd be making secondary excuses like this.

    I know the best population figures anyone can come up with have an error margin of +-50%.

    That is quite wrong.

    The abundance estimates used by the IWC are specified with a 95% confidence interval, which means that we can be 95% sure that the abundance is greater than the lower bound of the abundance estimate.

    Furthermore, the IWC will not allow catches on stocks below 54% of their initial carrying capacity.

    On top of this, a whale stock would need to be depleted very significantly below the 54% level before it came under any threat of extinction.

    Unless you don't use airplanes for fear of them crashing and kill you, opposing whaling on these grounds completely ignores a proper quantification of the risk associated.

    I know Japan has been fighting whale conservation measures since the 1930s.

    The Whaling Commission didn't even exist in the 1930's. It makes no sense at all to base one's views on regulated whaling based on a time when there was none.

  • 3

    Ranka Sacrates

    ...the seashepeard wasent flying any us flags, nore has the US goverment or anything of that even had its hand in it...

    the Seashepard and all that has its own thing, just get rid of them. im not against whaling if its used to food.. seriously people come on.. any animal can be used as food. and if they're getting research out of it thats good, and if some people are getting food from it thats good also.....

  • 0

    It"S ME

    The problem here is not what flags a ships sails under, common for a ship to sail under a different flag to their owner country/organisation/business. But who gives the orders and since the owner and chairman of SSCS is present on board of one of those ships ....

    SSCS/Paul Watson gives the anti-whalers their orders and it is SSCS and not the ships that are being sued.

  • -2

    SwissToni

    Davidattokyo, I dont make any excuses. Dotobock asked why people are against whaling and he got a list of some of the reasons. The abundance or otherwise of Minke is irrelevant to me as my own abhorrence of whaling is the killing method. Explain the humane killer you indicated the whalers have.

    'The Whaling Commission didn't even exist in the 1930's

    That's true, and as usual when manufacturing doubt, only a part of the story. The IWC is but the latest instrument to fail to manage the whaling industry. As you know the first Geneva Convention on whale conservation was introduced in the 1930s and promptly ignored by Japan.

  • 0

    davidattokyo

    I leave it to the reader to judge how relevant the actions of 1930's Japan are to whaling in the 21st century...

    The IWC is but the latest instrument to fail to manage the whaling industry.

    Indeed it did fail for the first 3 decades or so of it's existence (until the NMP was introduced in the 1970's).

    No one is suggesting we base current and future management decisions on old, outdated, failed and irrelevant management practices, so I'm still not sure why you hark back to pre-WWII days. (Of course you are welcome to live in the past, but don't expect everyone else to, thanks.)

  • -2

    SwissToni

    It's mighty big of you to leave people to make their own decisions.

    The 1930s whaling convention is relevant as it puts the ongoing question of trust in context. Whaling, like religion or politics is a polarising issue. People should get as much information as they can from a variety of sources. I'm glad we both now agree on that. You've made some progress today, give yourself a pat on the back.

  • -1

    davidattokyo

    The 1930s whaling convention is relevant as it puts the ongoing question of trust in context.

    If I were 96 years old, and oblivious to recent history, I guess I would agree.

    All said and done, I think Dotobock's comments about opposition being unscientific and emotional is pretty much spot on myself, and I know you and I aren't going to agree. You regard whaling as inhumane and risky, whereas I regard it as more humane holistically than farming animals and entirely reasonable from a risk perspective. Until next time.

  • -1

    Nessie

    ...the seashepeard wasent flying any us flags, nore has the US goverment or anything of that even had its hand in it...

    It seems you have a fanciful understanding of legal jurisdiction. Look at Olympus. The company is headquartered in Tokyo, but the FBI is investigating Olympus for fraud.

  • 0

    kazetsukai

    Amazing how one simple issue of suing to stop harassment leads to everything from legal to moral issues with everyone getting extremely emotional and in some sense utterly non-nonsensical going off into the whaling issue. I can certainly understand the need to give the issue some "perspective".

    So the discussion may go on, I offer another perspective...

    Please answer two important questions...

    Is it legal to threaten and harass a vessel in open international waters?

    Is it moral to endanger the lives of not only the fishing vessels but also those that are doing the harassment?

    Then there is one important question....

    Who or what gives anyone the "right" and "justification" to "threaten" the lives and livelihood of others?

    Then answer...

    What would you do?

    Would you sue? Would you retaliate?

  • -1

    amerijap

    Ossan America:

    SSCI is incorporated in and exists under rhe laws of the United States. That is sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the US fEdral Court for the Southern District.. End of dicission.

    You are apparently ignoring the characters of US courts in this respect. The point I'm asking is not about the defendant's position. It's the plaintiff's. Go check out the ICR's website, if you can read Japanese. What part of the US do they have a legal entity? NONE. This is crucial.

    It really matters whether you have a legal entity in the US or not. What the US courts consider important for jurisdiction is how the infringement of plaintiff's interests matter from American perspective. If you don't have one, that's gonna make you extremely difficult to make the case. That's the norm of legal practice in the US.

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    amerijap - You are apparently ignoring the characters of US courts in this respect. The point I'm asking is not about the defendant's position. It's the plaintiff's. Go check out the ICR's website, if you can read Japanese. What part of the US do they have a legal entity? NONE. This is crucial.

    It really matters whether you have a legal entity in the US or not. What the US courts consider important for jurisdiction is how the infringement of plaintiff's interests matter from American perspective. If you don't have one, that's gonna make you extremely difficult to make the case. That's the norm of legal practice in the US.

    As signers of the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters under the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Japan and the U.S.A. have the recognized right to sue organizations in each others countries.

  • -3

    nigelboy

    As signers of the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters under the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Japan and the U.S.A. have the recognized right to sue organizations in each others countries.

    I don' think it has to go that far. Diversity in jurisdiction in which one of the parties is a U.S. entity while the other is foreign entity kind of automatically gives the federal court jurisdiction of this case.

  • -1

    arrestpaul

    nigelboy - I don' think it has to go that far. Diversity in jurisdiction in which one of the parties is a U.S. entity while the other is foreign entity kind of automatically gives the federal court jurisdiction of this case.

    My referrence to the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters only means that there is a treaty between Japan and the U.S. (and all other signers of the treaty) that allows foreign entities to file a lawsuit within another country that has signed the treaty. An organization in a country that hasn't signed the treaty would be hard pressed to file suit outside of their own country unless they had an individual treaty with that country.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. The court has subject matter jurisdiction as follows: 7.1 This action arises under the laws or treaties of the United States as alleged below, and thus jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 7.2 Plaintiffs are citizens or subjects of Japan, defendant SSCS is a citizen of Oregon and Washington, and defendant Watson is deemed a citizen of Washington; thus this action is between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). The amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. 7.3 This action arises under the court's admiralty and maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 as defendants' activities occur on the high seas or occur in Washington and Oregon but result in injury on the high seas. 7.4 This action is by aliens for torts in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States, and thus jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1350. 7.5 The court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 8. Venue in this court exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as defendants reside in this district, defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, or a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims occur in this district.

    http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/files/2011/12/Sea-Shepherd-lawsuit.pdf

  • -3

    sfjp330

    Japan must be desperate. Japan condemns Sea Shepherd tactics although not a single Sea Shepherd action in three decades from the day Sea Shepherd was founded has resulted in a single felony conviction, a single lawsuit and most importantly they have not caused a single injury nor suffered any fatalities or serious injuries. Japan is less interested in saving whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. and their support for whaling is entrenched. They have made zero progress in this educational approach.

    Sea Shepherd has taken a more realistic approach in economics. And for the last four years, the Japanese whaling fleet has not made a profit. This is the language they understand of profit and losses and if Sea Shepard continue to impact their profits, Japan will whaling fleet will have more difficult justifiying economically to continue.

  • -1

    sunabozu83

    why cant they let the maritme self defence force blow these eco terrorists away?? or at least hire an private military contractor like blackwater do the work??

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    sfjp330Dec. 14, 2011 - 08:51AM JST Japan must be desperate.

    The only thing that Japan is "desperate" to accomplish is to eliminate or minimize the risk of human death and injury as well as propertyy damage caused by SSCI's eco-terrorst activities. They have no need to be "desperate" about anything else as they are in the legal right. Let Australia attempt to beat this at the ICJ against the advice of the other anti-whaling nations.

  • -5

    arrestpaul

    sfjp330 - Japan must be desperate. Japan condemns Sea Shepherd tactics although not a single Sea Shepherd action in three decades from the day Sea Shepherd was founded has resulted in a single felony conviction,

    Arrest warrants have been issued. The eco-terrorist Watson has been arested and his ships seized. Eco-terrorsist SS members have been kick out of several countries and the eco-terrorist SS organization has been banned from the IWC. The FBI considers them a violence prone organization. Greenpeace kicked the eco-terrorist Watson out of their organization and refuse to have anything to do with his repeated acts of violence.

    Countries do not consider the violent actions of the eco-terrorist SS to be a major concern compared to the REAL problems of the world and little attention is paid to their nonsense. Only pro-violence, animal-rights zealots consider the eco-terrorist Watson to be a major player on the worlds stage.

  • -3

    Iowan

    Support whaling: eat whale.

  • 0

    Nessie

    Support whaling: eat whale

    Support whaling: Donate to Sea Shepherd.

  • -5

    arrestpaul

    Nessie - Support whaling: Donate to Sea Shepherd.

    Every Yen, Euro, or Dollar you donate to the eco-terrorists goes to promote violence. Your choice.

  • -3

    astrogaijin

    Do they realize that SS has TV cameras on all of their boats at all times and they catpure anything that they whalers "deney" doing? I can not say I am for or aginst whaling and if I ever got the chance to try whale I would. I just like watching the TV show.

  • 3

    OssanAmerica

    The Whalers also have mountains of video footage showing the SS conducting acts of violence. The Complaint filed in the Fedral Court refers specifically to them as evidence of their actons. As for the Whalers' "denying" anything, what is there to deny? They are only there to chase he whales. SS are the ones who are there to interefere with their operations. Waston is a weidely recognized liar, video taping the whalers testing fire extinguishers and calling it tear gas, and claiming to have been shot but somehow the bullet didn't kill him. This kind of childish nonsense isn't going to fly in a court of law because once credibility is questioned it will prejudice SS' own position.

  • -1

    سعد بن عبدالرشيد

    you people are missing the point.. how ever support japan :) save japan

  • -2

    lrodriguezsosa

    Way to go Japan!

  • 1

    RHSKita

    A co-worker recently informed me that the real reason Japan hunts whales (using those words) is that whales eat the little fish that the Japanese want for sushi and other dishes. Since the little fish are becoming scarce, the Japanese have a responsibility to hunt whales so that they can continue to have national dishes like sushi. (Never mind the fact that most whales eat kelp and plankton, and that the declining fish populations in the world are due to over-fishing all around the world)

    Ignorance is in every country. The circular logic used to justify whale hunting like that mentioned in the article (hunt whales to show that there is a large whale population) and mentioned by my coworker are troubling. Not sure what will be achieved with this court case. Interested in getting updates.

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    I really think your co-worker was pulling your leg. Alo, although whales do eat small schooling fish along with krill, I've never heard of them eating kelp.

  • -1

    Randy Smith

    The Japanese sues them in American courts? The whaling activity takes place in international waters. Wrong venue. The American court has no standing or jurisdiction

  • 3

    Randy Smith

    Japan will use 40 million dollars to preserve 100 whaling jobs. That's $400,000 per job. Not very smart Japan.

  • 1

    cactusJack

    I agree Randy. I wonder about the jurisdiction if these acts are happening in international waters.

  • -3

    arrestpaul

    astrogaijin - Do they realize that SS has TV cameras on all of their boats at all times and they catpure anything that they whalers "deney" doing? I can not say I am for or aginst whaling and if I ever got the chance to try whale I would. I just like watching the TV show.

    The ICR has submitted to the U.S. court several videos of the eco-terrorist SS committing repeated acts of violence. They have also submitted photos of the insignias painted on eco-terrorist SS ship depicting the 10 ships that the eco-terrorist SS brag that they have sunk along with photos of 4 Japanese insignias next to the word "Rammed" depicting the four Japanese research vessels that the eco-terrorist SS has rammed.

    What do you suppose the eco-terrorist SS videos would show? More eco-terrorist SS violence and whalers DEFENDING themselves from attack.

    Oh, look at that video your Honor. Those whalers are clearly defending themselves while we're attacking them - again. They're not supposed to be able to do that. Please dismiss this case against us so we can still afford to attack vessels operating legally in international waters. Pretty please.

  • -3

    arrestpaul

    Randy Smith - The Japanese sues them in American courts? The whaling activity takes place in international waters. Wrong venue. The American court has no standing or jurisdiction

    Not true. According to the filed complaint (link provided by OssanAmerica) - Defendant Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ("SSCS") is now, and at all relevant times has been, a nonprofit organization formed under the laws of Oregon. SSCS maintains its principal place of business at Friday Harbor, Washington, U.S.A..

    Defendant Paul Watson ("Watson") is the founder and president of SSCS. Watson is also the registered agent of SSCS with an address at Friday Harbor, Washington. Watson is believed to be admitted to the United States for permanent residence, residing at Friday Harbor, Washington. In his actions alleged herein, Watson is an agent of SSCS and he directs the affairs of SSCS.

    in other words, it is because the eco-terrorist SSCS is "based" in Friday Harbor, Washington State, U.S.A. that a lawsuit against them could be filed in a U.S. Circuit Court.

    The ICR also points out that jurisdiction exists under: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) 28 U.S.C. § 1333 28 U.S.C. § 1350 28 U.S.C. § 1367 28 U.S.C. § 1391

    i doubt that the eco-terrorist watson or his SS will stop committing acts of violence simply because a court says so but a ruling in favor of the ICR could freeze the funds of the eco-terrorist SSCS..

  • 0

    MiamiVice4life

    HAS ANYONE HERE EATEN WHALE MEAT??

    its oily and taste bad, when i go to the market no one actually touches it, the same piece of sealed whale meat has been on the shelf for 3 weeks already

    SS stop bullying japan

    Japan " EAT MOR CHIKIN"

  • 0

    Ranger_Miffy2

    This subject always raises record number of responses. I'm glad. Save the whales and save Japan from itself.

  • 0

    Shrkb8

    @arrestpaul, Sure ramming an idling Ady Gil is "defense" and is not an attack at all. Let's see you throw a 2 inch metal nut at a kid who threw an egg at your house, and let's see who goes to jail. Aim an LRAD at a helicopter at your local airport and see what the authoritiesdo to you. Your warped logic for defending the whalers actions is laughable.

  • -2

    arrestpaul

    Shrkb8 - Sure ramming an idling Ady Gil is "defense" and is not an attack at all. Let's see you throw a 2 inch metal nut at a kid who threw an egg at your house, and let's see who goes to jail. Aim an LRAD at a helicopter at your local airport and see what the authoritiesdo to you. Your warped logic for defending the whalers actions is laughable.

    Video shot of the stern of the Ady Gil clearly show that the toy boat was ACCELERATING into the path of a very much larger vessel causing it's own destruction. Oops. The LRAD wasn't being used at a local airport but in defense of a vessel in international water. The eco-terrorists repeatedly launch glass bottles of acid and throw red phosphorus flares at the whalers. There would be no reason to believe that eco-terrorists in the helicopter weren't going to do more of the same. Why would anyone allow pro-violence, eco-terrorist to fly over their head?

  • 1

    Shrkb8

    @arrestpaul - Read the New Zealand report on the incident. They cite the whalers for violating maritime rules of navigation by altering course toward the Ady Gil. They cite the skipper of the Ady Gil for not keeping a proper watch and not taking evasive action early enough to avoid the collision too late. If you really watch all the video, you would see 1) the whalers alter course toward the Ady Gil. 2) You would then see the Ady Gil go from dead in the water into reverse. And then 3) you see the Ady Gil shift into forward. This all jives with the New Zealand review of the incident. The Ady Gil did not drive into the path of the whaters, the whalers altered course toward the Ady Gil.

    And your justification for aiming an LRAD at the helicopter is laughable. Simply flying around the whale killers is perfectly legal. Had the helicopter pilot dropped anything out of the helicopter he would not have his license today. Go outside your house or to a public beach or go anywhere and aim an LRAD at a helicopter. See what that police do.

    Your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

  • -3

    arrestpaul

    Shrkb8 - Sure ramming an idling Ady Gil is "defense".........

    Shrkb8 - 1) the whalers alter course toward the Ady Gil. 2) You would then see the Ady Gil go from dead in the water into reverse. And then 3) you see the Ady Gil shift into forward. This all jives with the New Zealand review of the incident. The Ady Gil did NOT drive into the path of the whaters, the whalers altered course toward the Ady Gil.

    Hahahaha. So you're saying that someone shifted the AG into reverse, pushed the throttles forward, pulled the throttles back to neutral, shifted into forward, and then accelerated forward. Even your version still means the AG accelerated into the path of the whaler.

    And your justification for aiming an LRAD at the helicopter is laughable. Simply flying around the whale killers is perfectly legal. Had the helicopter pilot dropped anything out of the helicopter he would not have his license today. Go outside your house or to a public beach or go anywhere and aim an LRAD at a helicopter. See what that police do.

    Just to be clear, what license does a pilot need to fly a helicopter ONLY over international water (airspace) if the owner of the helicopter gives him his permission to fly the helicopter? I know that pilots need a license to fly over your house or a public beach because you are within some countries airspace but the eco-terrorist SS helicopter lifts off and lands over international water.

    Many vessels that travel in international water are mounting LRAD units to DEFEND themselves against pirate and terrorist ATTACK.

  • 1

    Shrkb8

    @arrest paul..... What I reported is accurate and verifiable on tape and in the New Zealand incident report. The whale boat skipper IS cited for altering course toward the Ady Gil.

    You've obviously never piloted a boat. There is not instantaneous velocity. it is not like a tire on the road. The props cavitate if you gun them too hard from a stand still. From the point the pilot saw the whaler's collision course and took action, he was going to get hit no matter what he did. The New Zealand officials cited that he failed to keep sufficient watch ... so he did not react early enough. the New Zealand report did not cite the Ady Gil skipper for the direction he chose after noticing that the whaler had changed course toward the Ady Gil. Read the report. And since the whaler altered course for a collision, how could the skipper of the Ady Gil know what the Whaler's next action would be - regardless of the course of action he chose. Clearly, the Ady Gil was at rest and had right of way by international maritime navigation rules.... and the whaling boat was the aggressor steering toward collision rather than away. You conveniently ignore and distort the facts.

    Sure cruise ships carry LRADs...they do not aim that at passing helicopters. The helicopter NEVER attempted any actions other than circling the vessel and filming. When they aimed the LRAD the helicopter was not even over the ship. In fact, the way the LRADS are mounted they would have difficulty aiming at the helicopter at any point it is directly over the ship. The pilot is licensed in the US and I believe the helicopter is as well. he would forfeit his license if he dropped anything on the ship. Again, you don't seem to care about the facts.

  • 2

    Shrkb8

    @Arrestpaul

    Here is the statement of findings from the NZ report incident summary:
    "6. As the overtaking vessel, Shonan Maru No. 2 failed to take early and substantial action to keep well clear of Ady Gil. This resulted in the development of a close quarters situation, during which Shonan Maru No. 2 failed to take positive and ample action to avoid colliding with Ady Gil.

    1. The stand-on vessel, Ady Gil, failed to maintain an effective lookout and to take early and substantial action when it became apparent that a close quarters situation had arisen and the risk of collision existed."

    Here is the part of the NZ report that demonstrates the whaler clearly steered toward the Ady Gil: "The information available suggests that, when Shonan Maru No. 2 was approximately 130 metres away from Ady Gil, Shonan Maru No. 2 steered so as to alter her track line some 13o degrees starboard (that is, from about 350o(T) to 014o(T). This alteration of course by Shonan Maru No. 2 rendered a close quarters situation inevitable in the absence of either a further change of course by Shonan Maru No. 2 or a change of course by Ady Gil."

    Hmmmmmm......

  • -4

    arrestpaul

    Shrkb8 - Clearly, the Ady Gil was at rest and had right of way.....

    And video still shows that the AG accelerated into the path of the whaler.

    A stand on vessel is obligated to hold their course and SPEED. A vessel at rest has no course or speed. You'll have to make up your mind, was the AG at rest or under way (ie. accellerating forward)?

    This alteration of course by Shonan Maru No. 2 rendered a close quarters situation inevitable in the absence of either a further change of course by Shonan Maru No. 2 or a change of course by Ady Gil."

    They should also make it clear that there was a change in SPEED by the AG.

    New Zealand authorities found both parties were at fault for the collision because neither party did enough to avoid a collision. The AG however had spent many hours crossing the bow of the whalers dragging a line that they hoped would ensnare the whalers propellers and to launch glass bottles of acid at the whalers. People who play stupid games win stupid prizes.

  • -2

    arrestpaul

    Shrkb8 - Sure cruise ships carry LRADs...they do not aim that at passing helicopters. The helicopter NEVER attempted any actions other than circling the vessel and filming.

    Hahahaha. The "passing helicopter" you're referring to is operated by an eco-terrorist organization that has repeatedly tried to disable Japanese vessels and to injure the whalers. The whalers only have your word and the eco-terrorist Watson that the copter isn't going to attempt more of the same violence.

    The only reason the copter was in the area was to cause more trouble. The only reason the LRAD is there is to prevent more attacks by the eco-terrorists. The LRAD is a DEFENSIVE weapon.

  • 0

    Shrkb8

    arrestpaul - yes, as I clearly said, the New Zealand report cites that the Ady Gil did not keep a proper watch. It also shows that the whaling vessel altered its course TOWARD the Ady Gil at just 130 meters distance. The report also clearly states that prior to the incident the Ady Gil had cut power and was drifting under the influence of the currents and winds. It was the whaling vessel that closed on the Ady Gil and then altered course towards it in the last moments before the collision. I am not altering my story. I am telling the sequence as documented in video and confirmed in the New Zealand report.

    Your application of the Navigation Rules is inaccurate. When a collision is imminent, as it was here, the skipper of the stand on vessel is REQUIRED to attempt evasive action. Which is what the Ady Gil helmsman did, but he did it too late.

    Any objective analysis of the data would come to the same conclusion. It is also interesting to note that the Japanese did NOT cooperate with the investigation. And conveniently did not interview the Japanese whaling crew. Pretty telling.

    The helicopter has never taken any active action against the whaling vessels. The whalers know it and you know it, but you insist on twisting the facts. If you think the LRAD is defensive in this use, fire one at a helicopter and see how the authorities treat it. Any defensive weapon can just as easily be an offensive weapon.

  • 0

    Shrkb8

    arrestpaul - No spin - the whaler had the responsibility to steer clear - it did the opposite:

    The activation of the water monitors, the posting of lookouts, the sounding of cautionary warning, the sounding of the LRAD and comments on the video commentary all suggest those on board Shonan Maru No. 2 were well aware of Ady Gil’s presence. This suggests that the course adopted by Shonan Maru No. 2 was not taken without consideration.

    There is no apparent safety basis for Shonan Maru No. 2 approaching Ady Gil in response to previous protest action.

    The obligation for the overtaking vessel to take action at an early stage lay with Shonan Maru No. 2. The master of Shonan Maru No. 2 did not take action in good time, creating the development of a close quarters situation. Good practice would have seen Shonan Maru No. 2 stay well clear of Ady Gil while overtaking.

    In the absence of an explanation from the Shonan Maru No. 2 master, the evidence obtained suggests that the master intentionally chose to take a close approach to Ady Gil and not to take early and substantial action to avoid the close quarters situation.

    Investigators were unable to find any evidence of circumstances that would have prevented Shonan Maru No. 2 from reducing her speed or taking any other action, such as a substantial alteration of course, to pass Ady Gil at a safe distance.

    Shonan Maru No. 2 was an overtaking vessel within the meaning of the International Collision Regulations and, as such, the master of Shonan Maru No. 2 had an obligation to keep clear of Ady Gil.

    It was considered likely that Shonan Maru No. 2 was aware of Ady Gil and its location.

    Shonan Maru No. 2 had ample opportunity to avoid creating the close quarters situation that developed and the subsequent collision.

    Shonan Maru No. 2 failed to keep well clear of Ady Gil.

  • -2

    arrestpaul

    Shrkb8 - Your application of the Navigation Rules is inaccurate. When a collision is imminent, as it was here, the skipper of the stand on vessel is REQUIRED to attempt evasive action. Which is what the Ady Gil helmsman did, but he did it too late.

    Maritime rules require that both (all) vessels do whatever it takes to avoid a collision regardless of whether they are the "stand on" vessel or the "give way" vessel. The starboard turn of the SM2 created yet another close quarters situation that the eco-terrorist SS thrives on. Can't launch glass bottles of acid and throw red phosphorus flares on board the whalers from 100 meters away. Close quarters doesn't mean a collision path but that a collision is possible. The SM2 and AG wouldn't have collided if the AG had maintained it's POSITION and SPEED.

    The eco-terrorist AG had been continually violating maritime rules and common sense by continuing to play a very dangerous game. Don't run with sissors. Don't cross railroad tracks when the warning bells and lights are activated. Don't accelerate your 13 ton toy boat into the path of a 700 ton vessel.

    There is no apparent safety basis for Shonan Maru No. 2 approaching Ady Gil in response to previous protest action.

    There is absolutely no apparent safety basis for ANY of the eco-terrorist SS actions. The eco-terrorist SS repeatedly claim that they are there to risk their lives.

    The helicopter has never taken any active action against the whaling vessels.

    I have no idea what you mean by "active action". What I see is an eco-terrorist organization that has repeatedly used every vessel they have, to ram other vessels. They have used every vessel they have to launch glass bottles of acid and to throw red phosphus flares at the whalers. They have use every vessel they have to deliberately try to disable the whalers. But you expect the whalers and the reading public to believe that the eco-terrorist helicopter is only an impartial observer and would never drop glass bottles of acid or red phosphorus flares or anything else onto the decks or down the funnels of the whalers. Why would anyone make that assumption? Because the eco-terrorist leader, who is a proven liar, says so?

    The helicopter pilot is just another eco-terrorist who is there to risk his life. Why would anyone want a crazy person flying over their head?

  • 0

    Shrkb8

    arrestpaul - you are in denial, just like the whalers about the will of the ICW with respect their farcical research program.

    The New Zealand report states that is indeteminable whether the collision would have occured had the Ady Gil not tried to take evasive action.

    The Shepherd actions against the Japanese Whalers in the Southern Sanctuary have not risked sinking the Japanese vessels or the lives of their crew.

    Both you and the whalers know the helicopter has ONLY been used for spotting and filming. The American pilot would not jeopardize his license doing something illegal like dropping anything on the sip. The LRADS could only be aimed at the helicopter when it was not directly over the Japanese vessel. So they hit it with LRADs when it could not do anything even if it wanted or intended to.

  • -2

    arrestpaul

    Shrkb8 - The New Zealand report states that is indeteminable whether the collision would have occured had the Ady Gil not tried to take evasive action.

    The Shepherd actions against the Japanese Whalers in the Southern Sanctuary have not risked sinking the Japanese vessels or the lives of their crew.

    The deliberate ramming and the repeated attempts to disable whaling vessels in the icy waters of the Antarctic is a very risky and dangerous act. It puts both crews at risk of exposure to the elements and possible injury or death, regardless of how you wish to spin the violence of the eco-terrorist SS.

    As I understand the term "evasive action", it means trying to avoid a collision (by going in reverse) and not charging headlong (forward) into the path of a much larger vessel as fast as its twin 540hp engines allow.

    I have no way of knowing what the eco-terrorist Watson has in mind for his helicopter. I doubt that the whalers have any idea what the eco-terrorist Watson has in mind for his helicopter, either. I have no idea if the pilot would risk his license or his life by bombing the whalers or even crashing his copter onto the deck of a whaler. And neither do you.

    I wouldn't allow an eco-terrorist helicopter to fly over my head either considering their decades long history of commiting repeated acts of violence. Using the LRAD to PREVENT an attack is exactly what the LRAD was designed to do.

  • 1

    Calvin Y

    From the sea shepard's own website, in their history they report dropping large lightbulbs filled with paint from overhead aircraft onto the deck of a ship so I do not think it is unreasonable to suspect that the overhead helicopter is a potential threat.

  • 1

    Shrkb8

    arrestpaul... Unbelievable and self deluded. Read the independent report. The New Zealand investigation did NOT find that the action of the Ady Gil helmsman caused the incident. It found that the Japanese turn toward the Ady Gil just 130 meters from the Ady Gil and the speed of the Japanese approach combined created the situation. The report cited the Ady Gil Helmsman for not keeping a proper watch and trying to avoid the collision too late.

    At any rate, the Sea Shepherds have already found the factory whaling ship. Hopefully, this will drastically cut down on the illegal Japanese whale poaching in the Southern Sanctuary.

  • -4

    arrestpaul

    Calvin Y - From the sea shepard's own website, in their history they report dropping large lightbulbs filled with paint from overhead aircraft onto the deck of a ship so I do not think it is unreasonable to suspect that the overhead helicopter is a potential threat.

    Thanks for the info. So the eco-terrorist SS have already proven that they are willing to resort to an airborne attack to continue their violence. Not really much of a surpise is it.

    Everyone who supports the eco-terrorist SS are also pro-violence and are willing to sink ships and injure or murder crew members, including eco-terrroist SS crews, in order to force their minority-held viewpoint on others. Do as we say or we'll hurt you is their mantra.

  • -3

    arrestpaul

    Shrkb8 - The report cited the Ady Gil Helmsman for not keeping a proper watch and trying to avoid the collision too late.

    What independent report? Isn't New Zealand allowing eco-terrorists to operate under the protection of their flag and to sail from their ports? Unbelievable and self deluded, indeed.

    Video clearly shows the AG accelerating into the path of the SM2. That action changed a game of high seas chicken into a collision. Next time, and there will be a next time, maybe the incompetent eco-terrorist SS will remember how to use "reverse".

  • -1

    SSCSforever

    @arrestpaul

    I wouldn't allow an eco-terrorist helicopter to fly over my head either considering their decades long history of commiting repeated acts of violence. Using the LRAD to PREVENT an attack is exactly what the LRAD was designed to do.

    If the LRAD is pointed at the helicopter, it could cause him to be disoriented and crash into the freezing Antarctic waters. He would be hypothermic and would most likely die as it only take a couple minutes.

    Sea Shepherd has never hurt or tried to hurt anybody but the Japanese Whaling fleet has. If you don't remember, the Japanese whalers threw brass bolts, golf balls, and bamboo spears into the small inflatable boats with the intent to hurt people. They also threw flash grenades and shot at the crew on the Steve Irwin. The have numerously aimed the LRAD at the helicopter pilot. The Japanese are the ones at fault not Sea Shepherd.

    Chris Aultman, the helicopter pilot refuses to throw anything out of the helicopter so that is impossible.

    All Sea Shepherd member are vegan aboard Sea Shepherd vessels so clearly they are not pro-violence. They wouldn't kill a fly. The whalers are the ones that want to murder over 900 whales. (Def. of murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. From dictionary.com)

    No Sea Shepherd boat flies under the the New Zealand flag.

    I don't know what video you are watching but the Ady Gil couldn't move because they were completely out of fuel. They could not reverse. Check this video. It is a split-screen of all video available of the crash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLdUISE3e8c You can clearly see that the Ady wasn't even moving and the Shonan turned into the Ady.

    Next time, and there will be a next time, maybe the incompetent eco-terrorist SS will remember how to use "reverse".

    Are You making a threat at Sea Shepherd? Wow! This just proves that the whalers are the violent ones and Sea Shepherd isn't. And remember how Sea Shepherd called Chilean authorities on the whalers before they entered their waters. Sea Shepherd was smart enough to know that. Sea Shepherd forced the whaling fleet out of the Southern Antarctic Whale Sanctuary with only 17% of their murder quota.

  • -3

    arrestpaul

    SSCSforever - If the LRAD is pointed at the helicopter, it could cause him to be disoriented and crash into the freezing Antarctic waters. He would be hypothermic and would most likely die as it only take a couple minutes.

    Sea Shepherd has never hurt or tried to hurt anybody but the Japanese Whaling fleet has. If you don't remember, the Japanese whalers threw brass bolts, golf balls, and bamboo spears into the small inflatable boats with the intent to hurt people. They also threw flash grenades and shot at the crew on the Steve Irwin. The have numerously aimed the LRAD at the helicopter pilot. The Japanese are the ones at fault not Sea Shepherd.

    the helicopter pilot refuses to throw anything out of the helicopter so that is impossible.

    All Sea Shepherd member are vegan aboard Sea Shepherd vessels so clearly they are not pro-violence. They wouldn't kill a fly.

    Hahahaha, you're a hoot. When the eco-terrorist SS finally does manage to disable a whaler and then sink it, that crew will also face hypothermia and would most likely die as it only take a couple minutes. The eco-terrorists are only interested in stopping animals from being killed, human lives are secondary if they're even considered at all. That's one of the reasons that a U.S. court could decide to freeze the accounts of the eco-terrorist SS in the U.S..

    The only way for the eco-terrorist SS to come within range of golf balls throw in SELF-DEFENSE is for them to close within range to throw their red phosphorus flares and glass bottles of acid at the whalers. Self defense is everyone right. The eco-terrorist SS represent no legal authority to attack anyone anywhere.

    Do I have your promise that the helicopter won't be used to attack the whalers? The eco-terrorist SS has a long history of lying about their actions and intentions, so I wouldn't accept their word about anything.

    I have no idea how you made the connection that being vegan automatically insures that that person is non-violent. The history of animal-rights zealots proves otherwise including the eco-terrorist Watson's 1st wife (or was his 2nd wife that was arrested for arson in the U.S.?).

  • -3

    arrestpaul

    SSCSforever - I don't know what video you are watching but the Ady Gil couldn't move because they were completely out of fuel. They could not reverse. Check this video. It is a split-screen of all video available of the crash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLdUISE3e8c You can clearly see that the Ady wasn't even moving and the Shonan turned into the Ady.

    Are You making a threat at Sea Shepherd?

    I, and most other people who are interested in what actually happened, have seen the video shot from the SM2 showing the SM2 passing within water cannon range of the AG and the allegedly "completely out of fuel" twin 540hp engines of the AG accelerating the toy boat INTO the path of the SM2.

    I'm just pointing out that the eco-terrorist SS will continue to dangerously cross the path of much larger vessels and eventually, due to stupidity, miscalculation or error, the eco-terrorist SS will wreck another of their own rustbuckets.

  • -3

    SSCSforever

    AG accelerating the toy boat INTO the path of the SM2.

    As you can clearly see in the video, the Ady Gil didn't even move. The video link shows the video shot from the Shonan Maru 2

  • -1

    SSCSforever

    When the eco-terrorist SS finally does manage to disable a whaler and then sink it, that crew will also face hypothermia and would most likely die as it only take a couple minutes.

    The prop fouler would only cause the ship to not move, it wouldn't cause them to sink.

    Sea Shepherd is the whales only defence. Without them, they would probably be extinct or close to it. The whalers are are murdering those who cannot defend themselves.

    Sea Shepherd throws bottles of butyric acid and it is less acidic than orange juice. It is found in cheese. Japan and the whalers are blowing the whole "acid" thing WAY out of proportion.

    The bottom line is that the whalers are committing illegal murder of protected whales and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society seems to be the only ones willing to protect the innocent, defenceless whales.****

  • 0

    It"S ME

    SSCSforever.

    If Butyric acid is that harmless, would you volunteer to stand there and have a bottle(glass-shrapnel) being dropped next to you and being splattered by it?

    Just throwing an empty glass-bottle already is a criminal offense and and a deliberate attack, fill it with stuff that is worse than citric acid and ......

    Awaiting your answer?

  • 0

    It"S ME

    Silence as always when this question gets asked.

  • 0

    cleo

    stuff that is worse than citric acid

    Oh, help us.

  • 1

    It"S ME

    Cleo.

    You volunteering to be splashed with citric or butyric acid? We are talking the refined pure form here. Or a lesser form like lemon juice in the eye? Any Takers?

    Many SSCS supporters advocate/support/defend actions that they would never want to be on the receiving themselves. If SSCS actions are truly that harmless step up and show us that you are willing to receive them before saying they are ok to be used on others.

    That is the point and nuff said.

  • -3

    cleo

    All whaling supporters advocate/support/defend actions that they would never want to be on the receiving end of themselves, some of them even tell us that exploding harpoons and an average time to death of over 2 minutes (which in itself is an awfully long time and means (if we believe the whalers' claims that the majority of deaths are instantaneous, a claim for which we have only their word), that a significant number of whales take a long, long, long time to die, in indescribable pain) are no big deal. So back at you, ME - show us that you are willing to receive actions that you say are OK to be used on dumb animals that have done nobody any harm.

    THAT is the point.

  • -1

    SSCSforever

    @It"S ME

    Um, I'm so sorry I don't sit here for hours waiting for your uneducated reply. I have a life.

    The Sea Shepherd crew never throw the bottles near people. I used drink pure lemon juice and eat lemons as a kid. So to answer your question, I would volunteer to be splashed with lemon juice or citric acid because that would be worse than being splashed with butyric acid. You would only smell bad. They have never hurt anybody with the bottles. The butyric acid is less harmful than orange juice. It only smells bad. It makes them not want to work in the place where the rotten butter was thrown and not want to eat the whale meat. The meat can still be used for their "scientific research."

    And how is throwing a bottle into an open space with no people around a criminal offence. The whole whaling operation is ILLEGAL.

    Sea Shepherd crew would stop throwing the butyric acid if the whalers would stop murdering the whales illegally.

    Awaiting your answer?

  • 1

    It"S ME

    Cleo.

    Dead-wrong there.

    I am anti-SSCS and don't wish any harm to the SSCS Crew in any form or manner. This is beside if I am Anti- or Pro-Whaling.

    I just disagree with SSCS and their actions and am repulsed by people that defend/advocate them or think that they some how got a mandate that justifies their actions.

  • -1

    It"S ME

    Yeah, Sure.

    You in the southern oceans taking an exploding harpoon to safe a whale?

    Nuff said.

  • 0

    cleo

    Dead wrong where? I never suggested that you wished any harm to the SS crew members.

    I don't wish any harm to the whalers. I just want them to go home and stop wasting my taxes.

  • 0

    It"S ME

    Cleo.

    Agree, I don't wish harm to anyone.

    But lets also be realistic what I, you, etc wish is just that and nothing more than a wish. Yep, our Opinion and desires but in the long run nothing more than that.

    Yeah, we can climb on various bandwagons and claim affiliate but still nothing more than that, till we step up to the plate and start taking swings and hits ourselves and start paying our dues(not financial nor verbal) for supporting a cause.

    Moral/Verbal support is no "money" in the bank in the end. But many groups to collect a fair coin from those moral/verbal supporters.

    I support groups that act within the laws and account for every cent I give them.

    My View.

  • -5

    arrestpaul

    SSCSforever - As you can clearly see in the video, the Ady Gil didn't even move. The video link shows the video shot from the Shonan Maru 2

    Anyone can clearly see that the AG did in fact accelerate into the path of the SM2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yseD1sKZiJk&feature=player_detailpage

    SSCSforever - The prop fouler would only cause the ship to not move, it wouldn't cause them to sink.

    Sea Shepherd throws bottles of butyric acid and it is less acidic than orange juice. It is found in cheese. Japan and the whalers are blowing the whole "acid" thing WAY out of proportion.

    Disabling any vessel in the dangerous waters of the Antarctic could lead to its sinking and possible loss of life. The eco-terrorist have NO legal authority to attack or disable any vessel anywhere. Eco-terrorist Watson is lying when he says that he does.

    Whalers have been injured by eco-terrorist launched glass bottles of acid as was proven at eco-terrorist Pete Bethune's trial for high seas stupidity.

  • -6

    arrestpaul

    SSCSforever - The Sea Shepherd crew never throw the bottles near people.......

    And how is throwing a bottle into an open space with no people around a criminal offence.

    The eco-terrorist's inability to consistantly hit the whalers doesn't mean they aren't repeatedly trying. The eco-terrorist Watson has filled the bow of a ship with concrete in order to sink a whaler, which he then rammed twice, and has ordered crew members to fired bullets at fishing vessels. The AG had a bow and arrows on board to shoot in the direction of the whalers. The eco-terrorist SS are pro-violence and so are their supporters.

    It would be considered attempted assault but the eco-terrorists would have to be tried in a country that isn't passive/aggressive in their support of eco-terrorism such as Australian, New Zealand, and the Neatherlands which are also pro-violence.

  • -2

    SSCSforever

    @arrestpaul Your video is from only your point of view. My video shows the collision from the Bob Barker, Ady Gil, and the Shonan Maru 2. It clearly shows the SM2 turning into the Ady. The Ady tries to turn starboard to avoid the SM2. The video shot from the Ady shows the men on the back of the boat and it is NOT moving, it's only idling. You can see the SM2 making a hard starboard turn into the Ady. You should examine all videos available a little more closely. In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLdUISE3e8c) at about 40 seconds, the SM2 clearly turns. At 1:20, in shows the split screen on the 3 videos from the Bob Barker, Ady Gil and SM2. The Ady didn't start moving until the SM2 was almost on top of them. They didn't have enough time to do anything else. You should clearly do more research before you make untrue statements like you did.

    Disabling any vessel in the dangerous waters of the Antarctic could lead to its sinking and possible loss of life.

    Sea Shepherd has successfully prop fouled the whaling ships, one of which was didn't move for 2 days because of the prop fouler. They were completely fine. The only thing that would happen if the prop was completely broken is that they would have to be towed to the nearest port.

    Whalers have been injured by eco-terrorist launched glass bottles of acid as was proven at eco-terrorist Pete Bethune's trial for high seas stupidity.

    You are so wrong here. The whalers have only been injured by their own stupidity as seen in this video(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U1rINRY_RQ) and have never been hurt by Sea Shepherd. Please list off the injuries caused by Sea Shepherd because I am not aware of any and trust me, I have done my fair share of research. Make sure you do yours before you make uneducated comments.

    The eco-terrorist's inability to consistantly hit the whalers doesn't mean they aren't repeatedly trying.

    I would imagine that after thousands of throws, they would have eventually hit somebody. And if they did, where is the evidence. The whalers are constantly saying that Sea Shepherd has hit them with the butyric acid bottles but why don't they have evidence of the injuries or the so called "burns." The whalers always have all these video cameras taping all the engagements. Why don't they actually show whalers being hit with the bottles? Why don't they show their crew being scalded by the Butyric Acid? Why don't they show the marks left by the bottles thrown by the SSCS? They are always making these accusations but unlike Sea Shepherd, there is never any evidence to back it up.

    The eco-terrorist have NO legal authority to attack or disable any vessel anywhere.

    They actually do have the authority to enforce the laws being broken by the illegal whalers. The UN World Charter for Nature states in #24 (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm) that "Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met." This gives Sea Shepherd the power to enforce the laws set int the UN World Charter For Nature. It allows them to stop any illegal activities like the "scientific" whaling operation.

    The AG had a bow and arrows on board to shoot in the direction of the whalers.

    They had bow and arrows on board to shot into the whales so that it would make people not want to eat the meat but it was still ok for "scientific research." They never said that they were going shot them at people. The whaling crew members have actually shot at Sea Shepherd crew before.

    It would be considered attempted assault

    Please, lets not talk abut attempted assaults here. You may be putting yourself into a sticky situation. At the killing cove in Taiji, the SS Cove Guardians have been physically and verbally assaulted by the dolphin killers but the police didn't do a thing about it but as soon as the SS Cove Guardians tried to take pictures, they were arrested (and one is currently being held) because of something that somebody made up (The Japanese said that the cove guardian had bumped into somebody at the dolphinarium.) I could gp on for days about assaults.

    Australian, New Zealand, and the Neatherlands which are also pro-violence.

    Yes, just because Sea Shepherd vessels and crew members are affiliated with these countries, it automatically make them pro-violence. And don't even think about saying Sea Shepherd is the violent one. Just remember, it isn't Sea Shepherd killing over 1000 protected whales and 23,000 dolphins every year.

    Like I said before, the bottom line is that the whalers are committing illegal murder of protected whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society seems to be the only ones willing to protect the innocent, defenceless whales.

  • -4

    arrestpaul

    SSCSforever - Your video is from only your point of view.

    Hahahaha. The video isn't "my point of view", it's the only video that shows the stern of the AG and proves that it accelerated into the path of the SM2. Play stupid games, win stupid prices. Don't play chicken with larger vessels. Eventually you will scratch the paint on their bow.

    Whalers have been injured by eco-terrorist launched glass bottles of acid as was proven at eco-terrorist Pete Bethune's trial for high seas stupidity.

    They actually do have the authority to enforce the laws being broken by the illegal whalers. The UN World Charter for Nature.........

    The UN World Charter for Nature has no authority to authorize anyone to attack anyone. They have no authority to deputize any freebooter to enforce made up "laws". You have just as much legal authority to deputize the eco-terrorist Watson as the UNWCN. In what court would the eco-terrorist Watson be considered anything but an eco-terrorists for ramming, sinking, launching glass bottles of acid, throwing red phosphorus flares, and conning naive animal lovers and over-the-hill "entertainers" out of their money?

    Yes, just because Sea Shepherd vessels and crew members are affiliated with these countries, it automatically make them pro-violence.

  • -1

    Andy Belgium

    Yes Japan, sue SSC because you are catching whales in a SANCTUARY. That is the most logical think I have ever heard. This proves by the way that the Japan's nation is far from a democratcy. In Belgium we can say what we want, without be throwing into jail unlike in Japan.

  • -3

    arrestpaul

    Andy Belgium - Yes Japan, sue SSC because you are catching whales in a SANCTUARY. That is the most logical think I have ever heard.

    Japan is suing the eco-terrorist SS in the U.S. to prevent monies collected in the U.S. from being used to support eco-terrorism violence.

  • -1

    SSCSforever

    @arrestpaul

    Hahahaha. The video isn't "my point of view", it's the only video that shows the stern of the AG and proves that it accelerated into the path of the SM2.

    Um, you clearly haven't watched the link that I posted. IT SHOWS THE VIDEO SHOT FROM THE SHONAN MARU 2 AS WELL AS FROM THE BOB BARKER AND ADY GIL. The name of your video is "Sea Shepherds Stage Ady Gil Crash into the Shonan Maru for Publicity " and mine is "Ady Gil Collision 3-way Split Screen". And how the hell does it even remotely make sense that the Ady accelerated infront of the SM2. That would be like parking your bike and asking to get hit by a school bus. Yes, now I can see how that make sense (in sarcastic voice).

    Don't play chicken with larger vessels.

    Wow, really. Thank you, Captain Obvious. THEY DIDN'T!

    Whalers have been injured by eco-terrorist launched glass bottles of acid as was proven at eco-terrorist Pete Bethune's trial for high seas stupidity.

    Um, you didn't even give any examples. Please provide some because I am unaware of any.

    They have no authority to deputize any freebooter to enforce made up "laws".

    What are you talking about. It's the UN! They have some of the most powerful laws in the world. The govern the governments of the world. Without them, this world would be a disaster.

    In what court would the eco-terrorist Watson be considered anything but an eco-terrorists for ramming, sinking, launching glass bottles of acid, throwing red phosphorus flares, and conning naive animal lovers and over-the-hill "entertainers" out of their money?

    To answer your question, most courts wouldn't consider him the things you listed. Ramming? Do you not remember 2 years ago when the Shonan Maru rammed the Ady Gil and it subsequently sank.

    @Ady Belgium

    Thank you for finally providing a logical answer.

    <In Belgium we can say what we want, without be throwing into jail unlike in Japan.

    Same as in Canada, the USA, and most of the world.

    Japan thinks that they can do whatever they want, like ignoring laws, using allocated donation money for the wrong purpose, illegally whaling in a whale sanctuary and burning heavy fuels below 60 degrees to name a few.

    Japan's case will never hold in US courts.

  • -5

    arrestpaul

    SSCSforever - And how the "heck" does it even remotely make sense that the Ady accelerated infront of the SM2. That would be like parking your bike and asking to get hit by a school bus.

    It doesn't make sense but that's exactly what the AG did. Oops. What is Pete Bethune's opinion of the eco-terrorist Watson today?

    What are you talking about. It's the UN! They have some of the most powerful laws in the world. The govern the governments of the world. Without them, this world would be a disaster.

    The UN has no enforcement arm. It can only ask it's member states to vote for an enforcement and then request its member states to use their military to provide that enforcement under a UN banner. The UN doesn't have the authority or jurisdiction to grant the eco-terrorist Watson any right to ram, sink, or disable vessels registered to UN member states.

    To answer your question, most courts wouldn't consider him the things you listed. Ramming?

    Do you have your eco-terrorist SS black shirt that lists the names of the vessels they sunk? Do you have your AG crew hat that says, "STAND BY TO RAM"?

    U.S. laws have changed. Pro-violence, terrorist organization are having their funding frozen. Proving that the eco-terrorist SS is using acts of violence to force others to do their bidding isn't going to be difficult. The eco-terrorist's own videos will the the highlight of any trial and proof positive of their violence.

  • 0

    SSCSforever

    From the IWC:

    As stated in Resolution 2007-1 below:

    RECALLING that the Commission has repeatedly requested Contracting Parties to refrain from issuing special permits for research involving the killing of whales within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, has expressed deep concern at continuing lethal research within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and has also recommended that scientific research involving the killing of cetaceans should only be permitted where critically important research needs are addressed;

    the IWC is:

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

    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.

    ECO-TERRORISM AND PIRACY ON THE HIGH SEAS: JAPANESE WHALING AND THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE GROUPS TO ENFORCE INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION LAW IN NEUTRAL WATERS

    2009, Joseph Elliott Roeschke, The Villanova Environmental Law Journal, Volume XX, Issue 1, pages 99-136.

    http://www.seashepherd.org/images/stories/who-we-are/laws-and-charters-1-30-09_-JER-_Sea_Shepherd_Whaling_Paper.pdf

    This is an article by an outside party that you should really take a look at, especially the conclusion on the last page.

  • -4

    arrestpaul

    Directly from the IWC (not thru the eco-terrorist SS):

    RESOLUTION ON SAFETY AT SEA AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

    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;

    SERIOUSLY CONCERNED that certain confrontations and actions at sea relating to whaling and whale research activities risk human life, property, the marine environment, and the order of maritime navigation, and may lead to grave accidents;

    RECOGNISING the need for all States to take actions, in accordance with relevant rules of international law and respective national laws and regulations, to cooperate as appropriate to prevent and suppress actions that risk human life and property at sea;

    Apparently the IWC doesn't condone the eco-terrorist SS violence either.

    Maybe that's why the eco-terrorist Watson and his SS were kicked out as observers at the IWC? Or why the eco-terrorist Watson was kicked out of Greenpeace? Or why many nations have rejected the eco-terrorists attempts to register SS attack vessels in their country?

    The more people find out about how the eco-terrorists operate, the fewer people there are who want to be associated with the SS and their violence.

  • -1

    SSCSforever

    "@arrestpaul

    It doesn't make sense but that's exactly what the AG did.

    The Ady was idling and not moving and the Shonan Maru 2 clearly turned into it.

    Pete betrayed Sea Shepherd and still does to this day. He has given false information to the authorities. Paul cannot trust him anymore.

    The UN has a lot of power. They were created to stop things like the Japanese governments injustices. Unfortunately, Japan seems to think that they have a lot of money to throw around and bribe other countries to support them and avoid the repercussions that they deserve.

    The UN World Charter for Nature states:

    21) States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

    (a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and consultations

    (b) Establish standards for products and other manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects

    (c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment

    (d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction

    (e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction

    Do you have your eco-terrorist SS black shirt that lists the names of the vessels they sunk?

    Why yes. Yes, I do. I am actually wearing it right now. Clearly, you didn't know that all 11 vessels that they have sunk had nobody onboard when they were sunk. There would have been 13 but there were people on the other 2 Icelandic whaling boats so they decided not to sink them.

    Do you have your AG crew hat that says, "STAND BY TO RAM"?

    You are wrong when you say that the hat is for Ady Gil crew members. It is actually a hat for all crew members on Sea Shepherd boats. The Steve Irwin and Bob Barker would be the ones to ram ships their own size.

    Pro-violence, terrorist organization are having their funding frozen.

    Sea Shepherd is an international non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization, not a pro-violence, terrorist organization.

    Proving that the eco-terrorist SS is using acts of violence to force others to do their bidding isn't going to be difficult. The eco-terrorist's own videos will the the highlight of any trial and proof positive of their violence.

    Actually, it will. The US courts actually take into account both side's statements, even if one side is a government and the other is not. The Japanese whalers have caused harm to the Sea Shepherd crew. The Japanese whalers have never been hurt by Sea Shepherd. The Japanese whalers threw brass bolts, golf balls, and bamboo spears into the small inflatable boats with the intent to hurt the crew. They also threw flash grenades and shot at the crew on the Steve Irwin. The have numerously aimed the LRAD at the helicopter pilot, which can cause him to crash into the freezing Antarctic waters and freeze to death. The whalers are also illegally killing whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The Nissin Maru, once they pass 60 degrees, will be in the Antarctic illegally because it uses heavy fuel oils."

    • Moderator

      Readers, you are going around in circles and just repeating yourselves. From here on, posts that contain nothing new will be removed.

  • -1

    Nikolay Stoyanov

    MaboDofuIsSpicy - You are an Idiot , I hope for each whale Japan kills they will get hit whit an Earthquake and a Tsunami .

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • 海外営業事務

    海外営業事務
    株式会社セドナエンタープライズ、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥220,000 ~ ¥400,000 / Month Negotiable
  • African Speaking Sales manager

    African Speaking Sales manager
    JPC TRADE CO.,LTD. (株式会社JPC)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 ~ ¥450,000 / Month Negotiable Basic Salary + Incentives
  • Recruitment / HR Generalist

    Recruitment / HR Generalist
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Program Assistant

    Program Assistant
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager

    Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager
    Autocom Japan (オートコムジャパン株式会社)、Kanagawa
    Salary: ¥270,000 ~ ¥800,000 / Month Commission Based

More in National

View all

View all