Whalers 'on the run' again, say activists

I'm so tired of hearing about whales, whalers, watson and his band of merry eco-terrorists. I suppose as the global depression hits everyone's pockets and contributions to SS start to trickle we'll be hearing more of these wartime propaganda style announcements.

Whalers on the run again, so JT readers and Sea Shepherd will chase them again. No better business for Whalers?

Hopefully the anti-piracy laws can also detach either MSDF or Coast Guard vessels to deal with the eco-terrorists.

Either way, the the less the supply, more expensive the whale meat becomes. And there's still enough business for people to go to restaurants to consume them...

Whale meat is high in mercury, long associated with madness, so people who eat it develop the delusion that it's good eating... vicious circle.

Japan is hiding commercial whaling under the guise of research. It is a pathetic attempt and a shameful mask for a petty industry.

Second point. The use of "terrorist" to describe anything you don't like undermines the value of the word to describe what it really means. Should I be calling you lot blogger terrorists for posting pro-whaling comments? Let's be real. What the protesters are doing is hardly terrorism. It is clearly a protest and clearly risky. But most protests are.

Fair is fair. Japan wants to hide commercial whaling and engage in violations of international agreements, then protesters should have the same latitude to make that process as painful as possible.

Too bad there are not more ships out there with a spine to do the right thing.

I'm so tired of hearing about whales, whalers, watson and his band of merry eco-terrorists.

I'm so tired of hearing of whales being killed. I'm also tired of hearing the people saving them being called terrorists. It's lazy bastardisation of the language.

SS only needs to follow the death ships to stop them whaling. Just shows the whalers are terrified of what they are doing being common knowledge. They want us all to think that there is no blood and guts and suffering involved, they're simply pulling ready-packaged slabs of meat out of the ocean and studying their sell-by date.

It is a good day - The whale butchers are on the run again and a few less whales will be killed. SS, keep up the good work.

Good news!

Whales ho! Steve Irwin hot! Oh no! OssanAmerica uh-oh! Go Steve Irwin go! Save the Whales!

I'm thinking they need another ship to act as a screen, and to use the terrorists own tactics against them.

If the protesters were terrorists then the whaling ships would be at the bottom of the sea. Terrorism used to define people who carry out violent activities like bombings or sinking ships. Now, thanks to our former idiot president, anyone you don't like can be a terrorist.

English used to have words with real meanings. Now meaningless people attach words they imagine to be forceful to any random thing. When a little time with a thesarurus might help them come up with something a little more on target and original.

The fact remains. No act of terror has been committed here. Only acts of public demonstration and obstruction. It's called a protest. Look up the word and you may figure out the difference.

So grow up out of the dark Bush ages and let's find words that have meaning. Eco-activists and protesters are hardly terrorists. Dear old George Orwell nailed on double speak didn't he.

tkoind2, Paul Watson is repeatedly at pains to stress that his is not a "protest" organization. So you can stop trying to argue with him about it. He is not protesting.

Expect the HMS Steve Irwin to be at the bottom of the sea soon.

But Japan should stop whaling.

No... Japan should continue whaling. If it has to stop something it should stop tuna fishing and importation of tuna.

On the more serious subject matter though, in Australia the news is focusing on the discussions between Australia and Japan at the moment. Australia is considering reducing the pressure if Japan agree's to limit its whaling to its own waters. Naturally Sea Shepard aren't impressed however the long term ramifications are to be considered, can Japan maintain a sustainable fishing stock when limited to their own waters, and would the whales change their migratory patterns if the whalers could no longer hunt them over thousands of miles?

It's an interesting development IMO, I think trying to force Japan to go cold turkey on this issue would do more harm than good as it would turn it into an issue of interfering with national rights rather than conservationism, this would instead allow a compromise that would allow increased protection to antarctic waters while forcing Japan to take responsibility to sustain their own whale populations.

It's not ideal, but it's a compromise that would keep a much larger area of the oceans safe from environmental damage, as well as bringing the issue to the Japanese public themselves in their own backyard.

Conservation shouldn't be optional. Let's face facts, what company that can make a profit from an activity will stop doing it out of concern for conservation and the goodness of their hearts?

There should be a stronger global ban on whaling. It should be enforced in international waters by a mandate for policing ships to be able to seize vessils that attempt to break conservation statutes. Vessils that flee should be subject to military intervention or the use of force to stop them. Ships that comply and stop will be held. If found to be participating in illegal activities, the ships will be seized and either refitted to add additional patrol vessils, or scrapped if not suitable for such duty. Captains will be fined and responsible countries sanctioned.

If we don't put teeth into conservation laws we will be counting more and more extinctions why greedy scumbags go on hunting endangered species.

tkoind2, whaling and conservation are compatible. What this requires is that whales are taken in sustainable numbers.

Whales are not fluffy dolls. They actually mate together and produce offspring, like any other animal. Conducting whaling in a sustainable manner does not endanger species.

Whales are not fluffy dolls. They actually mate together and produce offspring, like any other animal. Conducting whaling in a sustainable manner does not endanger species.

David, I do believe that you got your spelling wrong.

Whalers are not fluffy dolls. They actually mate together and produce offspring, like any other animal. Conducting whalering in a sustainable manner does not endanger species.

Whalers are not fluffy dolls. They actually mate together

Ugh. What a horrible image! (Who would actually fancy one of them??)

Not terrorists in any sense of the word.

DavidatTokyo, Just why do you assume that everyone else on this thread has no clue about the realities of whaling and conservation than you?

It is obvious that whales are not fluffy dolls. It is equally obvious that many species are still in extremely modest numbers when compared against their historic levels.

The key fact remains. There is no reason to whale at this time other than for commercial gain. And we have determined on a global basis that we are not ok with that. Japan is violating the law by masking their commercial whaling under the guise of science. Period.

Add to this the fact that we are talking about highly intelligent life forms. It is this human arrogance that has led us to nearly obliterate other life on the planet. We have used our levels of sustainability to nearly wipe out most key sea life. We see our petty human needs and objectives and trumping any other needs by any other living things on earth.

Even staring down the barrel of global warming and the likely effects it will bring and we still carry on making decisions that make sense to make money instead of what needs to be done to care for the planet.

So don't talk down to me mate. We disagree in fundamental ways. I believe we should respect intelligent life, discontinue barbaric practices and start working hard to grow beyond sustainability and to begin to preserve and encourage the redevelopment of species to natural levels.

As for arrogant human opportunism. Keep it up and you will be praying that someone rescues us.

Hey dont get me wrong, I'm not pro-whaling, but I dont believe taking a hard-line approach will be successful or is the right thing to do.

Who here lived in Japan during the rebuilding? Who actually understands the origins of eating whale meat? I don't. I'm an Australian and that means a whale to me is something that you get on a boat to go and see swimming and splashing around with its calves and singing to each other. Naturally I'm not to wild about blowing them into chunks or people that do.

I understand vegemite and cheese scrolls though, I wouldn't react well if Japan started telling me I shouldn't eat them. We don't care that the rest of the world thinks vegemite is foul, its part of who we are. And I suspect American's understand MacDonalds. A company that's pretty notorious for pretty foul business practices, Americans know Macca's has a bad side, but it doesn't change the fact it's an institution. Now if Japan was to use international law to try and ban hamburgers I dont think Americans would react well to it. To them it may well be a food thats associated with family car trips or hanging out with their friends in their teenage years. It's the "Golden Arches" and a symbol of America. Yet Japan would have every right to protest, Macdonalds is well documented for unsustainable farming practices in South America. Brazil, which has close ties with Japan, is being deforrested at an alarming rate to keep the meat grinders turning.

I'm not trying to hide an arguement in schmaltzy sentimentalism about "Mum's hot apple pie", I'm trying to illustrate the base that everyone as human being works from. We get attached to things, food being among them. We all by default have some kinda "Mum" and everyones mum made some kinda apple, whalemeat, vegemite and "beef flavoured cardboard with pickles" pie. Coming into another society as an outsider and taking a "hard-line" approach isn't acceptable. However a compromise that stops a societies impact on internationally shared resources while placing it in charge of it's own resources where it's people will see the impact they make first hand seems to me, a compromise where everyone moves forward together, even if its just half a step.

Look at the "war on terror". Hard line approaches get hard line reactions. It's going to take generations for the affects of that little fiasco to stop. It's a heck of a lot harder to try and understand why people feel and act the way they do when we dont share the same experiences, but if we dont bother to try, then decide to go "Hard Line" in our ignorance, we're just going to put a lot of noses out of joint and make things worse.

tkoind2,

I note that you do not deny that sustainable whaling and conservation are compatible.

You can complain until you go blue in the face, make all the excuses you like, but until you get your own country to ever-so-nobly lead by example and stop harvesting what the IUCN regards as the "critically endangered" species of Southern Bluefin Tuna, then you don't stand a chance of seeing whaling nations give up the right to sustainable exploitation of natural renewable resources, which is an accepted norm and the way of the future in the 21st century.

tkoind2

If the protesters were terrorists then the whaling ships would be at the bottom of the sea. Terrorism used to define people who carry out violent activities like bombings or sinking ships.

That is exaxtly what Sea Shepherd does: Sea Shepherd claims to have sunk ten whaling ships since 1979, referring to these ships as "pirates". The claimed attacks include: 1979 – the whaler Sierra rammed and sunk in Portugal; 1980 – the whalers Isba I and Isba II sunk in Vigo, Spain; 1980 – the whalers Susan and Theresa sunk in South Africa; 1986 – the whaling ships Hvalur 6 and Hvalur 7 sunk in Iceland; 1992 – the whaler Nybraena sunk in Norway; 1994 – the whaler Senet sunk in Norway; 1998 – the whaler Morild sunk in Norway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd More info also on other sites just google "Sea Shepherd violence"

I'm so tired of hearing about whales, whalers, watson and his band of merry eco-terrorists.

My feelings exactly. And I really don't understand the posters who can't admit that when an organization brags of having sunk 9 whaling ships over the years, they are eco-terrorists. Sea Shepard prefers the label "Pirates" both are criminals.

I am curious to know how many of the anti-whaling crowd are (ironically) pro-abortion. I suspect most anti-whalers are pro-choice. Not being a hypocrite, I am both pro-abortion and pro-whale killing.

bebert,

I suspect most anti-whalers are pro-choice.

I would suspect the opposite, as they seem to be desperate to console themselves for their own misdeeds by constraining the rights and choices of others.

So two countries making bad ecological decisions somehow rationalizes whaling?

I am just as quick to criticize my own contry for poor decisions, just read most of my posts, as I am to complain about Japan's bad decisions. I am in no way a nationalist. On the contrary, I think more universal global governance makes sense in order to address the issues we face as a species.

The best solution is to send the whaling fleets to scrap. But failing that nations that oppose whaling should step up sanctions against those who insist upon continuing it. This should equally apply to other policies that endager species.

As for intelligence. We know for fact that many creatures on this planet exhibit higher levels of intelligence. This has been especialy true of some marine mamals. We have seen deep familial and social structures that define these animals as having societal structures, communication and emotion.

Why then do we continue to ignore this in human arrogance? We don't need to kill whales to live. We don't need them commercially. And at present you cannot justify killing them for their own good. So why carry on killing animals that we don't need to kill? Other than for the greed of a tiny population that is.

Bebert. The issue of whaling and abortion have very little in common other than your faitly veiled attempt to paint conservationist posting here as conflicted if they have a contrary view on abortion. It starts by disregarding the definitions of life which of course your lot will paint as starting at conception or with some theological point of view.

Stay with the real topic here and face these issues instead of trying to cloud things over with non-sensical comparisons.

There are some mighty uninformed postings going on. Yes, SS have sunk whaling ships. A friend of mine sank the 2 in Rekyavik harbor. The 3rd whaling ship in the harbor was not touched because a human was on board. According to you guys damaging property is terrorsim? and BTW, my friend stayed in rekyavik to be arrested but the authorities left him alone because they did not want the publicity of a trial because they were engaged in illegal whaling

tkoind2, sustainable whaling is not a bad ecological decision.

On the contrary, I think more universal global governance makes sense in order to address the issues we face as a species.

Good governance should not preclude sustainable whaling. Indeed, governance that does preclude sustainable whaling is very certainly not good governance.

The best solution is to send the whaling fleets to scrap.

Solution to what? You haven't defined the problem with sustainable whaling.

As for intelligence

As for intelligence my view is that even relatively stupid animals are as deserving of life and relatively smarter animals. Likewise, when it comes to humans, I believe that even you deserve the same rights as other humans.

We don't need ... We don't need ...

You don't speak for "we", you speak for you and perhaps your mates.

davidattokyo is right with "whaling and conservation are compatible."

Strange! This story lacks the images of how the Japanese whalers have set up anti-boarding nets, floats and spikes on their vessels and doesn't mention anything about them hurling metal balls at the activists. Could this mean the news in Japan is censored? Unbelievable

Sydney Morning Herald - http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/whale-watch/whalers-hurl-metal-balls-at-activists/2009/02/02/1233423092577.html

I would suggest the use of spikes, fenders and acoustic weapons should be enough to keep people at bay. Hurling metal balls at the protesters, is a deadly escalation that's not likely to go down well. Will the Japanese authorities be issuing warrants for the arrest of the offenders on the whaling ships?

I think interpol should be notified that the whaling terrorists are committing acts of piracy :)

The "metal balls" are probably rolled up tin foil....

The whole thing is a waste of time and money.

Not terrorists in any sense of the word.

Any person or group that causes unprovoked physical harm to people or property with total disregard for law based solely on their own beliefs are terrorists. Sea Sheperd Society is a terrorist organization.

The "Eco" buzzword is everywhere; there's even alleged "eco" terrorism. Wow.

Ossan- your definition of a terrorist is simply wrong. A Terrorist is a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Sea Shepherd are not using violence or intimidation, although the whalers might find the robust protests theyre on the receiving end of intimidating.

A protestor on the other hand is one who takes part in an organized public demonstration objecting to an official policy or course of action, which exactly describes Sea Shepherds actions against the whalers.

False labelling is rapidly becoming a standard practise in Japan. One which we should all resist.

Is anyone as amused as I am that the ship is called the Steve Irwin?! It reminds me of the name of a Japanese ship on an episode of The Simpsons, イクラ殺し丸, the S.S. Dolphin Killer.

Ack, that was supposed to be イルカ殺し丸、my mistake.

The Sea Sheperd organization are Eco-Terrorists. That is why Greenpeace have distanced themselves from them. An awful lot of folks here need to get a clue.

"Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health February 12, 2002 "The Threat of Eco-Terrorism

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

Most people in all countres including Australia and Japan couldn't give a hoot about whales. Including yours truly. I just don't like terrorists of all kinds (and those who support them).

OssanAmerica - Copy and paste what you like, the FBI doesnt define the English language.

Sea Shepherd are not trying to gain political power, they're protesting against your friends in the Southern ocean. The fact that the protests are robust and effective, indicates they were right to split from Greenpeace.

It's clear you dont give a hoot about the whales, just the whalers. Im sure few of Sea Shepherds supporters will lose sleep if we cant be friends.

dontpanic

OssanAmerica - Copy and paste what you like, the FBI doesnt define the >English language.

No they don't. But their interpretation of what does or does not constitute an eco-terrorist is infinitely more significant and relevant to reality than a bunch of people on an internet forum spouting off their individual opinions without substantiation.

Sea Shepherd are not trying to gain political power, they're protesting >against your friends in the Southern ocean.

Sea Shepherd are eco-terrorists ie; criminals. The Whalers are neither my friends nor enemies, I really couldn't care what they are doing or not doing. Criminals getting away with criminal actions, and sadly, being cheered on by people who are incapable of appreciating this fact most certainly are not my friends.

The fact that the protests >are robust and effective, indicates they >were right to split from >Greenpeace.

WRONG...it was Greenpeace who distanced themselves from the Watson and his merry band of lunatics.

It's clear you dont give a hoot about the whales, just the whalers. Im >sure few of Sea Shepherds supporters will lose sleep if we cant be >friends.

I've repeated numerous times that I don't care about the whales or the whalers one way or the other. I've also stated numerous times that what I do not like is criminal activity and cheering it on thoughtlessly. It's clear that you can't read.

"No they don't. But their interpretation of what does or does not constitute an eco-terrorist is infinitely more significant and relevant to reality than a bunch of people on an internet forum spouting off their individual opinions without substantiation"

Only significant to you for use on this forum. The FBI make their definitions for their purposes, and while that is significant for US policy, hardly relevent here.

"I've repeated numerous times that I don't care about the whales or the whalers one way or the other"

What you repeatedly say is countered by what you repeatedly demonstrate on the forum you disparage. Desperately tagging protest with criminality or terrorism simply looks to be your justification whilst feigning impartiality.

Only significant to you for use on this forum. The FBI make their >definitions for their purposes, and while that is significant for US >policy, hardly relevent here.

That you find the FBI's definition of an eco-terrorist "hardly relevant" displays your degree of understanding and respect for law and order.

Desperately tagging protest with criminality or terrorism simply looks >to be your justification whilst feigning impartiality.

Harasing and subking ships? Throwing objects and boarding without permission on the high seas requires "Desperate tagging"? Is that what Greenpeace did when they distanced themselves from this bunch of criminals? Greenpeace knows the difference between standing up for a cause, demostrating and criminal conduct. I seriously suggest you educate yourself in this area before you end up in trouble somewhere yourself.

I dont recall Greenpeace calling Sea Shepherd terrorists and criminals.

Lets be honest, the use of acoustic weapons against Sea Shepherds helicoptor and small boats is hardly designed to be harm free is it? And the FBI, a paragon of respect for law and order?

If youre attempting to gain the high ground, nonsense, silly examples, insults and thinly veiled threats wont help.

Greenpeace knows the difference between standing up for a cause, demostrating and criminal conduct.

Oh dear. Wasn't it Greenpeace that was nabbed for 'stealing' stolen whalemeat?

I dont recall Greenpeace calling Sea Shepherd terrorists and criminals.

They didn't have to say it, their action of distancing themselves from SS because of SS's tactics is self explanitory.

Lets be honest, the use of acoustic weapons against Sea Shepherds >helicoptor and small boats is hardly designed to be harm free is it?

It's self defense. And far less violent than what any American vessel would resort to. It's SS that's unilaterally provoking them. The whalers aren't chasing or going over to or boarding or harassing the SS ship.

And the FBI, a paragon of respect for law and order?

Compared to you, infinitely so.

Oh dear. Wasn't it Greenpeace that was nabbed for 'stealing' stolen >whalemeat?

Indeed, and it does show that Greenpeace are as slick and underhanded as ever in the name of their cause. Yet even they can't accept Watson the lunatic and his violent ways.

Hooray i say , and so does all the other animal lovers. Keep the swines on the run. Marvellous it is, stopping this inhumane killing.

I take my hat (cap) off to Sea Shepherd. Well done lads!!

"their action of distancing themselves from SS because of SS's tactics is self explanitory" I believe Greenpeace are fully capable of explaining themselves. They dont need you making any up for them. Probably wouldnt welcome it either.

"It's self defense" Aiming an acoustic weapon at an unarmed helicoptor filming Sea Shepherds zodiacs in action is not self defense, its an attempt to bring it down.

"And far less violent than what any American vessel would resort to" Only in as much as it failed to bring the helicoptor down this time.

their action of distancing themselves from SS because of SS's tactics is >self explanitory" I believe Greenpeace are fully capable of explaining >themselves. They dont need you making any up for them. Probably wouldnt >welcome it either.

Then you are already aware that they don't want to to be connected to SS? Why do you think that is?

No helicopter (or any aircraft for that matter) has ever been brought down by an "acoustic weapon". I think you've been watching too much science fiction. You probably think whales are going to save the earth one day right?

Osan America cannot answer what i writ because i am correct.

The whalers are not just hated worldwide , but also by Japanese that have knowledge of their barbaric killing methods.

aThis is somethink that is hidden in the Japanese media, but these days peopel can find online.

Save the whales innit!!!

Don't worry Captain Kirk will save the whales.