Your Opinion on the Sea Shepherds
 

I was just reading the thread about Trudy joining them...

So, what is you opinion on the Sea Shepherds?

I really like what they're doing. Someone has to go down there and do something to stop whaling, and the Sea Shepherds are doing their best, with passion and determination. One of the things on my "to do before I die" list is to crew for a season. Direct action to stop the illegal killing of endangered (and in my opinion) sentient animals, I think, is a very worthy cause to fight for.

I'm not saying they're perfect. Far from it. Paul Watson has made a few decisions I don't agree with, and their ships are too outdated to really be effective. After the Shonan Maru #2 sunk the Ady Gil, the Shepherds really lost their only big advantage. But they have something the Japanese fleet doesn't: something to fight for, not just to get paid for.

I will admit I'm not an expert on them and have not seen the associated TV show (I'd like to, though).

But based on what I know, I do admire them for taking a strong initiative on this issue and for not taking a more passive approach to protecting whales. Passivity could be counterproductive in the long run. I think a lot of environmental issues could stand to have more people tackling them head-on like this.

They're terrorists. I mostly oppose whale hunting but those idiots just endanger lives and turn other people against opposing whale hunting with their methods, and I do think that banning all whale hunting is a form of cultural imperialism. I know they are endangered and I think they should be protected, but does saying 'no, you can't do it at all' make other people any better?
If they actually took the time and effort to get an actual message across, they would accomplish a lot more.

Agreeing with HNM for once.


http://www.funnymotivationalposters...._with_fire.jpg

Interesting, Aihwa agreeing with HNM, and me not agreeing.

It's a sign of the apocalypse! :D

How do you feel that terrorism has helped stop whaling? All its done is escalate the whalers protection.

Interesting that it is the members of Sea Shepard who are called the terrorists. It ought to be the whalers who are called terroists, killing and destroying rare and threatened animals.
It seems that something is wrong with our terminology.

Then your body is most likely committing acts of terrorism against bacteria. Hunters are terrorizing poor woodland animals, and I terrorize pan fish up north every summer.

First off, the whalers are hunting endangered whales in a whale sanctuary. So I don't believe that Sea Shepherds are the terrorists. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Sea Shepherds are taking matters into their own hands to stop something that is not only illegal, but wrong.

Yes, the whalers have acquired more protection, both physical and in the court, but Sea Shepherd's actions have made the issue get into the news more than anything else recently. They also sometimes cause the whalers to fall massively short of their quotas, therefore, they help stop the killing of whales.

Actually, its along a disputed boarder of a sanctuary. They engage in downright illegal actions against other vessels. (Back in the day, those would be considered acts of war)

And yes, they're very good at getting attention. Its a massive publicity stunt, one that's going to cost somebody their life soon enough.

The Japanese whaling is a totally unneccesary hunt just for profit (and it also seems for national prestige) that has nothing to do with human needs. It is just greed and plain stubborness which drive japanese whaling.

Hunting and fishing is unnecessary, and done for sport. They want to eat whale, I want to eat perch. Whaling is fine if limited, however, engaging in terrorism is NEVER the answer.

Whalehunting has no real value, it is a fringe industry that has survived itself in our modern world. The fact that people want to eat something cannot justify destruction of endangered species. Otherwise we could eat Pandas too, just because we like to eat them.

So sometimes destruction of a biological heritage that belongs to us all just have must to be stopped, even with methods that are not approved by some corrupt government.

Sport fishing is a fringe industry that has survived itself in our modern world. I'm not saying fish whales into oblivion, but the way they're going to limit it is illegal. I agree to abide by certain rules, and am afforded privileges within society for such. They get to break the rules and get away with it.



So what's next if we let this go along?

"West Wars" with Osama Bin Laden?

Unfortunately the stocks of cetaceans are rather vulnerable and there are no reason to hunt them just to keep alive a fringe industry. And shall we als lay some sort of moral aspect on it so is it not right to hunt and kill sentient or at least semi sentient beings.
Sportfishing ought also be heavy regulated and ofcourse forbidden when it concerns higly vulnerable species (as it is in many countries, as for example for eel, catfish and some other here where I live).

And when it concerns extra parliamentary methods they are sometimes necessary to change things to the better. If not for such methods we would still have a lot of colonialized countries, opression and inequality that have been abolished partly, or fully due to such methods.

Yes, like Al-quida, and the Weather underground (is that the right weather?) And Haamas, the IRA, and ALF. Hell, start your own terror group, you could call it the Na'vi Front. Go fight oppression.

Stop being trollish Aihwa.

I agree with redpaintednavi. I hate whalers, and if Sea Shepherds can save the lives of those helpless beings they have my support.

When people turn into "terrorists"?
At the point everything else they have tried has not worked.

And what else have they tried?

=

Well, historically we would still have slavery, nearly the whole of Africa and parts of Asia would perhaps have been European colonies without some extraparliamentiary methods. Also women would perhaps not have the right to vote and apartheid would have reigned in South Africa. Even more trees would have been felled in different parts of the world and the Amazon of Peru and Ecuador would even more than today have been turned into an oil infested, dead swamp.

And one can not talk about Hamas or Al-Quaida without talking about the history of Israel or the provocative US foreign policy that created Al quida and came to its logical consequense in 9/11. Also it is hard to talk about IRA without discussing the interactions between Ireland and England through the centuries.

But here we do not talk about IRA or Al quaida, we talk about an organisation that try to stop whalers from commiting theft on an international resource and destroy threatened animals.
This must also be seen in the light of Japans plundering of other marine resources as for example Tuna that they overfish and also buy from others in large quantities.

Utilizing methods that other illegal organizations employ. Terrorism is terrorism, and should not be tolerated in today's society. Saying "But they did it first!" (please add a whiny inflection to that statement) Is a piss poor excuse. We have rules, if you don't follow them, the privileges of society such as freedom will be restricted as well.

They're breaking the rules, they should forfeit the privileges.

Whalers are those who commit the crime and Sea Shepherds are the ones who should be thanked for trying to stop them.

By becoming terrorists. Wonderful, I'm sure if I were to bomb the Republican National convention I'd be hailed as a hero by the rest America. :rolleyes:



(for legal reasons, I am going to confirm that that was intended as satire, I do not, nor have I ever planned to commit an act of domestic terrorism on any group or organization.)

Like I said, I don't like hunting for sport, and they ARE an endangered species... I am completely against illegal whaling, but nobody has the right to completely ban it... If they want to make a difference, they should put pressure on governments to stop illegal whaling and have quotas reduced... Endangering lives politically is just selfish and has a negative impact on the public's perception of environmental groups, same as all these 'animal rights' groups who seem to think humans don't deserve rights either when neither is any more or less important.

A lot of species of fish are endangered too, but I doubt many people here would say 'ALL FISHING MUST BE BANNED AND NOBODY MUST EAT ANY FISH!'. That is why there are limits and restrictions - if more effort is needed, it is on enforcement.

Sentience... There isn't any actual evidence of sentience - if there was, then that would be fine and I would oppose the hunting, but communication itself is not sentience. Yes, there's a lot that isn't understood, but that goes for a LOT of the world.

Campaigning by the public is not terrorism. If people had gone around attacking random people and claiming it was for the cause of abolishing slavery or apartheid, or environmental protection, something tells me that would have had a negative impact on the cause.

Be careful... you are close to being offensive to a lot of people, if interpreted in a certain way, that could almost be seen justifying the atrocities those groups commit. Nobody deserves to get murdered for their government's foreign policy.

As I said above, yet nobody wants to ban the fishing of tuna... Restrictions are in place for a reason.

Well, sometimes we have to take action, because otherwise it can be to late before more or less corrupt politicians have reacted and dared to cross the will of capitalist enterprises or lobby groups that hold back all sort of progressive development. Extra parliamentary action is not terrorsm, instead it can be a way to protect life.

And by the way, who sets the rules? Often it is corporations, lobbyists and similar with the consent of weak politicians. One can just see how matters of marine fishing have been handled lately. No politician dare to cross the fishing industry, eventhough researchers have sound the alarm for years now. Still not much happens, instead marine resources are being depleted and the only ones to try to do anything about it is environmentalists like Sea Shephard, Greenpeace and some others.

Yes... I've campaigned against things I oppose. I have not gone harming random people to gain publicity. That's the difference between 'extra-parliamentary action' and terrorism.

If you ask many people, they will have a negative opinion of these groups for their ACTIONS... they are right in terms of idea, but they are doing it completely wrongly, they will never change anything.

Really, both sides are wrong. I oppose the overhunting just as I oppose other abuses, but I also think that the people who are concerned about it have much more of an impact (and be better respected) if they worked for legitimate change.

I do not defend Al quida or IRA, I just pointed out that they are the result of historical circumstances and different countries foreign politics. No one deserves to die for their countries or leaders foreign politics, thats true, and that also ought to apply for Iraqis, Afhghans and North Irish catholics.

http://www.16bitwalrus.com/public/st...lt/tinfoil.gif


TEH CORPORATIONS! TEH CORPORATIONS!

And we come to the heart of the matter. You don't like those in power. Let me tell you something friend, I work for one of "teh corporations" and they have shown the most care and concern for me as an individual, than any other person outside my family. Tangent rant, over.

Fun fact, do you know Greenpeace threw the Sea Shepards out of their organization for committing acts of terrorism? In the words of Stephan Colbert, Tip of my hat to Greenpeace for refusing to harbor terrorists.

Unfortunately sometimes certain kinds of extra parliamentary methods are the only things that works if one want to see some change, before it is to late and we live in a world without wales, Tunas, Sharks and others. And mostly it is actually the fishermen that attacks Sea Shephards or Greenpeaces boats when they try to block the paths of these fishing vessels. And we shall not even mention how the french blew up a Greanpeace ship in a harbour in New Zealand.

Btw, it seems that the difference between acceptable actions and terrorism is very small here. Aihwa talks about throwing a bomb at innocent people and I guess we can all agree that it's terrorism.

But what exactly have Sea Shepherds done that makes them terrorists? They have not killed anyone as far as I know and even if they did, it could be argued not to be terrorism as those whalers are clearly not innocent but directly involved in an illegal act.

They throw chemical bombs designed to make a deck at sea unusable. Tbh I'm surprised none of the crews of the Japanese boats have been killed yet. They've boarded the Whalers vessels as publicity stunts, They RAMMED a whaling vessel.

That's not protesting, that's naval warfare.

Noone said that all environmental groups agree of the same methods. Some like Sea Shephard are perhaps less patient. This is not to unusual in different struggles when there are those who want a to go forward fast and hard, and those who want to go forward in a slower, more moderate way. One can always discuss who have the right approach.
But we must not forget that more than often it is the ones in power, auhorities, corporations and similar that use force, and often do it first. Corporations and capitalist enterprises have a long history of using force when they feel their economic interests threatened in some way.

I am more surprised that not more members of Greenpeace, Sea shephard and others have been killed yet by the pirate-fishers.

I envy them, those people have a thing worth fighting for. :P

I have no doubt the seashepards would love a martyr. And the Whalers have shown great restraint. They are the cooler heads in this conflict.

Well, to run over rubberboats with big ships is not great restraint, it is just sheer luck that not more members of environmental organisations have been killed at sea.

Yeah, they sit in front of large moving vessels. That's real smart. Like I said, I'm surprised that the whalers have shown the restraint they do. They're trying not to kill anybody, but the Sea Shepard's are doing their damnedest to get themselves killed.

Well, sometimes it actually seems that some of the hotheads among whalers really want to kill someone.

Yep... there is an entire international treaty about how ships should move with respect to avoiding collisions, it's the sea shepherd ones that have been causing accidents - the whaling ships have generally attempted to AVOID them despite having ships run across in front of them or turning against their side - a ship is very heavy, and even at a relatively low velocity, has a lot of inertia and is difficult to turn at a moment's notice.
I'm surprised nobody from EITHER side has been killed. Either way would be bad, but I know that either side would use any such happening for all the propaganda value they could.

Both sides are acting like idiots, but in general, it's the sea shepherd ships which are attempting to cause accidents.

The same thing happened between british and icelandic fisherman in the 1970s, with various rammings by both sides which were both deliberate and accidental.

Those who are in power, or belong to corporations are not all inherently evil, but they often have a way to run over those who stand in the way of their political or economical interests.
Also, if politicians really did their job and had the ability to restraint corporations and other economic interests, and, as in the case of whaling and fishing, they listened to the researchers and acted according to that, then probaly we did not need Sea Shephard, Greenpeace or similar organistaions. But as long as economic greed is considered more important than environmental concerns, or in many cases human rights, organisations like Sea Shephard and others are necessary.