national

Sea Shepherd claims win after fracas with Japan whalers

138 Comments

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

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

138 Comments
Login to comment

Whale meat not used for study is sold as food in Japan, which critics say is the real reason for the hunt.

It is the real reason.

13 ( +20 / -7 )

The Sea Shepherd ship Bob Barker confronted the whaling ship Nisshin Maru at midnight Monday about 97 kilometers from the Antarctic coastline.

Legal under international law or not, I for one do not like the idea of a whaling operation being only 97km from the coast of the world's last untouched wilderness.

13 ( +19 / -4 )

While SSCS is playing cat-and-mouse with the Japanese whalers, more-than-endangered marine species are being exterminated elsewhere for their fins.

Oh wait ... the cat-and-mouse game brings in more sponsors than small-time fishers who gather fins.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Good for the Sea Shepard. Stick it to the whalers.

8 ( +19 / -11 )

The killing of whales is wrong, Japan is wrong this time. Go Sea Shepard! There is no "legal" method to shut them down, you are the whales only hope.

8 ( +18 / -10 )

looks like they didnt find the nissin maru stealth

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Go Sea Shepherd go!!!! Fight the good fight!!!

3 ( +15 / -11 )

SS is claiming that the harpoon ships turned off their running lights at night while passing across the bow of the BB dragging prop-fouling cables. Meanwhile the icr has made no new entries on its 'The SS is acting recklessly' page since 22nd February. It would serve them right if the whale killers fouled each others' props.

Go, Sea Shepherd. Close down their bloody tax-funded slaughter.

6 ( +14 / -8 )

Makes me sick when I see whale meat for sale in the local grocery stores. Whales are killed in the name of research and then their meat is sold for a profit to the public. So many contradictions there it makes my head spin. Fight on Sea Shepherd! Stop the slaughter!

5 ( +13 / -8 )

Makes me sick when i see a bunch of eco-terrorists lauded for breaking the law. Why aren't Barker and his motly crew in the international courts and out pressuring the wolds governments to pass more stringent laws and regulations? What? Oh I see, that does not get face time on the nature channel and a boat to play Pirate in and go around endangering other vessels on the high seas.

-6 ( +10 / -17 )

go go sea shepard! beat fishers!! preserve creatures from mankind!!

-3 ( +6 / -8 )

Jesus Christ it is becoming like a live cage fight with fans on both sides. Dirty little war.

2 ( +2 / -1 )

Sea Shepard is wrong and terrorists equal to pirates on the high seas. They are trying to jam the propellers of the Japanese ships. What if they do? Will they turn around and head home leaving the ships stranded. The international community needs to do something about these eco terror groups. The Japanese just requested the American govt. to freeze their bank accounts. I hope they do it quickly.

-4 ( +11 / -16 )

They are trying to jam the propellers of the Japanese ships. What if they do? Will they turn around and head home leaving the ships stranded.

The harpoon ships are attempting the foul the propellers of the BB under cover of darkness and with their running lights turned off. And if they do? Will they turn around and continue the slaughter, leaving the BB stranded? (Going off past performance when they sliced the AG in two - yes, they will.)

The Japanese just requested the American govt. to freeze their bank accounts. I hope they do it quickly.

The American court stated a while back they're in no hurry to do anything that allows the whaling to continue uninterrupted.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Cleo,

Would be interesting to see if there is any footage of the whaling ships running at night without their running lights on as that there is one massive breach of maritime law. But hey we are talking the Japanese so nothing will happen

-3 ( +5 / -7 )

It is fresh news Ms. Cleo on another news thread. Right next to this same story on Cnn and Yahoo news too.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

My mistake. It was February 16th.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

“They won’t get more than 30% of their quota,” Watson said.

Bizarre statement, even for Watson. The season finishes in 3 weeks and has been ongoing for at least 2 months. Does he think that they were planning on catching the remaining 70% of the catch over the next 3 weeks?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

(Going off past performance when they sliced the AG in two - yes, they will.)

You mean like this:

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/Japan-rams-Sea-Shepherd-Ady-Gil.jpg

Clearly shows that the Shonan Maru had left the scene...

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

As an unprejudiced party, I have to say I see a lot of problems with the way the SS folks go about their business. I don't eat whale meat, I don't have a particular concern for the whaling industry.

Now, if the Japanese are hunting an endangered species of whale, then I would have a problem with it, but I don't believe this is the case, so what makes whales so special? I don't see the SS forming up to bring an end to the tuna harvest (much gratitude from all the Sushi lovers out there, I'm sure)...

Also, why is it deemed legal to foul the props of boats and do potential engine damage? Is it legal for people to lay down spike strips on the road because they have a problem with someone driving too fast? No, you would be cited for damage to property, endangering the public/human lives, etc.

A lot of folks on here like to cheer the SS like they are some sort of modern day Robin Hood. But if those same people would take a step back and think logically for a few minutes instead of following some hippie rallying cry, you might see the point I'm making...

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

tizalleyman, whales are cute. end of story. now let's sink the ships of the cute whales-killing villains. the law, who cares, we are cool vigilantes

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

What exactly are the whale researchers researching in their factory ship?

Have they ever explained?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Tizalleyman:

" I don't eat whale meat, I don't have a particular concern for the whaling industry."

I think you are missing the point that the Japanese whaling researchers are claiming to NOT to be whailing, but to be doing RESEARCH on whales, thus using a giant loophole in an international convention to sail their factory ship through.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

WilliB,

What exactly are the whale researchers researching in their factory ship?

Have they ever explained?

Many many times. But people who don't want to hear it, cannot hear it. Maybe you are one of them?

Stay tuned for ICJ, Australia v. Japan. According to the Wikileaks, even Australian officials believe that they will lose. It's because Japan is conducting research, and ALL the evidence will be laid out on the table for you to see, if only you open your eyes!

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

WilliB,

I completely understand what you are saying. But the fact of the matter is that whether it is a loophole or not, the Japanese are operating within the confines of the law. If people don't like the law, then petition the international community to change the law, do it legally. Until that law is changed, I don't see how the SS and their supporters have a leg to stand on...

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Tizalleyman

I completely understand what you are saying. But the fact of the matter is that whether it is a loophole or not, the Japanese are operating within the confines of the law. If people don't like the law, then petition the international community to change the law, do it legally. Until that law is changed, I don't see how the SS and their supporters have a leg to stand on...

Well lets see, the IWC (an organization that Japan is a member of) has declared the area a whale sanctuary, Japan chooses to ignore it. The IWC has stated many times that research involving killing whales is not required, Japan chooses to ignore it. The IWC has requested Japan stop its whaling, Japan chooses to ignore it. The Federal court in Australia banned Japanese whaling ships from entering Australian territorial waters, you guessed it Japan ignored it. Ever single country that borderers the Southern Ocean has requested Japan ceases whaling in these waters, Japan ignores them all. The rules regarding the operation of vessels in the Antarctic treaty zone changed last year, and guess what Japan ignores that too.

So even if the law was changed Japan would no doubt ignore that as well just like they do everything else.....

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Cletus,

So even if the law was changed Japan would no doubt ignore that as well just like they do everything else.....

I don't have the time to research each of your claims, and many or all of them may be true and valid, I'm not sure unless you want to spend time locating sources. But what I do know without a doubt is that the country of Japan has the right to issue scientific whaling permits (http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm) and to the best of my knowledge those guidelines are adhered to by the whaling fleets.

So my question is this. If Japan so flagrantly violates all of these laws/treaties as you claim, then why do they bother to adhere to the IWC's research whaling guidelines? It just doesn't make sense to me that they are going to break so many rules (as you state), but still follow these rather restrictive guidelines. Maybe Japan doesn't recognize the claims made to particular waters (to the best of my knowledge, international waters begin at 12 miles out)?

I'd be happy to entertain any non-biased sources of information you can produce to back up claims that Japan is breaking any internationally recognized law...

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Tizalleyman

I don't have the time to research each of your claims, and many or all of them may be true and valid, I'm not sure unless you want to spend time locating sources. But what I do know without a doubt is that the country of Japan has the right to issue scientific whaling permits (http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm) and to the best of my knowledge those guidelines are adhered to by the whaling fleets.

What a cop out! You are prepared to come here and bad mouth SS and run them down based on what you have found that supports the whalers position yet the very site you got that information from is the same site that l quote for many of my claims. But you dont have time to research them...

Ok here are some quotes for you also from the IWC

CONCERNED that more than 6,800 Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) have been killed in Antarctic waters under the 18 year of JARPA, compared with a total of 840 whales killed globally by Japan for scientific research in the 31 year period prior to the moratorium

And another

STRONGLY URGES the Government of Japan to withdraw its JARPA II proposal or to revise it so that any information needed to meet the stated objectives of the proposal is obtained using non-lethal means.

And also

the IWC has adopted over 30 resolutions on Special Permit whaling in which it has generally expressed its opinion that Special Permit whaling should: be terminated and scientific research limited to non-lethal methods only (2003-2); refrain from involving the killing of cetaceans in sanctuaries (1998-4)

Now these 3 quotes are from resolutions passed at the 2005 IWC meeting and can also be found at (http://iwcoffice.org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2005)

Other things l mentioned, the Australian Federal court ruling,

The Federal Court has declared Japanese whaling in Australia’s Antarctic waters is unlawful under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) and granted an injunction restraining it.

Maybe Japan doesn't recognize the claims made to particular waters (to the best of my knowledge, international waters begin at 12 miles out)?

Yes they do start around 12 miles out however in January a whaling vessel came within the 12 mile zone despite being warned by the government not to. So now your saying that Japan doesnt recognise the zone around an Australian island hey? Yet they whine like kids when someone dares enter their self declared EEZ around the Senkaku's.

I'd be happy to entertain any non-biased sources of information you can produce to back up claims that Japan is breaking any internationally recognized law...

Well try the IWC, the Australian Federal court case logs, Australian media and Australian government releases. While your at it check out the NZ, Chile, South African, Peru governments stance on Japanese whaling. They should give you a nice unbiased opinion on the subject.... Or you can stick to what the whalers tell you.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

the IWC has adopted over 30 resolutions on Special Permit whaling in which it has generally expressed its opinion that Special Permit whaling should: be terminated and scientific research limited to non-lethal methods only (2003-2); refrain from involving the killing of cetaceans in sanctuaries (1998-4)

it has generally expressed its opinion

opinion

Says enough...

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Willem

Says enough...

So the opinion of the IWC and 30 + resolutions calling for an end to lethal research means nothing then is that what you are saying. You are saying that the Japanese "opinion" is more important than the world body on whaling a body that Japan is a signed member of.... That really does say it all doesnt it?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Cletus,

What a cop out! You are prepared to come here and bad mouth SS and run them down based on what you have found that supports the whalers position yet the very site you got that information from is the same site that l quote for many of my claims. But you dont have time to research them...

This is obviously something you are very passionate about, I on the other hand really couldn't care less one way or another. I never bad mouthed the SS, I simply said I didn't approve of their methods. I don't rely on what the whaler's tell me, I got my info from the IWC website. I can see where you have quoted the same source, which is great, however none of your quotes show that Japan has violated international law.

CONCERNED that more than 6,800 Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) have been killed

no law broken

STRONGLY URGES the Government of Japan

no law broken

The IWC has adopted over 30 resolutions on Special Permit whaling in which it has generally expressed its opinion

no law broken

You have sited a single instance where a whaling vessel came within 12 miles of an Australian island. I have no idea what island you are talking about and I have no idea if Japan recognizes it. The point is that Australian law is not international law. Australia can pass all the laws it would like, Japan can choose whether or not it cares to recognize those laws and assume the consequences. For example, North Korea decides to pass a law saying the peninsula is now unified and all South Korean citizens are now citizens of N. Korea. Doesn't make it so...

You can try to drag this debate down to whatever level you want, my original statement still holds true. Japan's current whaling activity is in adherance with the permits granted to them by the IWC, they are breaking no international law...

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

CletusMar. 06, 2012 - 08:46PM JST

Willem

Says enough...

So the opinion of the IWC and 30 + resolutions calling for an end to lethal research means nothing then is that what you are saying. You are saying that the Japanese "opinion" is more important than the world body on whaling a body that Japan is a signed member of.... That really does say it all doesnt it?

All I'm saying is that an opinion is NOT a rule. It isn't even a guideline, wether you like it or not..

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Willem

All I'm saying is that an opinion is NOT a rule. It isn't even a guideline, wether you like it or not..

Yes an opinion is an opinion and a resolution is a resolution and there have been 30 + resolutions on the matter. And as the world whaling body and Japan as a signatory should abide by its resolutions not just the ones it likes....

2 ( +6 / -4 )

What exactly are the whale researchers researching in their factory ship?

Have they ever explained?

They're researching how many whales they can kill and still have more left to kill next time. They do this by killing whales and seeing if there are any left. This is of course legitimate research (what the icr calls perfectly legal); people get confused when in all innocence they question the need for this research and get flustered, angry, incoherent explanations about 'tradition' and 'food culture' and if you really press them also something about minke eating all the fish and being the cockroaches of the sea. Press them further and you'll be called a racist and told to Go Home If You Hate Japan So Much, which is of course how all legitimate scientists respond to people who question their research.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

YuriOtani - The killing of whales is wrong, Japan is wrong this time. Go Sea Shepard! There is no "legal" method to shut them down, you are the whales only hope.

Then you are advocating "illegal" methods to force others to do your bidding.

Is VIOLENCE your answer for every problem?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Tizalleyman, "Japan's current whaling activity is in adherance with the permits granted to them by the IWC"

Japan issues its own special scientific permits. Thats the loophole the anti whalers complain about. The IWC does not approve of Japans JARPA programmes.

It seems to me that if you want to debate an issue then a basic understanding of both points of view is a reasobalr starting point. Then of course you can argue one sides efficacy against the other. If your position is simply that breaking the rules is wrong, then I suggest that you understand how many successful campaigns there have been against the letter of the law, when the law is unjust.

That having been said, so far Sea Shepherd have been convicted of no law breaking, they have not been demonstrated as terrorists, they have so far hurt no one in their long list of campaigns, including against illegal Tuna fishing and continue to maintain their charity status. Where no national or international authority exists it is perfectly legal for a citizens organisation to take action.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Anti-whaling activists claimed Tuesday that they have effectively ended this year's Japanese hunt following a late-night altercation near Antarctica,

They won't get more than 30% of their quota, Watson said.

Hahahaha. More lies from the eco-terrorist Watson. He has no idea how successful the whalers have been but not knowing the facts has never stopped the eco-terrorist Watson from making up stories to inflame the pro-violence tendencies of his eco-terrorist supporters.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

With two harpoon ships tied up for the time they have its a pretty good guess they havent caught all they want to. Going to be even more difficult now they know where the factory ship is.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

In February, the Washington state-based Sea Shepherd group won a legal battle when a federal judge denied a request by the whalers for a PRELIMINARY injunction ordering the activists to stop their ocean confrontations.

The U.S. court case against the continued violent actions of the eco-terrorist SS is still pending. This attack by the eco-terrorist Bob Barker isn't going to help the eco-terrorist case.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

cleo - SS is claiming that the harpoon ships turned off their running lights at night while passing across the bow of the BB dragging prop-fouling cables. Go, Sea Shepherd. Close down their bloody tax-funded slaughter.

Hahaha, you're a hoot. The eco-terrorist SS is also admitting that they started the confrontation, "The activists said they used laser beams and (red phosphorus) flares to disrupt the ship."

Once again, the eco-terrorist SS began attacking the whalers and the whalers DEFENDED themselves. How dare they. Don't the whalers understand that eco-terrorist violence isn't really violence if the eco-terrorist supporters claim it isn't.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

He has no idea how successful the whalers have been

He knows two of the three harpoon ships have been chasing SS ships instead of whales.

The eco-terrorist SS is also admitting that they started the confrontation, "The activists said they used laser beams and (red phosphorus) flares to disrupt the ship."

If you're going to use a quote, better to get it directly from the horse's mouth - The harpoon ships trained their spotlights on the bridge of the Bob Barker, in an effort to blind the crew but backed off when the Bob Barker crew retaliated with lasers. Flares were fired and angry radio messages exchanged in Japanese and English.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

cleo - He knows two of the three harpoon ships have been chasing SS ships instead of whales.

If you're going to use a quote, better to get it directly from the horse's mouth -

I think you're getting you quote from the "other" end of the horse. The eco-terrorist Watson is a proven liar.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Ranger_Miffy2 - Anyone saying "eco-terrorist" in their post is automatically discounted as a troll.

Didn't you just use the term "eco-terrorist" in your post?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

SwissToni - With two harpoon ships tied up for the time they have its a pretty good guess they havent caught all they want to. Going to be even more difficult now they know where the factory ship is.

Are you saying that the eco-terrorist Watson is GUESSING?

Are you guessing that the eco-terrorists still know where the factory ship is?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

What if I became a freeway Sea Shepherd? I see people 'bending" the law all of the time on the freeways and I don't like it. People driving 10mph over the speed limit, or changing lanes illegally. I don't agree with it. I will follow these people to their place of business and then puncture their tires or tamper with their engines so they can't drive. I am justified because I am potentially preventing freeway accidents and the police don't seem to be enforcing the laws adequately. I am fighting the good fight too.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

SwissToni - Japan issues its own special scientific permits. Thats the loophole the anti whalers complain about. The IWC does not approve of Japans JARPA programmes.

It seems to me that if you want to debate an issue then a basic understanding of both points of view is a reasobalr starting point. Then of course you can argue one sides efficacy against the other. If your position is simply that breaking the rules is wrong, then I suggest that you understand how many successful campaigns there have been against the letter of the law, when the law is unjust.

The eco-terrorist Watson and his SS have been banned from the IWC because of their repeated acts of violence.

You admit that Japan issues its own special scientific permits. Who or what recognized legal authority gives the eco-terrorist SS the authority to ram any other vessel? Who or what recognized legal authority gives the eco-terrorist SS the authority to sink any other vessels?

You support violence and you support the eco-terrorist SS use of violence. You object to the whalers DEFENDING themselves against eco-terrorist attack. You don't care what any "law" says as long as you get your way. Violence is considered just another useful tool to you and the eco-terrorist Watson.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Yes an opinion is an opinion and a resolution is a resolution and there have been 30 + resolutions on the matter. And as the world whaling body and Japan as a signatory should abide by its resolutions not just the ones it likes....

That is true, but I was replying only to the opinion part. Anyway, I don't care if whaling is stopped or not. If people want to stop it, go ahead. I only know that violence is NEVER the answer.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

GO whalers! fight the good fight

1 ( +7 / -6 )

arrestpaul, "You support violence and you support the eco-terrorist SS use of violence. You object to the whalers DEFENDING themselves against eco-terrorist attack. You don't care what any "law" says as long as you get your way. Violence is considered just another useful tool to you"

My my you put an awful lot of words in my mouth. Can you demonstrate any of what you just said on my behalf?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

arrestpaul, "Are you saying that the eco-terrorist Watson is GUESSING? "

No mate, I said "With two harpoon ships tied up for the time they have its a pretty good guess they havent caught all they want to." I know you like to speak on others behalf but Im quite capable of doing that myself.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I support the whalers. Nothing wrong with hunting, and the SS and their supporters come off as irrational fanatics to me.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

I am laughing at them for calling this a victory. If they just found the Mother ship after all this time, how can they estimate how whale has been caught. As far as we know, that ship could be heading back to Japan to unload a full tank.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I was just in Baja California Sur, Mexico, where people are praising the anti-whaling activists for protecting their valuable whale watching tourist industry. Old-timers say there has been a noticeable increase in the amount of friendly play among younger whales; they credit the limits on whalers, who made whales learn to treat humans and their boats as enemies,

3 ( +6 / -3 )

SwissToni - No mate, I said "With two harpoon ships tied up for the time they have its a pretty good GUESS they havent caught all they want to." I know you like to speak on others behalf but Im quite capable of doing that myself.

You are saying that the eco-terrorist Watson is "guessing". He really doesn't have any idea how successful the whalers have been because he's had no idea where they were.

I notice that the eco-terrorist Watson like to make up lots of stories for the media outlets. I'm surprised that anyone still believes him.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

SwissToni - My my you put an awful lot of words in my mouth. Can you demonstrate any of what you just said on my behalf?

I didn't put anything in your mouth. In the past, you have supported the eco-terrorist Watson and his SS. The eco-terrorist SS is a pro-violence organization. The eco-terrorist SS repeatedly commits acts of violence. Anyone who supports the violence of the eco-terrorist SS also supports violence as a means to an end.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SwissToni

With two harpoon ships tied up for the time they have its a pretty good GUESS they havent caught all they want to.

arrestpaul

You are saying that the eco-terrorist Watson is "guessing".

You should read a little more carefully, arrestpaul. Nowhere does SwissToni say that Watson is guessing. "It's a pretty good guess" means it is self evident.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Dear Anti-whalers,

A bunch of people are pro-whalers. Go buy a $200 "I support Sea Shepard" bracelet if you are serious.

I'll buy whale.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Dear Anti-whalers,

A bunch of people are pro-whalers. Go buy a $200 "I support Sea Shepard" bracelet if you are serious.

I'll buy whale.

I'll eat some whale with you ;)

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I notice that the eco-terrorist Watson like to make up lots of stories for the media outlets. I'm surprised that anyone still believes him.

Watson has a habit of blending fact with rhetoric

In “Earthforce!,” Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, “as Ronald Reagan did.”

Several years after ramming the Sierra, Watson gave himself the title of captain, though he does not have a captain’s license. “He loves to dress up in uniform, as ‘Captain Paul Watson,’ and suddenly there’s enough gold braid on his shoulders to skipper the Queen Mary,”

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Stranger_in_a_strange_land:

" Nothing wrong with hunting "

It obviously depends what you hunt, where you hunt it, and if you falsely claim your hunt is "research". Wouldn´t you say so?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Not sure why I'm getting all these negative marks. The comments are all over the net, from an article in the New Yorker.

Also mentions how his decision to sink two Icelandic whaling ships turned public opinion when it looked like people in Iceland were going to support anti-whaling. They are now vehemently opposed to him.

And that it's never been illegal to scientifically hunt whales. Ever. Anywhere.

Guess these other facts will get more negative ratings...

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Heda Madness - You have me there, the Shonan Maru 2 did indeed stay there. Remind me again how many people they helped pull out of the freezing sea after they'd trained their water cannon on the AG after it was cut in half?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Cleo. It wasn't cut in half. None of the AG crew ended up in the freezing sea. And the SS ship was in a far better position to rescue them as the SM needed to turn around, which it did.

So what was your question?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Heda - come on, allow me some poetic license here. It ended up in two bits = It was cut in half.

The SM2 carried on training water cannon on the boat after the front end was gone. Where in the ocean rescue manual does it indicate a need to aim water cannon on a floundering boat? And why was it so difficult for the SM2 to turn around? Because they were travelling so fast, they first had to reduce speed. And why were they travelling so fast, in the middle of a vast ocean with nowhere to go? We all know the answer to that.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Sea Shepherd claims win after fracas with Japan whalers

The thing is anyone can claim anything (that goes for both sides). The proof will be in the eating of the pudding (i.e. end of hunting season results).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The SM2 carried on training water cannon on the boat after the front end was gone.

Do you believe the water cannon controller could tell the eco-terrorist boat has lost it's front end, and is not attempting to commit a dangerous act of violence against the innocent crew of the ship?

why was it so difficult for the SM2 to turn around?

There are photos by Sea Shepherd showing SM2 beyond the eco-terrorist boat.

It is their humanity that made them stop, for even they could pity these retched eco-terrorists.

why were they travelling so fast, in the middle of a vast ocean with nowhere to go?

They did not have nowhere to go.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

ihope2eatwhales, "It is their humanity that made them stop, for even they could pity these retched eco-terrorists."

Dont recall SM2 offering any assistance, or even to stand by. You sure it was their humanity that made them stop, or simply as a tradesman would stand back to admire his workmanship? Hunting whale while there is no way to humanely kill the quarry demonstrates the whalers would have little pity.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Do you believe the water cannon controller could tell the eco-terrorist boat has lost it's front end

Of course he could tell. They had it all on camera, complete with narration. Or are you seriously suggesting that the wailers are so moronic that they don't know what's going on around them, when they were the ones set on a deliberate collision course? That they're totally unfit to be in charge of a dingy, never mind a huge ocean-going vessel fitted with exploding harpoons and sonic weapons?

It is their humanity that made them stop

I suppose it was their humanity that made them initially refuse to acknowledge the distress signal, too. And their humanity that makes them think there's nothing wrong in blowing holes in dumb animals and subjecting them to slow, painful deaths.

wild and outlandish claims like the sailors were in the frozen waters.

The point is that the people on board the SM2 had no idea if there were people in the water or not; they were going past at too great a speed to observe, and their water cannon trained on the deck of the AG would have made it impossible to see what was happening. They certainly knew the boat was badly damaged, though; they had it all on video.

an honest and fairminded individual such as yourself.

Thank you. Us honest fairminded individuals cannot stomach the lies and chicanery of the whale killers.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

SwissToni,

Dont recall SM2 offering any assistance, or even to stand by.

The Sea Shepherd photos provided visual evidence

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Hunting whale while there is no way to humanely kill the quarry demonstrates the whalers would have little pity.

You see the world only through your own prism of truth. Others disagree with your idea that whaling is not humane.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Of course he could tell. They had it all on camera, complete with narration.

He could see through the spray, and could be sure the eco-terrorists were not about to launch an attack? You excuse SS eco-terrorists for everything, and innocent whaling crew for nothing.

I suppose it was their humanity that made them initially refuse to acknowledge the distress signal, too.

That sounds like a Paul Watson lie, but it should not be forgotten they were dealing with dangerous eco-terrorists.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

ihope2eatwhales

"Hunting whale while there is no way to humanely kill the quarry demonstrates the whalers would have little pity." You see the world only through your own prism of truth. Others disagree with your idea that whaling is not humane.

Im sorry but lm confused here, can you please explain to me how you think its humane to harpoon an animal and then let it struggle and slowly die all in the name of counting its numbers. I really dont understand how you can call that humane especially when the majority of the world community including the IWC say that lethal research is not needed to gather the information that the Japanese claim to be researching.

Please can yo explain that to me?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Please can yo explain that to me?

But... but... it tastes nice.....

He could see through the spray, and could be sure the eco-terrorists were not about to launch an attack?

They'd just successfully cut the boat in half. What kind of 'attack' do you think they might be afraid of?

You excuse SS eco-terrorists for everything, and innocent whaling crew for nothing.

The judge in the American case pointed out that SS advertises it has no intention of hurting anybody - the opposite of what terrorists do. People who are happy shooting exploding harpoons into innocent animals are emphatically not innocent.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Cletus,

Using a harpoon is the best way to kill a whale.

If whaling by Alaskans is humane enough, then so is whaling by everyone else, because Alaskan methods are perhaps the poorest in the world. The US should borrow Japanese technology and provide it to Alaskans, if it is not humane enough.

the majority of the world community including the IWC say that lethal research is not needed to gather the information that the Japanese claim to be researching.

The majority of the world community has never said that. The IWC has never said that. The IWC's anti-whalers have said that they want Japan to stop lethal research, but even Australia cannot collect the same data as Japan has collected. "Proof is in the pudding".

Those anti-whaling nations saying it is the same as you saying it. Meaningless. It doesn't change the truth, which anti-whalers refuse to acknowledge because they love whales so much.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

ihope2eatwhales

the majority of the world community has never said that. The IWC has never said that. The IWC's anti-whalers have said that they want Japan to stop lethal research, but even Australia cannot collect the same data as Japan has collected. "Proof is in the pudding".

Funny maybe you should read some of the resolutions from the IWC actually here is one right here "STRONGLY URGES the Government of Japan to withdraw its JARPA II proposal or to revise it so that any information needed to meet the stated objectives of the proposal is obtained using non-lethal means" Funny about that if you actually look you will find. As you say proofs in the pudding

3 ( +5 / -2 )

ihope2eatwhales, "You see the world only through your own prism of truth. Others disagree with your idea that whaling is not humane."

Who? Even the whalers admit there is no humane way to kill a whale. The whalers justify their actions by saying theyre doing the best they can by using the Penthrite grenade harpoon (developed by Norway incidentally). If the best they can do is to mutilate the animals to death, thats not good enough. Its certainly no way to run a business for profit.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Cletus,

It's very amusing! I don't know if English is your first language, but your anti-whaler's resolution does not say "lethal research is not needed to gather the information that the Japanese claim to be researching", as you claimed.

But it confirms what I said, that "IWC's anti-whalers have said that they want Japan to stop lethal research".

But what their opinion is is not important. They can say what they like, just as you do. Your opinion is noted, so is the IWC anti-whaler's opinion.

Then, you should accept the international rules of the IWC, it means the rules, not the "resolutions", which are not rules. Do you understand rules and resolutions? It is important difference, so take care.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

SwissToni,

Who? Even the whalers admit there is no humane way to kill a whale.

Your comment confirms what I said about you seeing the world only through your own prism. If you will make up arguments of others you are able to conduct the argument all by yourself, as both anti and pro! Have fun!

If the best they can do is to mutilate the animals to death

Prism...

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

2020hindsights - You should read a little more carefully, arrestpaul. Nowhere does SwissToni say that Watson is guessing. "It's a pretty good guess" means it is self evident.

The only thing that is "self evident" is that the eco-terrorist Watson is guessing. He has no way of knowing how successful the whalers have been because he didn't know where the whalers were. The eco-terrorist Watson is simply making up another story to justify his continued use of violence.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

cleo - The SM2 carried on training water cannon on the boat after the front end was gone. Where in the ocean rescue manual does it indicate a need to aim water cannon on a floundering boat? And why was it so difficult for the SM2 to turn around? Because they were travelling so fast, they first had to reduce speed. And why were they travelling so fast, in the middle of a vast ocean with nowhere to go? We all know the answer to that.

What manual instructs some moron to accelerate a little boat into the path of a great big boat? Would that be the eco-terrorist handbook, "How to Serve Man"?

How "fast" was the SM2 going? 13 knots? 15 knots? Ooooo, scary fast. How long does it take to stop a vessel of that size? 2 km? 4 km?

The other eco-terrorist vessel was already pointed in the right direction to film the impending collision. (How did they know there was going to be a collision?) Then there was the eco-terrorist urgency of getting to the AG first in order to collect all of the weapons that the AG had on board. Wouldn't want pictures of those arrows showing up on the internet.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Wouldn't want pictures of those arrows showing up on the internet.

Or on Whale Wars!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

he didn't know where the whalers were

He knew exactly where two of the three harpoon ships were. They were chasing the SS ships. And he knew they weren't using their harpoons.

How long does it take to stop a vessel of that size? 2 km? 4 km?

Your point being?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

cleo - Of course he could tell. They had it all on camera, complete with narration. Or are you seriously suggesting that the wailers are so moronic that they don't know what's going on around them, when they were the ones set on a deliberate collision course?

HAHAHAHA. The video clearly shows the AG accelerated into the path of a much larger vessel. Oops.

Are you suggesting that the cameraman was also manning the water cannon? How else could they have had the same point of view of the collision? What is it that the eco-terrorist Waston says, something about making up facts and figures when they are needed and to deliver them to confidently?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

cleo - How long does it take to stop a vessel of that size? 2 km? 4 km?

Your point being?

You asked why was it so difficult for the SM2 to turn around? I was attempting to bring you up to speed on the difficulties of handling large ships at sea. Something that the AG was obviously unaware of.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Funny maybe you should read some of the resolutions from the IWC actually here is one right here "STRONGLY URGES the Government of Japan to withdraw its JARPA II proposal or to revise it so that any information needed to meet the stated objectives of the proposal is obtained using non-lethal means" Funny about that if you actually look you will find. As you say proofs in the pudding

LOL. Your post only goes to show that there exisits anti-whaling nations within the IWC and nothing more. Please read up on the Scientific Committee's review and not some meaningless resolution brought up by anti-whaling nations who have no interested in the "orderly development of the whaling industry".

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

arrestpaul - I'm sorry, I didn't realise you couldn't cope with rhetorical questions. I know why it was difficult for the SM2 to turn around - it was travelling at top speed. Asking why it was travelling at top speed so close to a tiny boat when it had the whole ocean to steam about in would be another rhetorical question.

I'm sorry I confused you.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

gogogoMar. 06, 2012 - 12:29PM JST Whale meat not used for study is sold as food in Japan, which critics say is the real reason for the hunt. It is the real reason

It doesn't matter wether it's the real reason or not. What matters is that they are not conducxting Commercial Whaling, and that they are abiding by the IWC's Rssearch Whaling rules. Which includes consuming the whales.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

CletusMar. 06, 2012 - 07:14PM JST Well lets see, the IWC (an organization that Japan is a member of) has declared the area a whale sanctuary, Japan >chooses to ignore it.

"A major area of discussion in recent years has been the issuing of permits by member states for the killing of whales for scientific purposes. The use of such permits is not new. The right to issue them is enshrined in Article VIII of the 1946 Convention. Whilst member nations must submit proposals for review, in accordance with the Convention, it is the member nation that ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right OVERIDES ANY OTHER COMMISSION REGULATIONS INCLUDING THE MORATORIUM ANDSANCTUARIES. Article VIII also REQUIRES THAT THE ANIMALS BE UTILISED once the scientific data have been collected. "

http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm

The IWC has stated many times that research involving killing whales is not required, Japan chooses to ignore it. The IWC has requested Japan stop its whaling, Japan chooses to ignore it. The Federal court in Australia banned Japanese whaling ships from entering Australian territorial waters, you guessed it Japan ignored it. Ever single country that borderers the Southern Ocean has requested Japan ceases whaling in these waters, Japan ignores them all. The rules regarding the operation of vessels in the Antarctic treaty zone changed last year, and guess what Japan ignores that too.

So even if the law was changed Japan would no doubt ignore that as well just like they do everything else

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

CletusMar. 06, 2012 - 07:14PM The IWC has stated many times that research involving killing whales is not required.

The IWC Scientific Committee made it clear in 1991 when the MOratorium ws to be reconsidered that the lobal Minke Whale supply was such that the Moraorium could be lifted. The Anti-Whaling nations ignored this, despite the fact that the IWC rules themselves require that such decisions be based on opinion of the IWC Scientific Committee. The head of he IWC SCientific Committee quit in disgust and Norway objected to the Moratorium and resumed Commercial Whaling. Since the anti-whaling nations have carried on an agenda of onstructing any lifting of he Moratorium., including unbinding resolutions designed to hinder any research data that would further support the ability to lift the Moratorium.

Japan chooses to ignore it. The IWC has requested Japan stop its whaling, Japan chooses to ignore it.

The resoltuions are nonbinding. Furthermore Article VIII which authorizes Research Whaling has never been challenged by the IWC members.

The Federal court in Australia banned Japanese whaling ships from entering Australian territorial waters, you >guessed it Japan ignored it.

Australia has no jurisdiction over the waters where the research whaling is conducted.

Ever single country that borderers the Southern Ocean has requested Japan ceases whaling in these waters, >Japan ignores them all.

None of those nations have jurisdictuion over those waters.

The rules regarding the operation of vessels in the Antarctic treaty zone changed last year, and guess what Japan >ignores that too.

And what are they ignoring? Sea Shepherd is equally guilty is it not?

So even if the law was changed Japan would no doubt ignore that as well just like they do everything else

Japan is, although you don't like it, abiding by the laws. Their Research Whaling is in compliamcve witth IWC Article VIII. They do not conduct Research Whaling in waters where Australia has jurisdiction. Australia is going to look pretty silly when the ICJ case is heard.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

cleo - arrestpaul - I'm sorry, I didn't realise you couldn't cope with rhetorical questions. I know why it was difficult for the SM2 to turn around - it was travelling at top speed. Asking why it was travelling at top speed so close to a tiny boat when it had the whole ocean to steam about in would be another rhetorical question.

I'm sorry I confused you.

I accept both of your apologies. The SM2 would not have had to turn around if the moron at the controls of the AG had not accelerated the AG into the path of the SM2.

The eco-terrorist SS latest attack on the whalers seems to have been another failure. The eco-terrorist SS didn't manage to set any ships on fire with their red phosphorus flares and they didn't manage to blind any of the whaler crew members with green laser lights.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

arrestpaul

I accept both of your apologies. The SM2 would not have had to turn around if the moron at the controls of the AG had not accelerated the AG into the path of the SM2.

Thats an interesting observation there arrestpaul. So are you saying that the Ady Gil was going in reverse when it was hit by the SM2?

Have you actually watched the video? Initially the SM2 is going to pass in front of the AG, the SM2 the turns hard to starboard and heads towards the rear of the AG at this point the AG starts moving forward to evade the SM2. Then as the AG starts to move forward the SM2 turns hard to port and hits the AG. Now if as you claim the AG accelerated into the path of the SM2 and the SM2 was on a straight course then the AG would have had to be going in reverse. But no we see the AG start to accelerate then a couple of seconds latter the SM2 turns to port and rams the AG, if the SM2 had of continued straight on and the AG not moved it would have hit the rear of the AG. If the SM2 had continued straight and the AG moved as it did the SM2 would have passed behind the SM2 but no the SM2 targeted and rammed the AG. Also given that the AG was stationary for most of the incident it was the SM2's responsibility to steer away from the stationary vessel simple as that.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I accept both of your apologies. The SM2 would not have had to turn around if the moron at the controls of the AG had not accelerated the AG into the path of the SM2.

Oh dear, it seems you remain as confused as ever. The SM2 would not have had to turn around if the moron at its controls had not put it at top speed on a path heading dangerously close to the smaller stationary vessel, and if he hadn't turned into it at the last minute.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Funny how SS lovers deny it despite Peter Bethune said Watson commanded them to stop in front of SM2 and scuttle the boat for TV. It is also 2 years ago! Anti-whalers have nothing new to complain of? Bitter that SS has failed again this season to end whaling, like Watson says at the start of each season?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Isn't the SS's MO to drive their boat dangerously fast towards another vessel. And then either try and board it, try and foul it's props or throw glass projectiles at it's crew?

Have you suddenly started to believe that this isn't the correct way for a ship to behave on the Ocean?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

the SM2 targeted and rammed the AG.

Again I would like to congratulate the JT board for coming to a conclusion that neither the Australian nor New Zealand authorities who investigated the collision and all of the relevant information were able to come to.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Heda,

Funny the Australians couldn't conduct an investigation as the Japanese refused to take part or provide information. The NZ ers came to the conclusion both parties where at fault...

All the relevant information... Haha hard to say when the Japanese withheld the relevant information but anyone with a clue can watch the video of the incident and come to the same conclusion

3 ( +5 / -2 )

See Appendix 4, vessel tracks. It is obvious to anyone with eyes that Ady Gil navigated to obstruct SM2 from it's path. http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/AdyGil/Investigation-report-Ady-Gil-Shonan-Maru-Lo-rez.pdf

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Ihope2eatwhales,

see Appendix 4, vessel tracks. It is obvious to anyone with eyes that Ady Gil navigated to obstruct SM2 from it's path. http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/AdyGil/Investigation-report-Ady-Gil-Shonan-Maru-Lo-rez.pdf

Yes you are correct anyone with eyes would see the AG at a near stop and the SM2 turn to port to close the gap with the AG. Furthermore on the video you can see the SM2 turn hard to port as it closes on the AG. And given the SM2 was underway it was its responsibility to navigate clear of the stationary vessel

3 ( +5 / -2 )

According to the navigation rules, MNZ says both sides did things wrong. In terms of the rules, I agree.

But MNZ notes AG's repeated attempts to damage SM2 as the context for the collision. The rules of navigation were made with non eco-terrorist vessels which do not mean to interfere with other vessels in mind. Eco-terrorists complaining about others breaking rules is PKB. There would be no collision if eco-terrorists did not predate upon the Japanese vessels.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

All readers back on topic. The Ady Gil is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ihope2eatwhales

But MNZ notes AG's repeated attempts to damage SM2 as the context for the collision.

Im sorry but that is incorrect. The MNZ report actually says and l quote "there is no apparent safety basis for SM2 approaching Ady Gil in response to previous protest action". In other words previous action has nothing to do with the collision. The MNZ report also states "the obligation for the overtaking vessel to take action at an early stage lay with SM2. The master of SM2 did not take action in good time" also " good practise would has seen SM2 stay well clear of Ady Gil while overtaking" the report also states "in the absence of an explanation from the master of SM2, the evidence obtained suggests the master intentionally chose to take a close approach to Ady Gil"

The rules of navigation were made with non eco-terrorist vessels which do not mean to interfere with other vessels in mind. Eco-terrorists complaining about others breaking rules is PKB. There would be no collision if eco-terrorists did not predate upon the Japanese vessels.

Funny the very report you claim backs your statements actually says the opposite maybe you should read the whole report. Im not sure if english is your first language but you should try. Its full of little bits of information like: "rule 16 directs the give way vessel, in this case was SM2, to take early and substantial action to keep well clear of Ady Gil", or this one "SM2 was an overtaking vessel within the meaning of International Collision Regulations and as such the master of SM2 had an obligation to keep clear of Ady Gil"

Now l do agree that AG has to shoulder some of the blame but the SM2 as has been shown had the greater responsibility to avoid the collision.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

ihope2eatwhales, "Your comment confirms what I said about you seeing the world only through your own prism. If you will make up arguments of others you are able to conduct the argument all by yourself, as both anti and pro! Have fun!"

And your comments make no sense! Japan provides success statistics, the NAMMCO annual report 2010 (the latest available) indicates Japans whalers JARPA hunt instant Death Rates at just 54.2% and 55% for its coastal whaling. Their IDR significantly worse than Norwegian and Icelandic whaler's due to the long chase of their quarry. Using my "Prism of Truth" how can I make those numbers look any less humane?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

OssanAmerica - It doesn't matter wether it's the real reason or not. What matters is that they are not conducxting Commercial Whaling, and that they are abiding by the IWC's Rssearch Whaling rules. Which includes consuming the whales.

I would just like to say thank you for your continued attempts to bring reason, understanding, and FACTS to these emotionally charged whaling discussions. You have a better understanding of the past and present situation at the IWC than anyone.

The anti-whaling faction continues to parrot anything and everything that the eco-terrorist Watson says regardless of how absurd or impossible his statements are. The eco-terrorist Watson should start every one of his press conference with the words, "I don't have any idea what the facts are nor do I care but ...........".

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Anti-whaling activists claimed Tuesday that they have effectively ended this year's Japanese hunt following a late-night altercation near Antarctica, but the whalers said their season will continue.

Just another lie, in a long list of lies, from the eco-terrorist Watson. He's been saying that he ended whaling since the season started. Except for breaking another of their own scows due to incompetent boat handling - again - the eco-terrorists SS have only managed to steal a rubber fender from one of the whaler's vessels.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

arrestpaul, instead if patting people on the back for apparently using facts, wouldnt it be nice if you stuck to the facts instead of putting words into peoples mouths? This misquoting habit you have is dissappointing.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It doesn't matter wether it's the real reason or not. What matters is that they are not conducxting Commercial Whaling

Duh. If the real reason is to sell as food in Japan, that is commercial whaling. The only thing that makes it not is the whalers and their mates jumping up and down shaking their heads screaming, 'IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT!'

1 ( +3 / -2 )

your comments make no sense!

It is your prism, once again. The numbers do not show that whaling is inhumane. It is simply your personal idea that these numbers mean whaling is inhumane. Do you understand this? You are not god or judge of the world.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

This is a very alien, strange way of thinking.

I agree. Maybe they should stop thinking that way, realise that they are wrong and stop killing whales altogether.

ihope2eatwhales's idea is that subjecting an animal to a long, slow, painful death is perfectly OK if the animal is tasty. It is not simply Swiss Tony's personal idea that it is inhumane that for roughly half of all whales taken death, is not instant. Any person with an ounce of empathy in him (or her) would have the same idea. Japan claims half the deaths are instant, and that average time to death is in the region of 2 minutes. (This assumes that a whale that isn't moving is dead, not merely paralysed but still conscious.) A very simple calculation shows that the average time to death of animals that are not killed outright is over four minutes, even using Japan's numbers. Try holding your breath for four minutes while sticking a sharp instrument deep into your flesh. You don't even need to use explosives. Now tell us honestly that those four minutes (by the law of averages, much longer for some animals) are not inhumane.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

SwissToni - instead if patting people on the back for apparently using facts, wouldnt it be nice if you stuck to the facts instead of putting words into peoples mouths? This misquoting habit you have is dissappointing.

"If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then ... make it up on the spot." -Paul Watson, in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy

"The fact is that we live in an extremely violent culture, and we all justify violence if it's for what we believe in." -Paul Watson

"There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history." -Paul Watson

"We should never feel like we're going too far in breaking the law, because whatever laws you break to liberate animals or to protect the environment are very insignificant." -Paul Watson

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Arrestpaul, what's your point? All you've demonstrated is Paul Watson, like you, will say anything to get a rise. That's very different to putting words in people mouths.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Word is that the whaling fleet is heading home - the fleet has left the waters of the Southern Sanctuary, the harpoon vessels have stopped tailing the BB, and the SM2 (that was off on a wild goose chase after the SI) has been reported at 30 degrees south to the east of Brisbane, well on its way back to Japan.

They told the US court that they would continue till the end of March.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Go Sea Shephard! Go away Nisshin Maru!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If I have the wrong end of the stick about your empathy, please do put me right. Please explain what is humane about a method of slaughter where half the animals do not die immediately but are subjected to a long and horrendously painful struggle until they die of exhaustion, shock, loss of blood or drowning. Tell us how you empathise with the whales who die such horrible deaths, and how you are able to eat and enjoy their flesh knowing the suffering that brought that plate of 'research remains' to your table.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Readers, please stop bickering.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the real world, humane slaughter is an oxymoron. Pragmatic people know it as what we should aim for. We aim for it because we have empathy and humanity.

But the rest of people think like you, I guess. It's your opinion, you understand.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

humane slaughter is an oxymoron. Pragmatic people know it as what we should aim for. We aim for it because we have empathy and humanity.

No, it isn't an oxymoron. Humane killing - with no pain, no suffering - is possible. Whales are not stunned and rendered unconscious before the killing method is applied, nor does the killing method - an exploding harpoon shot at a moving target on a moving sea from a moving platform - guarantee a quick and painless death.

If you do have empathy and humanity, you refrain from providing a market for the flesh of animals killed in a way guaranteed to be inhumane. It isn't like there is nothing else to eat.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

arrestpaul said:

Anti-whaling activists claimed Tuesday that they have effectively ended this year's Japanese hunt following a late-night altercation near Antarctica, but the whalers said their season will continue.

Just another lie, in a long list of lies, from the eco-terrorist Watson. He's been saying that he ended whaling since the season started. Except for breaking another of their own scows due to incompetent boat handling - again - the eco-terrorists SS have only managed to steal a rubber fender from one of the whaler's vessels.

You'd better eat your words (and not whales) arrestpaul: the Japanese hunt has been abandoned and only 1/3 of the quota killed. If I want to read lies I can look at the ICR web site.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Scrote - You'd better eat your words (and not whales) arrestpaul: the Japanese hunt has been abandoned and only 1/3 of the quota killed. If I want to read lies I can look at the ICR web site.

I wonder how the U.S. judge will consider the results of these latest actions? The judge has already said that many of the actions by the eco-terrorist SS are dangerous. Now those actions have, once again, proven so dangerous that the whalers ended their hunting early in order to protect their crews and vessels. The judge is not going to like this.

The pro-violence supporters of the continued violent actions of the eco-terrorist SS know that "violence is the answer". They know that "violence works". If you don't agree with someone you should physically attack them.

"The fact is that we live in an extremely violent culture, and we all justify violence if it's for what we believe in."

Paul Watson

"There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history."

Paul Watson
-2 ( +1 / -3 )

arrestpaul: "Just another lie, in a long list of lies, from the eco-terrorist Watson. He's been saying that he ended whaling since the season started."

And yet the whaling fleet is going home, no? So are they lying then? or is SS correct? :)

"The pro-violence supporters of the continued violent actions of the eco-terrorist..."

The 'eco-terrorists' are the Japanese whalers -- they rape the environment of its resources.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The judge has already said that many of the actions by the eco-terrorist SS are dangerous.

The judge pointed out that rotten butter and paint was a far cry from AK47s and that he would characterise SS activities as 'petty vandalism'.

those actions have, once again, proven so dangerous that the whalers ended their hunting early in order to protect their crews and vessels.

No, the whalers realised that once the BB was on the tail of the factory ship no more whalemeat could be butchered so they may as well cut their losses and go home.

The whalers told the judge they would continue killing whales until the end of March. Maybe that was a lie?

Watson said no more than a third of the quota had been killed. You, arrestpaul, said he has no idea how successful the whalers have been. Seems he was right, you were wrong.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Arrestpaul...you have some issue with people fighting for things they believe in? The very fact that we here ( and people in other democratic countries ) are able to debate the whaling issue ( among others ) , enjoy free speech and other democratic rights is a result of someone at some point in time having fought for it ...in most countries democracy did not come free or peacefully...and those who fought for it were often called criminals or terrorists. Watson and SS also fight for what they believe in and despite what vested interests call him he is an inspiration to many. Well done SS .

1 ( +3 / -2 )

oginome:

" simply said SS are better off learning Japanese and going into Japan and trying to educate the population. " ...I think you overestimate the power of SS if you think they can compete against the PR of the Japanese government.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"simply said SS are better off learning Japanese and going into Japan and trying to educate the population. " ...I think you overestimate the power of SS if you think they can compete against the PR of the Japanese government.

But a grassroots movements can exist and grow outside of any government administered PR movement. The fact is, that as things stand now, SS aren't able to compete against Japan's government PR, because what they do is attack Japan head on, which fails, because all they do is breed anger and indignation and provide even more PR opportunities for the government to paint a picture of arrogant Westerners trying to control Japan and put a halt to its 'traditions'. The good thing is they save whales, but its short term respite, as the same whales get killed the next year. Going into Japan, learning Japanese, travellling around the country, and teaching the citizens the truth about Japan's barbarous whale killing program would be more effective in my opinion.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

marcelito - you have some issue with people fighting for things they believe in? The very fact that we here ( and people in other democratic countries ) are able to debate the whaling issue ( among others ) , enjoy free speech and other democratic rights is a result of someone at some point in time having fought for it ...in most countries democracy did not come free or peacefully...and those who fought for it were often called criminals or terrorists. Watson and SS also fight for what they believe in and despite what vested interests call him he is an inspiration to many.

The eco-terrorist SS are not "debating" the whaling issue. The eco-terrorist SS are resorting to continued acts of violence to stop what is a legitimate enterprise. The eco-terrorist SS are a violent organization and supporters of their violence are just as bad as eco-terrorist who commit the violence. Sinking ships, ramming ships, launching glass bottles of acid, and shooting red phosphours flares put lives in danger. Violence works. The eco-terrorist supporters should be very proud that violence works.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

cleo - The judge pointed out that rotten butter and paint was a far cry from AK47s and that he would characterise SS activities as 'petty vandalism'.

The judge said that some of the eco-terrorist actions were "petty vandalism". The judge also said that many of the actions of the eco-terrorist SS were DANGEROUS.

No, the whalers realised that once the BB was on the tail of the factory ship no more whalemeat could be butchered so they may as well cut their losses and go home.

Or they realise that the judge of a pending court case is closely watching the violent actions of the eco-terrorist SS and withdrawing today insures that a 400 meter safety zone will be established around future whaling fleets. And eco-terrorist SS fund raising in the U.S. will pay a penalty for any SS violations.

The whalers told the judge they would continue killing whales until the end of March. Maybe that was a lie?

Their "intention" was to continue until the end of March. The judge will be notified that the violent actions of the eco-terrorist SS made it too dangerous to continue.

Watson said no more than a third of the quota had been killed. You, arrestpaul, said he has no idea how successful the whalers have been. Seems he was right, you were wrong.

"They won't get more than 30% of their quota," Watson said. The eco-terrorist Watson guessed the number was 30% or less. It turned out that the actual number was more than that. The eco-terrorist Watson guessed wrong. He was close but still wrong. I said that the eco-terrorist Watson was "guessing" and couldn't know the actual number.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

smithinjapan - "Just another lie, in a long list of lies, from the eco-terrorist Watson. He's been saying that he ended whaling since the season started."

And yet the whaling fleet is going home, no? So are they lying then? or is SS correct? :)

"The pro-violence supporters of the continued violent actions of the eco-terrorist..."

The eco-terrorist Watson has a long, estabished history of lying. Hasn't the eco-terrorist Watson been saying all season long, month after month, season after season, that he has ended whaling? Even a stopped clock (analog) is correct twice a day. How many times has the eco-terrorist Watson been proven wrong?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

know** -

The judge will be notified that the violent actions of the eco-terrorist SS made it too dangerous to continue

The judge will ask to see relevant evidence of violent action immediately prior to the decision to cut short the season. Unless the icr are keeping things very close to their chest (uncharacteristic) and the SS are being coy (uncharacteristic), there is no such evidence, because it wasn't 'violent action' that influenced the decision. If the whalers were afraid to SS's 'violent actions' they wouldn't be down there in Antarctica in the first place. It's the bottom line that takes them down there, and the bottom line that brings them back early. Pity the bottom line is pumped up by taxpayers' money.

The eco-terrorist Watson guessed the number was 30% or less. It turned out that the actual number was more than that......I said that the eco-terrorist Watson was "guessing" and couldn't know the actual number.

You did not mention 'actual numbers'. You said, He has no way of knowing how successful the whalers have been because he didn't know where the whalers were. In fact they killed 267 whales out of a quota of 900. How does that not work out at less than 30%?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

How did the start of my post get so mangled? know = arrestpaul of course. Sorry.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well up until now I have tried to stay in the middle like on all things. I just realized though that the whales do not have anyone protecting their cause because they can not speak our language. As such it is right for the anti-whalers to fight for their cause. Otherwise it is just unfair. I do believe that if the whales are wiped out of existence then this planet will collapse. They are crucial for keeping the vibrational frequency of the oceans in harmony with our surroundings. The sounds they make travel throughout the ocean world. I do not know exactly what they are up to but I feel it is an important part of our ecosystem.

I have actually eaten fried whale meat once. My ex boss brought me to a shop and offered it to me. I didn't want to eat it so I just tastes it so that I could better understand what the big deal is. Well it doesn't taste that great nor is it bad.

So go anti-whalers! Save the whales!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

arrestpaul: "The eco-terrorist Watson has a long, estabished history of lying."

So you say they are lying when they declare that they have stopped whaling for this season? You can't even answer my own question: has the whaling fleet turned back for home or not? And if yes, has the season not ended? You were called on your incorrect post, so own up to it.

As for lying, I guess you think the J-government and whalers have never lied about anything? I mean, since you bring general lies into the conversation.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

They're both skirting to the edge of what's considered "legal" - legal under whaling research, and legal under maritime rules.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

smithinjapan - arrestpaul: "The eco-terrorist Watson has a long, estabished history of lying."

So you say they are lying when they declare that they have stopped whaling for this season? You can't even answer my own question: has the whaling fleet turned back for home or not? And if yes, has the season not ended? You were called on your incorrect post, so own up to it.

As for lying, I guess you think the J-government and whalers have never lied about anything? I mean, since you bring general lies into the conversation.

I'm saying that the eco-terrorist Watson has a long and established history of lying. The whalers are going home. The whalers also went home last year and the year before that and the year before that. The eco-terrorist Watson said that the whaling was over several time this season alone. He said whaling was over when his toy drone first found the whalers. He said whaling was over last year and the year before that, etc. The eco-terrorist Watson has said many things over the last few decades and many of them have proven to be untrue. Are you suggesting that because YOU believe the J-government is lying that it's OK for the eco-terrorist SS to lie? Are you attempting to justify eco-terrorist lying?

The eco-terrorist Watson knows that violence works. The pro-violence supporters of the eco-terrorist SS know that violence works. Now the eco-terrorists will have to convince a U.S. judge that their repeated acts of violence aren't really violence. Throwing glass bottles of acid and shooting red phosphorus flares aren't really dangerous acts of violence, your Honor. The judge has already said that many of the actions of the eco-terrorist SS are, in fact, DANGEROUS.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The whalers are going home.

Ahead of their announced schedule, and with less than one third of their self-determined quota. Just like SS said they would.

Watson said that the whaling was over several time this season alone. He said whaling was over when his toy drone first found the whalers. He said whaling was over last year and the year before that, etc.

I cannot find anywhere on the SS website where such claims have been made, not do I recall such claims being made. I am sure I would recall if such claims had been made, because it would make my day and be very memorable. It seems you have access to other information. Would you like to provide some links?

Also please explain the 'new maths' you seem to be using to calculate that 267 is not less than 30% of 900.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

arrestpaul:

" I'm saying that the eco-terrorist Watson has a long and established history of lying "

And you are saying the eco-terrorist whale "researcher" do not? LOL

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Go Sea Sheppard!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sea Sheppard victory? You have to be kidding! They didn't even make a dent in stopping whale killing. Do you know why?

By reducing Japan's whaling activities they help increase the IWC's quota for other countries. Here are the list of countries that still allow whaling: Canada, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Indonesia, Japan, Norway, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and yes even United States.

For example just for Norway alone. In 2011, they have an annual quota of 1286 whales. If you count only Greenland's native Inuit people, they alone hunt 175 whales per year. The rest of Greenland typically hunt 165 whales per year. That totals 340 whales per year. The Faroe Islands hunt 950 whales per year and that doesn't count porpoises.

So when I read about so called whale activists attacking Japan's whaling industry, I understand why.

But I don't understand why they ONLY target Japan and not even mentioning the horrific whale slaughter by the other 10 countries.

What victory? There is no victory.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

By reducing Japan's whaling activities they help increase the IWC's quota for other countries.

The IWC doesn't give Japan a quota for how many whales it can try to kill; Japan sets its own quota. How many whales Japan kills or fails to kill does not affect any other country. This year they gave themselves a quota of 900, and managed to kill only 267. SS prevented the deaths of 633 whales in the Antarctic this season.

And as I pointed out on the other whaling thread, you are mistaken in your assertion that people in other countries are allowed to kill whales without interference from 'activists'. People (including SS) DO protest about whaling by other nations, and SS successfully stopped any pilot whales being killed in the Faeroe Islands last year during what is normally the busiest time for the killers.

Norway (which is not affected by the IWC and therefore sets its own quotas - which it hasn't met for several years) does receive a lot of flack - but not for killing whales in a designated Whale Sanctuary.

The reason the focus here is on Japan is that this is Japan Today, and the mod tends to remove posts that stray from the topic.

Yet for some reason he always allows these 'what about other countries' posts to remain, while removing any replies.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites