How to deal with Sea Shepherd
Posted by ampontan on Sunday, April 6, 2008
ACCORDING TO THIS POST from Tim Blair, the French dealt with the eco-twerps Sea Shepherd and their leader Paul Watson much more assertively than Japan did.
As described in a link from the post, about 100 French fishermen were upset when Watson said the death of baby seals was a greater tragedy than the recent death of some sealers.
If you haven’t seen it already, please click on the first link (on the word “attacking”) to see a Japanese video of a Sea Shepherd ship deliberately ramming a Japanese whaling vessel. A similiar video was shown last year on the website of Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research (whose site is linked on the right sidebar).
Yet during the whaling season earlier this year, no one in the English-language mass media could bring themselves to call a spade a spade. They usually described it a “collision” rather than a ramming.
Would you care to speculate on their approach had the Japanese taken steps similar to those of the French fishermen?
It should be obvious by now to everyone that the daily media, whether print or broadcast, is little more than an infotainment vehicle for advertising, with little interest in the concept of journalistic integrity. It is time to draw conclusions from that fact.
hoju_saram said
Ah yes, those French certainly know how to deal with pesky protesters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
Very “assertive”. For the record, I agree that this Watson guy is a twit, but I don’t think the Japanese will want to start using French tactics to deal with him. But then again, I have little sympathy for the Japanese whalers. If Japan had been left to police its own whaling, there’d be no whales left in the ocean to hunt. They’ve been railing against the IWC since ‘85, but if it wasn’t for the IWC and a bit of pressure from uncle Sam they’d be researching clams.
hoju_saram said
Regarding the use of the words “ram” or “collide”, in most articles I’ve read both parties have been pointing the finger at the other guy. In such cases its prudent to use a neutral term then tell both sides o the story and let the reader decide. It’s called “balance”.
Eg: http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=29&ContentID=65680
By the way, how do you reconcile your comments on journalistic integrity, whilst at the same time calling activists “eco-twerps” and citing banal blog entries that call the whalers “harmless Japanese mammal pokers”? I think you need to reconsider your own lack of objectivity before you start to point the finger at other sources.
Aceface said
“But then again, I have little sympathy for the Japanese whalers”
But this isn’t about sympathy,mate.It’s about science and sustainable use of natural resources.
Something Australians are having difficult to understand.
“If Japan had been left to police its own whaling, there’d be no whales left in the ocean to hunt. ”
Actually the number of Humpbacks and Sperm whales are returning.Thank you very much.
“They’ve been railing against the IWC since ‘85, but if it wasn’t for the IWC and a bit of pressure from uncle Sam they’d be researching clams.”
Been railing against IWC along with other whaling nations.And none of this would happen if only Uncle Sam(and others like observer status NGOs)had let non-whaling nations becoming member states and start vote-buying.
BTW,have you not chose to laugh from a far,Hoju Saram?
Aceface said
“Actually the number of Humpbacks and Sperm whales are returning.Thank you very much.”
the numbers are returning “in our EEZ”.Sorry.
hoju_saram said
Aceface,
It’s not about research, its about eating whale meat. As for the numbers returning, thats because of the IWC and the US. As I already mentioned, if it had been left to Japan, whales would be extinct, which is why I have little sympathy for Japanese whalers crying foul now.
Let me explain in detail:
In the 40s and 50s, owing to advances in whaling technology and over-fishing, whale numbers had declined to the point where many whalers went out of business because there were so few whales left to kil. The IWC was set up to curb whaling so that the resource would not be entirely destroyed. Initialy it was a whaling club, but catch quotas were generally ignored.
The ‘63 catch of blue whales killed 60% of the blue whale population as well as driving other species to the point of extinction. The IWC, fearing that the next few seasons would put an end to whales, recommended an imediate and drastic reduction of hunting in the near-term.
Japan refused.
In the 1964–1965 season, it took Japan’s 15 floating-factory expeditions operating with 172 catcher-boats to kill a mere 20 of the remaining blue whales. In 1965 the blue whale received complete protection throughout the Antarctic. The killing stopped, but only because the animal was commercially extinct.
Speaking about the blue whale, former U.S. Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall said of the 1970s, “This decade may go down in history as marking the end of life for the largest animal ever to inhabit this earth.”
From the 70s through to the 80s there were calls for moratoriums, but the IWC successfully defeated them. Catch quotas were put in place, however, again against the wishes of Japan.
It was only in ‘82 that a moratorium was put in place by a majority 75%. Most countries saw an immediate and critical danger of the extinction of several whale species. The pacific nations were particularly concerned, since whales are important for tourism and also intrinsic to many local cultures.
Japan protested; they wanted to extend their hunts. It was only when the U.S. threatened retaliation with fish embargoes that it withdrew its objection. Total compliance with the moratorium didn’t take place until 1989. Japan now wants to resume commercial whaling, but because it has withdrawn its objection to the moratorium, it must either leave the IWC or continue to expand its so-called scientific whaling.
Which is what its done. Thus the scientific whaling line.
Now, I don’t bregrudge a small hunt, but I find it absurd when pro-whalers whine about the IWC, when it was the IWC that has ensured that there are any whales left to hunt at all.
As for whale hunting now being sustainable, that’s open to debate. Many believe the whale populations are still very fragile. And since the whalers have no qualms killing pregnant animals, the catch is even more damaging to populations:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1696259.htm
Aceface said
“The ‘63 catch of blue whales killed 60% of the blue whale population as well as driving other species to the point of extinction. The IWC, fearing that the next few seasons would put an end to whales, recommended an imediate and drastic reduction of hunting in the near-term.
Japan refused.”
Japan DID accept the moratorium in the end of fiscal years of 1963(in Japan fiscal year starts from April to March of next year and the fleet was budgeted it’s actvity until april of 1964.)
Japan did hunt Blue whale especially in the last decade,however it’s decline in Antarctic was mostly caused by the Norway and UK as you see in the graph.Japan hunted about 13% of entire catch of Blue whale in Antarctic,Norway 40%,UK 34%.
http://luna.pos.to/whale/sta.html
And Japan had not killed a single Blue whale in Antarctic.So blaming Japan solely on declining Blue Whale would not do justice,me think.
“Japan protested; they wanted to extend their hunts.”
Japan protested since not all the whale species are endangered and thinks carefully controled whaling benefits everyone.
“Now, I don’t bregrudge a small hunt, but I find it absurd when pro-whalers whine about the IWC, when it was the IWC that has ensured that there are any whales left to hunt at all.”
IWC stands for International Whaling Commission.It is an organization to discuss the sustainability of whaling,not the legitimacy of it.And some among IWC did oppose coastal whaling too,another institutional malfunctioning at IWC Japan objects.
“Many believe the whale populations are still very fragile.”
Not the Minkes we are catching.Even IWC acknowledge that.
“And since the whalers have no qualms killing pregnant animals, the catch is even more damaging to populations:”
We’ll find out more about reproductive age and pregnancy period of Minkes through scientific whaling.
“By the way, how do you reconcile your comments on journalistic integrity, whilst at the same time calling activists “eco-twerps” and citing banal blog entries that call the whalers “harmless Japanese mammal pokers”? I think you need to reconsider your own lack of objectivity before you start to point the finger at other sources.”
I think this should be answered by Ampontan himself,but you too need to reconsider your own lack of objectivity before you start to point finger to a BLOG,especially when we are dealing with a government calling whaling “a massacre” and environmentalist group that slows bottles of acids into opponent vessel and the media that airs racist TV commercial.
Aceface said
“And Japan had not killed a single Blue whale in Antarctic.”
Oops.It’s Atlantic.
ampontan said
No, it’s called “deliberate inaccuracy”, as any grade schooler who bothers to look at the video can see.
Did the media write the articles without looking at the video? Incompetent laziness.
Did the media look at the video and call it a “collision”.
Shameless.
ampontan said
No, it’s called “deliberate inaccuracy”, as any grade schooler who bothers to look at the video can see.
Did the media write the articles without looking at the video? Incompetent laziness.
Did the media look at the video and call it a “collision”.
Shameless.
hoju_saram said
We’ll find out more about reproductive age and pregnancy period of Minkes through scientific whaling.
Oh I’m sure you will. And have a nice snack afterwards, right?
The scientific research line is actually pretty funny. On the one hand, Japan, as a member of the IWC, can only hunt whales under the pretenses of scientific research. It’s a loophole they’ve exploited so they can continue to supply the local markets with meat.
On the other hand, they are researching to see if they can come up with enough data to go back to the IWC and prove scientifically that some whale stocks are robust enough to allow a degree of sustainable commercial hunting.
So they’re killing whales to prove they can safely kill whales. Funny no?
mac said
One other important issue you have to fit into the equation … it is not just who slaughters the highly evolved sentient beings, it is where the market is to sell them.
For example, Korea has practical zero market … they sell them to Japan. Ditto a large proportion of the legal and illegal Russian catch. Even Norway has a pretty poor domestic market … Japan is driving the industrial commercialisation of whale killing and so that is where to hit it in order to stave it off.
It is not about “Japan”. It is not targeted “at Japan” or the Japanese. It is about a few unevolved capitalists seeking to make a return on their financial investment by killing highly evolved sentient beings … attempting to instill into the collective conscience that they are mere “resources” a bit like black people or coolies were once natural resources.
These petty capitalists … who could just go and make money out of anything like the rest of without harming living beings … can hide behind the Emperor’s holy butt and pretend that it is about “heritage”. But it is not. Life changes. Species … and we hope humanity .. evolves.
Personally, I would do a deal with Japan. I am white. It is our heritage to have slaves. We were good at it. We even industrialise the entire process and incorporated it into our capitalist machine.
So, say the “Japs” offer us some pretty little Japanese chicks as “sex slaves” and we let them take as many bottom feeding whales in return. “A mink for a minx”, as it were. That way everyone is happy (and at least the little riceburners get fed on a daily basis). Ee, gahd, old chap … dont you just love a return to the brutal politics and trade of the 19th Century. Whales are not inanimate natural resources. They have rights too.
Just as an educated aside … this whole whale issue strikes at the heart of modern Japan because it was the economic key to the aggressive opening up of the nation. If it wasn’t for whales, there would have not been Perry. Naturally, inside Japan at that time, there were some pros and some cons amongst the financial elites … we see the same parties at play here even today. Also inside Japan there were a whole load of ordinary folks, some who lived at the sea and actually ate these mammals. Its generally the ordinary folk that are used and made victims.
Aceface said
“Oh I’m sure you will. And have a nice snack afterwards, right?”
Well that’s the whole point! The meat is too tasty just to slow away,and they are dead anyway.
You don’t actually expect us to dump thousand tons of whale meat in Antarctic,Do you? That sure would harm the fragile arctic environment….
“So they’re killing whales to prove they can safely kill whales. Funny no?”
To be more precise Japan is studying whale reproduction to make whaling debate more productive.
And it is not that safe to kill whales nowadays,thanks to Sea Shepeherd backed by the support from Down Under in all forms.Something Fukuda will have to talk to Chairman Rudd of People’s Republic of Australia at the G8 Summit.
Aceface said
Mac:
There is a whale meat market in Korea.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200803/200803180015.html
The good thing is in Korean town of Ulsan,whales conveniently get “drowned in the nets”so often that can sustain 40 whale restaurants in the city.Something smells fishy here.
mac said
To be more precise Japan is studying whale reproduction to make whaling debate more FINANCIALLY productive for the sake of a few investors.
I could dig out a better reference but C.W. Nicol is OK by me and Japan. But according to Japan Whaling Association, Ulsan was developed as an industrial whaling port first by the Russians and then for and by the Japanese. During the Japanese Occupation, Japanese capital developed the Korea industry and the majority of whale meat went to Japan, the American intervention, also outlawing the fishing rights, being the only thing that stopped it to a degree. During 1980-1984, before Korea abandoned whaling, the industry earned $3.54 million dollars of foreign exchange by exporting an annual average of 846 tons of whale meat to Japan. Buddhism had protected the highly evolved and sentient mammals in both countries until the American fleets entered their waters in the mid-19th Century to make money out of bloody slaughter.
Nicol wrote, “Recently, Korea joined the International Whaling Commission. It is said among whalers that she did not join the commission out of respect for its decisions but because a ruling, which Japan would obey, that an IWC member nation should not import whale meat from a non-member nation. Korea exports pretty well all of her whale meat to Japan.” from http://luna.pos.to/whale/jwa_ayukawa.html
If only this one foreign developed city eats 80% of the market, I think my point stands. So whaling is not a “Korean” issue either. For Ulsan … read Taiji. Why let a bunch of hick fisherman ruing your foreign relationships for the sake of dog food or school lunches!?! Strategically Japan is in the driving seat and so will remain the main target. International public opinion would not accept them responding as the French or, I am sure, Russian fishermen might if pushed.
But, you are right, meanwhile South Korean shows good face … “A South Korean official says police have broken an illegal whale poaching racket, confiscating more than 50 tonnes of minke whale meat in the largest seizure of its kind in the country.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/12/2137174.htm
BTW, it is a way off topic but what face are the Japanese people going to show amidst all this Olympic Torch/Tibet/Human Rights kerfuffle? Its a high stakes card to play, but I would say with China’s credibility on the way down, Japan have an opportunity to raise theirs. Whose example are they going to follow on this one?
Aceface said
“to make whaling debate more FINANCIALLY productive for the sake of a few investors.”
I think Antarctic whaling wouldn’t be a profitable one if there’s no governmental subsidies.
“!but C.W. Nicol is OK by me and Japan.”
Not anymore.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20080209f3.html
Your Nicol piece is pretty old and inaacurate.Here’s our archenemy BBC’s report on Ulsan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4123826.stm
Aceface said
“but C.W. Nicol is OK by me and Japan.”
Not any more
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-
I think this one summs up whaling in Ulsan bette.
bin/nn20080209f3.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4123826.stm
And,Mac.I don’t think Atlantic whaling would be profitable without government subsidies.
GI Korea said
What I have always found interesting is that Australia’s top environmentalist and the 2007 Australian of the Year Tim Flannery supports the Japanese whaling program because it is sustainable:
http://rokdrop.com/2008/01/16/japanese-whaling-update/
ROK Drop Weekly Linklets - 13APR08 said
[...] paramilitaries to run with the torch.- The French of all people have found the perfect way to deal with the eco-loon Paul Watson. – The most unpopular US servicemember in Japan. – Yes, Japan is definitely a train lovers [...]
Andyroo said
I see that not all countries are supportive of Sea Shepherd’s tactics…in this case Canada and its seal hunt:
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAGOR27824120080412
Aceface said
More.
http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAN1436234520080414
mac said
A copy of an emails sent to seashepard.org following a recent vox populis by Captain Pugwash, Paul Waston. Sent to; donations@seashepherd.org, info@seashepherd.org, volunteer@seashepherd.org. I encourage you to add them to your spamlist.
‘Whales, Japanese Lies, and Videotapes’ by Captain Paul Watson
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_080308_1.html
Quote Paul Watson;
> Then again, this is the nation that still denies the Rape of Nanking,
> that still denies enslaving Korean and Chinese women as “comfort women,”
> that still denies torturing POW’s during the war, that still denies destroying the
> rainforests of Indonesia and over-fishing the world’s oceans.
> Japanese history is a chronicle of deceptions.
I am a vegan of more than 25 years and vegetarian beyond that. To put my political commitment to the environment and animal rights into context, a friend of a friend and acquaintance of [ xxx ]. Like
many of my generation, although we are entirely against whaling and heartened by Paul Watson’s efforts, if we had to take a position against organizations like the new Greenpeace and yours, it would be for not being animal rights conscious enough.
However, today I read the puerile, chauvinist and ultimately racist statement published by Mr Watson copied above and I am disgusted. You have lost a supporter. Do we really need to stoop to such tabloid
stereotypes to win a war? Do you as an organization really support this?
Who exactly does Mr Watson mean by “the Japanese” … the women, children and peasant classes of Japan who were entirely unenfranchised until after WWII and yet had their own rich culture and history? The Post-War social activists? Or in his tinpot world view, do only the military and male politicians of the Right exist?
I have no interest in supporting racists, racism or this type of low level and androcentric shit and will encourage my friends likewise.
I am not Japanese. I do not support nationalism. To make an enemy of the Japanese people, an entire nation – ignoring Japanese activists in all the above mentioned areas – by such broad sweeping statements is low level ignorance. To invoke nationalistic interest of other nations, who have no specific support of human, environment or animal rights themselves is foolery.
I think Mr Watson needs to study a little bit more history and contemporary Japanese sociology before making such incomplete and biased statements.