Whale wars: Watch Eco-pussies attack japanese whalers, and fail hilariously

[Blind_Io]

The "loophole" has been there since the beginning of the IWC. Why have they not closed it in over 50 years?

Because it's a matter of international law - which is sort of made up as you go along. Also, to close the loophole would require every nation to re-sign the treaty.

What is your objection to whaling exactly? The modern humane methods they use? So I guess hunting wild animals in the US and Canada with guns, or even modern crossbows is against the law? And there is no way North Americans or Europeans would travel great distances to kill wild or endangered animals, like say, to Africa? Nor would they allow animals to be killed in an inhumane manner, like foxhunts?

BTW, Canada doesn't belong to the IWC.

Yes, there are some people who travel the world to kill things, however, they are in the extreme minority and you can't generalize their actions to the rest of the population.

No, I'm not. Please read this carefully. Japan has been whaling for over a thousand years, it is part of their culture (no different from that of the Inuits you mentioned). Americans, Australians and Canadians started whaling late in the game, the Europeans introduced modern methods (against the wishes of the Japanese) and killed indiscriminately, nearly wiping out some species. What gives us the right to now turn around and tell Japan to stop whaling altogether? None.

Because we, as a planet have killed indiscriminately and nearly wiped out the species. Their scientific goals are questionable at best. The whole point of the moratorium on whaling was to try to correct the mistakes of the past. Continuing to harvest whales when even the Japanese are not buying and the meat rots doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't the Sea Shepherd go after the countries who are whaling commercially in the North?

I don't know, limited resources, a friendly government and port from which to base their operation? You will have to ask them why they choose the Japanese. Oh, and the Japanese are commercially whaling, they just have it wrapped up in a pretty bow labeled "RESEARCH" so they can kill uncontested in a whale sanctuary.

From this article, I suggest you read it.

Thank you for the link, I'm going to read it.

A few quotes you might have missed from it:

Only a few villages around the edges of Japan can claim a legitimate historical tradition of whaling.

Well, that kind of shoots your "tradition" argument all to hell - and from your own source.

It isn't for the meat, it's research, remember? The IWC says they have to process the animal. How much byproduct do you think there is from one whale? The brain, internal organs, skin etc can all go into dog food.

You do realise that Japan can drop out of the IWC at any time and resume commercial whaling if they want to? They are still part of the IWC because they are committed to creating a sustainable industry - the same purpose the IWC has.

Ahh, but then they would have to give up the charade that they are doing this for research and would have to face the international community (and the Australian government) for illegally whaling in the sanctuary.

Please show me any evidence that Japan makes money from whaling. Because here's some evidence that they don't, straight from the mouths of the activists.

"They need to kill at least 765 whales to break even," reported Sea Shepherd, in a written statement

Meanwhile, the Japanese fleet have caught and killed 679 Minke whales this year, and counting.

Another hunt was launched last week from the north-eastern port of Ayukawa, with the stated aim of catching at least another 60 minkes in domestic waters before the end of May.

So they're looking at breaking even. Yeah big money maker.

That's not what those quotes say. The first says that is how many are needed for the fleet to break even, it doesn't say that's how many they are going to harvest. The point they are trying to make is that they must take at least 765 whales to not see a loss

The second statement was released mid-season and says that they fleet had already taken 679 whales and counting. That's not the final number.

The last quote says that they are taking another 60 whales in a different expedition in local waters, and has nothing to do with the first two quotes.

A nice little package who put together? The IWC did. It was agreed to and has not been changed for over 50 years.

It's circular reasoning spinning between the three points of the treaty the Japanese keep bringing up.

A few? Eskimos took over 60 in 2007. Nice double standard.

So less than 1/10th what the Japanese take with one trip of one fleet, and whales taken because they have been a source of food for the Inuit for thousands of years and they were taken with traditional means. Hardly a double-standard.

You don't allow factory grade slaughter? Good for you, now kindly fuck off. If the Japanese want to eat whale, just as they have since before your country existed, they can. The fact that you nearly killed them off doesn't give you the right to tell Japan to give up part of their culture.

So is it about selling food (in other words: money) or isn't it? If you say they have the right to eat whale then the primary intent is commercial, not research. If it's for research then it's not about selling the meat for food. Pick a side and stop trying to argue both ends against the middle.

Again, I ask what your objection is. If the Japanese can manage a sustainable whaling industry, would you object? If so, you damn well better stop whaling in your own country first.

The US doesn't do commercial whaling. Next.

Wow. So which year exactly would you like to choose? 1546? 1289? Give me a break. Yes, let's put human lives at risk and use inhumane methods to kill the whales to boot! Great idea.

Human lives are already at risk. If you want to argue the "tradition" argument then you must play both sides of that card. In the Inuit tradition, the whale hunt is sacred and the animal is honored through ritual. There is no tradition in using a factory ship and a fleet of harpoon vessels.

Speaking of starving villages, preventing small countries from commercial whaling and forcing them to buy imported foods hurts their prospects for economic development.

Hard to keep track of what I said, but let me add a couple more points. Like I said before, it was the conservationists that gave the Japanese the justification to kill whales for research.

No, it was a mutually agreed upon international treaty, not something imposed by conservationalists.

They don't want to do the research because the fact is there are more than enough Minke whales to support sustainable commercial whaling, the Minke has never been endangered.

Only because they have never been hunted commercially. The smaller Minke whale wasn't worth the time or effort when the killing of larger whales was more efficient.

And this part makes me lol. Is it really all about saving whales from extinction? If so then you'd better ban ships. Oh, and fishing.

More whales are killed by fishermen, by accident. And when you combine fishing and whaling it still only accounts for 10%. The Sea Shepherd is putting innocent whales lives at risk just by being out there. :lol:

Yes, ships collide with whales, but the difference is intent. No commercial or naval captain will intentionally ram a whale. Fishermen don't intentionally entangle whales in their nets, in fact they try to avoid it because it fucks up their gear.

The fact is that the IWC has passed more than a few resolutions condemning Japan's "research."

Here's one:

http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC59docs/59-27.pdf

Resolution 2007-1 RESOLUTION ON JARPA
WHEREAS paragraph 7(b) of the Schedule establishes a sanctuary in the Southern Ocean;
RECALLING that the Commission has repeatedly requested Contracting Parties to refrain from issuing special permits for research involving the killing of whales within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, has expressed deep concern at continuing lethal research within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and has also recommended that scientific research involving the killing of cetaceans should only be permitted where critically important research needs are addressed;
CONSCIOUS that the Scientific Committee last year convened a workshop to analyse the results of JARPA 1, which is reported in SC/59/REP 1;
NOTING that the Workshop agreed that none of the goals of JARPA 1 had been reached, and that the results of the JARPA 1 programme are not required for management under the RMP;
FURTHER NOTING that the Government of Japan has authorised a new special permit programme in the Antarctic, JARPA II, in which the take of minke whales has been more than doubled, and fin whales and humpback whales have been added to the list of targeted species;
CONCERNED that fin whales in the Southern Hemisphere are currently classified as endangered, and that humpback whales in the JARPA II research area may include individuals from depleted breeding populations overwintering in the waters of certain Pacific Islands;
CONVINCED that the aims of JARPA II do not address critically important research needs;
NOW THEREFORE THE COMMISSION
CALLS UPON the Government of Japan to address the 31 recommendations listed in Appendix 4 of Annex O of the Scientific Committee report relating to the December 2006 review of the JARPA I programme to the satisfaction of the Scientific Committee;
FURTHER CALLS UPON the Government of Japan to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

I'll go back over this again later to address anything I missed.

EDIT: I'm looking for financial statement from the Japanese whaling industry. So far all I've managed to find is that the "Institute of Cetacean Research" - the whale "researchers" sell about $60,000,000 worth of whale products a year. I'm still trying to find any quarterly earning reports for them and for Kyodo Senpaku, the company that actually owns the fleet and is partially owned by ICR.

 

[hansvonaxion]

Because it's a matter of international law - which is sort of made up as you go along. Also, to close the loophole would require every nation to re-sign the treaty.

Loophole or not, they're acting legally. I think we all agree on that. Therefore the Sea Shepherd is acting illegally and if you support them you are supporting the breaking of the law. Agreed?

Yes, there are some people who travel the world to kill things, however, they are in the extreme minority and you can't generalize their actions to the rest of the population.

You can't? Ban hunting in the US. Americans kill wild animals, with modern means for no reason. Hypocrite. If Japanese travelled to the US and started throwing acid on hunters to protect the deer, I think we'd see a few people get shot. Hypocrites. But whales are endangered you say. Wrong.

I don't know, limited resources, a friendly government and port from which to base their operation? You will have to ask them why they choose the Japanese. Oh, and the Japanese are commercially whaling, they just have it wrapped up in a pretty bow labeled "RESEARCH" so they can kill uncontested in a whale sanctuary.

Limited resources? So they choose the Southern Ocean, probably the hardest to get to, most hostile and dangerous. :lol: Friendly Gov. and port? They sail under a Dutch flag! Should I draw you a map? :lol:

You say they are whaling commercially. All evidence points to the fact that they are not. Sorry, but I'm gonna go with the evidence on this one. :lol:

Thank you for the link, I'm going to read it.

A few quotes you might have missed from it:

Well, that kind of shoots your "tradition" argument all to hell - and from your own source.

No I didn't miss and I knew you'd jump all over it and it doesn't shoot my argument to anywhere. So your argument is that everyone in an entire country has to take part in an activity for it to be considered a tradition in that country?! Want to think again? Do I really need to explain the whole in that argument? I could drive a blue whale through it. :lol:

Ahh, but then they would have to give up the charade that they are doing this for research and would have to face the international community (and the Australian government) for illegally whaling in the sanctuary.

There would be no difference. IWC does not make the law. If Japan dropped out of the IWC they wouldn't have to recognise them and could go wherever they want. If they entered Australia's EEZ it would be up to Australia to do something about it. Norway doesn't cop anywhere near the heat that Japan does and they take close to the same number of whales with no research benefit.

Also, let me clear this up in case you missed it: Japan are conducting research (which they were basically told they needed to do by the scientific committee) in order to support their argument to restart commercial whaling. They are not hiding their intentions or doing anything sneaky. The IWC voted a resolution to eventually lift the ban and continue commercial whaling. The IWC support the eventual recommencement of commercial whaling. That's why Japan stay and that's why they are doing the research.

Repeated for emphasis; The IWC told Japan they need more data (including age, reproduction and diet), and this is what the IWC says about how to get that data...

...at present there are certain data that can only be obtained (at least in the short-term) using lethal methods. These include, for example, the age of an animal (obtained from earplugs) and the reproductive status and history of females (obtained from ovaries). Such information is important inter alia in any consideration of biological parameters (e.g. mortality and reproductive rates) and interpretation of pollutant levels.

Got it?

That's not what those quotes say. The first says that is how many are needed for the fleet to break even, it doesn't say that's how many they are going to harvest. The point they are trying to make is that they must take at least 765 whales to not see a loss

The second statement was released mid-season and says that they fleet had already taken 679 whales and counting. That's not the final number.

The last quote says that they are taking another 60 whales in a different expedition in local waters, and has nothing to do with the first two quotes.

They have one quota, they are connected. Either way, the first 765 whales represent the break even point. Countries acting under a scientific research charter can set their own quotas. Setting a quota of 935 hardly suggests they're doing it for profit, does it?

So less than 1/10th what the Japanese take with one trip of one fleet, and whales taken because they have been a source of food for the Inuit for thousands of years and they were taken with traditional means. Hardly a double-standard.

Whales have been a source of food for the Japanese for thousands of years. You are penalising them because they have developed a modern society. That's the kind of retarded romanticism that has no place in the debate. Oh look at the cute Inuit with their wooden boats, aren't they sweet? It's a racist argument.

So is it about selling food (in other words: money) or isn't it? If you say they have the right to eat whale then the primary intent is commercial, not research. If it's for research then it's not about selling the meat for food. Pick a side and stop trying to argue both ends against the middle.

My side is that they are now conducting the research needed to support their argument for starting commercial whaling again. The IWC exists to create a sustainable whaling industry, they support the return to commercial whaling, what don't you understand? You are like the activists, focused on the research issue, not realising that other countries now whale commercially, that Japan could drop out of the IWC and resume commercial whaling legally at any time, and ignore the fact that the IWC has basically promised that they will allow commercial whaling to resume in the future.

What's your side? You still haven't said what your objection is.

I have clearly said I am anti-whaling. I just understand that there is no valid argument against the Japanese resuming commercial whaling and there is definitely no validity to the argument that what they are doing now is illegal under international law, therefore the Sea Shepherd are in the wrong.

They are conducting valid scientific research with a view to resuming commercial whaling. I'm arguing that they have the right to do both.

The US doesn't do commercial whaling. Next.

So what? You still kill whales. Hypocrisy. Typical western attitude.

No, it was a mutually agreed upon international treaty, not something imposed by conservationalists.

Again, you don't seem to understand the issue. Japan said that the current data of whale numbers was sufficient to make a decision on lifting the ban (which the IWC has said will eventually happen), the IWC committee said no, we need more data, like age and diet for example. So Japan decided to get the data. You get that data through lethal means (see previous quote).

Yes, ships collide with whales, but the difference is intent. No commercial or naval captain will intentionally ram a whale. Fishermen don't intentionally entangle whales in their nets, in fact they try to avoid it because it fucks up their gear.

So it isn't about saving whales then? You made the argument that the Inuit kill less than 10% of the Japanese quota to justify their catch, well the Japanese take less than 5% of the number of whales killed each year by collision. If you were serious about saving whales you would focus on shipping.

Or the fishing industry. Considering that you support the Sea Shepherd attacking the Japanese whalers who are acting within the law, I guess you'd have no problem with Japanese activists throwing acid on American fisherman because their activities kill more whales than all whaling activities combined. Hypocrisy! Oh, that's right, it's accidental.

The fact is that the IWC has passed more than a few resolutions condemning Japan's "research."

Part of the issue is that they are conducting the research in a so-called hale sanctuary" and the opposing nations argue that if such a sanctuary exists there is no reason to conduct research there pertaining to the possibility of a resumption of whaling. Japan objected to the establishment of the sanctuary in the first place. Their data seems to suggest that the sanctuary is in the wrong place anyway. As for the data they have collected, it has been generally well received.

Although lethal sampling is a heavily debated issue, the IWC Scientific Committee acknowledges the usefulness of the data from JARPA.[99] In a November 2008 review of Japan's first 18 years of its scientific whaling program, the IWC stated that the panel was "very pleased with the data [that Japan] collected," and though "there was some advice on how these data could be further analyzed, or better analysed," that there "was general consensus about the high quality and the usefulness of the data."[100]

So you still haven't clearly stated what your objection is and how you can support the illegal actions of the Sea Shepherd.

 

[Blind_Io]

Here's the difference between our arguments:

You are arguing about what is legal.
I'm arguing about what I think is right.

These two are in no way similar.

Both parties are working within a gray area of the law. You are arguing semantics, and, frankly, I'm a bit tired of it. The IWC has condemned the actions of the Japanese. Only a few villages can claim a "traditional" right to whaling (no, I do not acknowledge whaling after WWII as "traditional"), and there are far more whales taken than are needed to meet the "traditional" needs of those few areas.

You continue to try to compare the wholesale destruction of whale pods to the taking of a single whale per trip by a few guys in a canoe or hunting deer in North America - a practice that is necessary to manage deer populations because we participated in the wholesale destruction of all the predators. So your argument is still invalid because the need for the fall hunt was caused by our killing of a species in the first place.

According to the IWC the Japanese have failed to meet a single goal of JARPA. Sorry, but I'm going to trust the word of the independent oversight body, not the people who stand to make a bunch of money by continuuing to do rediculous "research."

You have said that the whaling isn't about money, yet the whalers sell $60,000,000 worth of whale products a year. (I'm still running down the quarterly reports on both the fleet and the research institute.)

Your argument seems to be that because some whales are killed by accident then it doesn't matter if we kill a few more on purpose. That makes no sense at all, the deaths of whales by accident has nothing to do with commercial whaling.

 

[Whappeh]

Blind_Io keeps making all my arguments before I get a chance to get in on it.

 

[hansvonaxion]

Here's the difference between our arguments:

You are arguing about what is legal.
I'm arguing about what I think is right.

These two are in no way similar.

Both parties are working within a gray area of the law. You are arguing semantics, and, frankly, I'm a bit tired of it. The IWC has condemned the actions of the Japanese. Only a few villages can claim a "traditional" right to whaling (no, I do not acknowledge whaling after WWII as "traditional"), and there are far more whales taken than are needed to meet the "traditional" needs of those few areas.

You continue to try to compare the wholesale destruction of whale pods to the taking of a single whale per trip by a few guys in a canoe or hunting deer in North America - a practice that is necessary to manage deer populations because we participated in the wholesale destruction of all the predators. So your argument is still invalid because the need for the fall hunt was caused by our killing of a species in the first place.

According to the IWC the Japanese have failed to meet a single goal of JARPA. Sorry, but I'm going to trust the word of the independent oversight body, not the people who stand to make a bunch of money by continuuing to do rediculous "research."

You have said that the whaling isn't about money, yet the whalers sell $60,000,000 worth of whale products a year. (I'm still running down the quarterly reports on both the fleet and the research institute.)

Your argument seems to be that because some whales are killed by accident then it doesn't matter if we kill a few more on purpose. That makes no sense at all, the deaths of whales by accident has nothing to do with commercial whaling.

You still haven't really said why you are against whaling.

But more to the point, what gives any country the right to tell another country that they cannot kill whales. Especially when they do it themselves?

Talk about semantics; The IWC was set-up to oversee sustainable commercial whaling. They have vowed to lift the moratorium and allow commercial whaling once more. This so-called "condemnation" has to do with the technicalities involved with the research program. You seem to pick and choose to suit your argument there, but hey, what's new.

More semantics; The Japanese are as indigenous to Japan as the sweet liitle Inuits harpooning endangered whales are to their homeland and have just as much right to continue their traditions, WWII or not, modern methods or not.

You keep running down those numbers because I've given you numbers that pretty much prove there isn't much money in it, especially for an economy as large as Japan's. Even if there is money in it, so fucking what? One last time with feeling; Japan has every right to withdraw from the IWC and resume commercial whaling at any time. Just like Norway is doing right now!

I'm glad you brought up the word "need". Nobody needs to whale, even the Inuits. We don't need to fish. We don't need to hunt. We don't need to eat baby lambs, ducks, geese, snakes, kangaroos, emus, baby deer, monkeys, crocodiles, horses, turkeys etc etc. In fact we don't need to eat any meat whatsoever, we could all be perfectly healthy vegans.

We also don't need to impose our sanctimonious, holier-than-thou moral crusade on other cultures. For a few countries that have only existed for a few hundred years to insist that another civillisation give up a traditional part of their culture that has been carried out for thousands is utter bullshit.

If you guys don't want to whale then don't. But don't tell another, ancient culture that they have to stop because you fucked up and overdid it.

EDIT: Oh, I never seriously used the number of whales being killed by collision as justification, I was juxtaposing it against your assertion that the Inuit kill pales in comparison with the Japanese kill. The Japanese kill pales in comparison with the number killed by fishermen and the number killed by collision - not to mention that the accidental kills are indiscriminate. If it's about the number being killed, focus on fishing and shipping. If you reduce the number killed by accident by just 5% (through better planning of shipping lanes etc) you will have effectively done more to save the whales than by dictating policy to the Japanese.

Oh, but that would cost us money.

 

[Hidden_Hunter]

7) Using whale "meat" in dog food is neither here nor there, the IWC states that whales taken for scientific research must be processed. What do you expect them to do with all those parts that humans don't consume? Japanese are usually shocked to find out that Australia's coat of arms are eaten by Australians and their pets.

Kangaroo actually tastes quite nice, you tend to get the stench in your fingers of it though. I'm surprised we don't make more a commercial industry of it as they're pests.

 

[hansvonaxion]

Kangaroo actually tastes quite nice, you tend to get the stench in your fingers of it though. I'm surprised we don't make more a commercial industry of it as they're pests.

I'm sure it's become much more readily available in the last decade. When I first left Oz it was mostly just sold as dog food and chefs didn't know which cuts to use nor how to prepare it properly. Maybe next trip I'll try it out.

Wouldn't call them pests in the true sense - but existing in such large numbers necessitates culling - which international protesters claim is not in fact necessary, but is cruel and barbaric . How do Australians feel about Japanese telling us tostop killing kangaroos on moral grounds? With kangaroos it's impossible to tell if there's a joey in the pouch when you shoot it. If you don't kill it too, it will starve to death.

 

[MattD1zzl3]

The hippie argument:

Whales (and kangaroos?): Cute and cuddly

Cows and Pigs: A shame, but common and smell bad.


Save the pigs!

 

[hansvonaxion]

I'm back, sorry.

As for the little guys in the wooden boats taking a few whales with spears and ropes, here are the numbers;

From 87/88-96/97 (10 years) the so-called aboriginal communities (for some reason the Japanese are excluded from this group) took 2765 whales. The Japanese research team took 3197. That's a difference of just over 4 whales per year.

From 87/88-07/08 (20 years) the aboriginal communities took 6743 and the Japanese 11,055.

As I stated earlier, the Sea Shepherd claim the Japanese need to take 765 whales a year to break even. In only 3 of the last 20 years have they taken more than 765 whales. Of course you would need to take fluctuations in market prices and fuel/labour costs etc into account, but considering that under a scientific permit the issuing country can set their own quota, the evidence is pretty damn clear. It is not about profit.

Oh, and back to those harmless little guys in the wooden boats using traditional methods.

During the past ten years both Japan and Norway have made major improvements in their whale killing technology. This includes advances in the triggering mechanism for the explosive grenades used in the minke whale hunts, and the introduction of an improved explosive material, penthrite, which has greater power than the traditional black powder. These improvements are such that they are now also being introduced into the aboriginal subsistence whaling hunts in Alaska and Greenland.

So American aborigines now use the same modern methods to kill whales as the Japanese and Norwegians.

Very traditional.

Oh and one last thing. Blind, surely the IWC would allow those coastal communities with a long tradition of whaling to take a small number of whales, right?

At the 2003 meeting, as in previous years, the Commission did not adopt a proposal by Japan for an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales to be taken by coastal community-based whaling.

What? So it's OK for Americans to take over 50 whales a year using the traditional exploding grenade, but not for the Japanese.

Are you still denying a double standard?

Oh shit, I almost forgot the collision business.

For some populations, such as the North Atlantic right whale whose main habitat is the busy waters off the east coast of the USA and Canada, the mortality rate is particularly high. It is thought that mortality due to ship strikes may make the difference between extinction and survival for this species.

You still haven't said what your actual objection to whaling is (although you did mention morals) but if it has anything to do with the preservation of species, focus your energy on accidental collision, not whaling.

 

[MattD1zzl3]

I think he might be trying to imply that its obvious that killing whales is morally wrong, like murder or rape, but i at least, completely disagree.

If precautions are taken to prevent the extermination of the species (which is likely to happen, as renewable stock is good for buisiness) than there is nothing wrong with commercial whaling for food.

 

[hansvonaxion]

I think he might be trying to imply that its obvious that killing whales is morally wrong, like murder or rape, but i at least, completely disagree.

Yes but why? Because they are intelligent? Endangered? Wild?

One of the Sea Shepherd crew said "they suckle their young, just like us".

Yes, so do rats.



I reiterate, I am anti-whaling, I just recognise that different cultures have different "morals" and some cultures don't change their morals like their underwear.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Minke whales are an extremely common whale, harvesting less than 0.2% of the population per year (665,074 whales according to the IWC[2008], assuming 1000 whales harvested by Japan) is hardly outside the realm of sustainability.

Stop the bleeding-heart nonsense, and let them catch a reasonable amount of whales.

 

[AiR]

I saw trailers for it on Discovery and decided it was completely bonkers and not worthy of my time, and it seems I was right. The whale researchers should fit sonic devices to their ships like commercial ships traversing the coast of Somalia, that'd keep the nutters at bay.

 

[DarkReaper]

They do carry those now. And according to the S02E08 preview they do actually even use them, after keeping them in reserve for a long time.

 

[AiR]

Excellent! I eagerly await videos of the terrorists being LRAD'ed!

 

[Momentum57]

I wonder how a shotgun blast to the face would affect the ecomentalist

 

[MattD1zzl3]

Honestly, Japans right to defend its citizens from attack is WAY WAY more respected in the international community than a whaling regulation rule set. One destroyer and they are gone. They might be gone while saying "Ah-HA, the japanese broke the rules!" but at least noone will die.

 

[phuckingduck]

I gotta say the absolutely best part of the last episode is the Sea Shepherd's absolute shock that the Japanese have the audacity to defend their boats. Dear god! You mean they don't like us throwing shit at them, ramming them with our boat, trying to strand them in the Antartic ocean, firing rockets at them, or boarding their ships and calling them terrorists? SHOCKED!

 

[DarkReaper]

Problem is that Paul Watson will probably twist every act of self-defense by the Japanese as an unprecedented act of aggression and publicize it to the press. I mean the whole "hostage" taking incident was staged to provoke exactly that.

I bet they will do the same after the japanese used the LRAD's on them. If the trailer is edited correctly then it looks like they used the LRAD against the helicopter as well, which is somewhat dangerous. Even though I doubt that the LRAD would have any effect against a guy inside a helicopter, a few hundred meters away and wearing real earing protection instead of some self-made foam ear plugs. Still that is excellent fodder for Paul Watson to portray the japs as trying to kill the pilot.

 

[the Interceptor]

I've taken my time to add my thoughts to this thread. I am against whaling. Or I was against whaling. I still am, but I think hunting minke whales is no worse than hunting other animals. As long as it is ensured that the minke whale does not face extinction in any way, I can live with them being hunted.

The reasons however I am not so sure about. Research. It might be the different kind of animal that requires a different kind of research, but I don't know a single species that needs to be killed in these numbers to conduct scientific experimentation. Wouldn't it be able to get the same results by other means?

So it's not money (they don't make much, if any), and it's not food (whale meat is not so popular these days). Which only leaves fun and science. Fun can't be it, since they go to great lenghts to hunt these whales. So it must be science. Still, having to kill all these whales purely for gathering data seems odd. So what exactly are they doing there?