PDA

View Full Version : Sea Shepherd


Nativeshark
10/04/2014, 03:42 PM
Sea Shepherd terrorists or responsible reef/fish keepers?

gone fishin
10/04/2014, 04:54 PM
IMO, Egotistical, publicity seeking nut jobs

HumbleFish
10/04/2014, 04:55 PM
Sea Shepherd terrorists or responsible reef/fish keepers?

IMHO; something in-between.

FinzAquatics
10/04/2014, 06:06 PM
big fan

Alexraptor
10/04/2014, 07:39 PM
Ecoterrorists

Badbrad8500
10/04/2014, 09:47 PM
Bringing attention to the problem, but not directly effective. That being said, I like where their hearts are at.

MathiasM.
10/05/2014, 09:44 AM
Terrorists...
Attention loving thick heads..

They do nothing to help animals. They just want to
see their faces on tv

FinzAquatics
10/05/2014, 09:55 AM
I disagree.. Their approach may be a bit aggressive, but they have done quite a bit to help animals..

Timfish
10/05/2014, 10:21 AM
Eco-terrorists.

Their advocacy for banning the collection of all fish for the ornamental fish industry in Hawai'i totally ignores the research by biologists from multiple universities and the World Wildlife Fund that shows when areas are protected from collection the yellow tang population goes up to the DETRIMENT of other much less common species (meaning less common species become even rarer, Achilles Tangs being one example). http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/reports-to-the-legislature/2010/dar/DAR10-Hawaii-Fisheries-2010.pdf

They are championing an agenda that ignores the research for need of healthy populations of apex preditors ie sharks, to maintain pristine reef ecosystems and the research showing sunscreen is a serious threat to corals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2291018/

syrinx
10/05/2014, 11:34 AM
I agree eco terrorism. If i were on a boat engaging in legal activities, and they moved with aggression as they often do- it would be AK47 time. Open water in the ocean is no place to play games.

FinzAquatics
10/05/2014, 12:07 PM
I agree eco terrorism. If i were on a boat engaging in legal activities, and they moved with aggression as they often do- it would be AK47 time. Open water in the ocean is no place to play games.

Yes, if you were engaging in legal activities... The issue is that whaling in a sanctuary is not "legal". The Japanese whaling has been ruled ILLEGAL by the International Court of Justice. So in this campaign.. Their aggressive approach is to combat an illegal act.

The International Court of Justice said "While today's ruling did not outlaw the killing of whales for scientific research per se, it categorically stated that Japan's whaling programme in the Southern Ocean was not for scientific purposes, and the amount of whales being killed was not justifiable in the name of science. The court went on to say that Japan must stop issuing permits for this whaling."

Now in their other campaigns such as the Faroe Island Grindstop, you may have a point. This is a legal activity, but if you notice the approach from Sea Shepherd is not as aggressive in this campaign. They do not ram ships, they do not throw things, they hold signs and record the grinds, and steer whales away from the island.. They interfere they do not put anyone in harms way in these campaigns..

hart24601
10/05/2014, 02:24 PM
Eco-terrorists.

Their advocacy for banning the collection of all fish for the ornamental fish industry in Hawai'i totally ignores the research by biologists from multiple universities and the World Wildlife Fund that shows when areas are protected from collection the yellow tang population goes up to the DETRIMENT of other much less common species (meaning less common species become even rarer, Achilles Tangs being one example). http://files.hawaii.gov/dlnr/reports-to-the-legislature/2010/dar/DAR10-Hawaii-Fisheries-2010.pdf

They are championing an agenda that ignores the research for need of healthy populations of apex preditors ie sharks, to maintain pristine reef ecosystems and the research showing sunscreen is a serious threat to corals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2291018/

Great post!

MathiasM.
10/06/2014, 03:12 AM
Yes, if you were engaging in legal activities... The issue is that whaling in a sanctuary is not "legal". The Japanese whaling has been ruled ILLEGAL by the International Court of Justice. So in this campaign.. Their aggressive approach is to combat an illegal act.

The International Court of Justice said "While today's ruling did not outlaw the killing of whales for scientific research per se, it categorically stated that Japan's whaling programme in the Southern Ocean was not for scientific purposes, and the amount of whales being killed was not justifiable in the name of science. The court went on to say that Japan must stop issuing permits for this whaling."

Now in their other campaigns such as the Faroe Island Grindstop, you may have a point. This is a legal activity, but if you notice the approach from Sea Shepherd is not as aggressive in this campaign. They do not ram ships, they do not throw things, they hold signs and record the grinds, and steer whales away from the island.. They interfere they do not put anyone in harms way in these campaigns..


Ah okay... And who gives them the right to do what they do? On what juristic base do they act? Sorry, I don't like what the japanese do either. But what SeaS. does is more than unacceptable. They are not the freaking eco police. They don't have the right to ram ships or creating a dangerous situations for the whalers.

Just because they act in international waters tjat doesn't mean they can do what they want.

I deeply hope that this organisation will be forbidden soon and people like Watson have to take responsibility for their actions in front of a court.

gone fishin
10/06/2014, 08:27 AM
Ah okay... And who gives them the right to do what they do? On what juristic base do they act? Sorry, I don't like what the japanese do either. But what SeaS. does is more than unacceptable. They are not the freaking eco police. They don't have the right to ram ships or creating a dangerous situations for the whalers.

Just because they act in international waters tjat doesn't mean they can do what they want.

I deeply hope that this organisation will be forbidden soon and people like Watson have to take responsibility for their actions in front of a court.

In most parts of the ocean this would be considered an Act of Piracy, IMHO

MathiasM.
10/06/2014, 08:53 AM
Right you are!

Zoodiver
10/06/2014, 08:55 AM
If you are legally acting to support conservation and prevent illegal activity, you are ok.

By acting illegally, they are doing the same thing as any other group/person acting illegally. If they don't have to follow the law, then why should the other side of it?

arnoldrew
10/06/2014, 09:02 AM
If you are legally acting to support conservation and prevent illegal activity, you are ok.

By acting illegally, they are doing the same thing as any other group/person acting illegally. If they don't have to follow the law, then why should the other side of it?

I don't know why you guys keep talking about "legal" and "illegal." Don't these people basically think that whales are people and therefore it's a moral issue? If that's the case, then laws don't matter. Am I misunderstanding this?

MathiasM.
10/06/2014, 09:12 AM
That is right.
But just because it is a thing of moral for them,
the world does not have to support the things they do.
Because for the most of us the law is standing above moral. Or what they call "moral".

Zoodiver
10/06/2014, 10:33 AM
The law is the law.

They are saying they are out to stop the illegal hunting. They are the ones who rag on the 'illegal' actions of taking the whales. They themselves are then going and doing something illegal. They are just as criminal as the actions of the whalers.

The proper way to go about stopping it would be through the legal channels provided.

I support whale conservation. I do not support the illegal actions of the eco-terrorists who are claiming to support the same thing I do.

Wellcraft25
10/06/2014, 10:51 AM
Ecoterrorists

MathiasM.
10/06/2014, 11:10 AM
Very well spoken!

The law is the law.

They are saying they are out to stop the illegal hunting. They are the ones who rag on the 'illegal' actions of taking the whales. They themselves are then going and doing something illegal. They are just as criminal as the actions of the whalers.

The proper way to go about stopping it would be through the legal channels provided.

I support whale conservation. I do not support the illegal actions of the eco-terrorists who are claiming to support the same thing I do.

BioCubeGuy
10/06/2014, 11:50 AM
It's hard to say... I'm all for whale conservation etc.. But, they're not the ocean police nor do they have any standing authority to justify their actions. I've watched a few episodes and it kills me when they're so dramatic about the whaling fleets actions... "OMG they're going to ram us" or "Did they just :uzi: at us." Well no duh, your interfering with their operation in the middle of the ocean! I wouldn't be out there unless I had legal authority backing me up. It's only a matter of time until someone dies or gets seriously injured.

arnoldrew
10/06/2014, 11:58 AM
The law is the law.

They are saying they are out to stop the illegal hunting. They are the ones who rag on the 'illegal' actions of taking the whales. They themselves are then going and doing something illegal. They are just as criminal as the actions of the whalers.

The proper way to go about stopping it would be through the legal channels provided.

I support whale conservation. I do not support the illegal actions of the eco-terrorists who are claiming to support the same thing I do.

For me, what's moral is much more important than what's legal. If all they care about is that they think the whaling is illegal, then it's silly for them to break the law to stop or call attention to it. If they think it is truly and horrifically immoral, however, then the law simply doesn't matter. If the United States were to make hunting redheads legal, for instance, that would not make it moral. Many people (myself included) would be engaged in illegal and violent action to prevent something that we believe to be horrifically immoral from happening and to force the immoral laws to change. I don't get why people keep talking about laws and legality, when, as far as I know, to the Sea Shepherds it is a moral issue. Can anyone tell me if this organization (and the people in it, etc.) think that whales are people or equal to humans?

GreshamH
10/06/2014, 11:59 AM
Yes, if you were engaging in legal activities... The issue is that whaling in a sanctuary is not "legal". The Japanese whaling has been ruled ILLEGAL by the International Court of Justice. So in this campaign.. Their aggressive approach is to combat an illegal act.

The International Court of Justice said "While today's ruling did not outlaw the killing of whales for scientific research per se, it categorically stated that Japan's whaling programme in the Southern Ocean was not for scientific purposes, and the amount of whales being killed was not justifiable in the name of science. The court went on to say that Japan must stop issuing permits for this whaling."

Now in their other campaigns such as the Faroe Island Grindstop, you may have a point. This is a legal activity, but if you notice the approach from Sea Shepherd is not as aggressive in this campaign. They do not ram ships, they do not throw things, they hold signs and record the grinds, and steer whales away from the island.. They interfere they do not put anyone in harms way in these campaigns..

More of their campaigns have been against legal activities, then not. Among these campaigns there have been charges cast against Paul Watson, and has been branded as an ecoterrorist by numerous governments.

syrinx
10/06/2014, 04:13 PM
...

aqua_man7010
10/07/2014, 09:41 AM
As a supporter of Sea Shepherd, and an aquarist, I know for a fact that the group is made up of passionate aquarists. You can't look at Paul Watson's work (there is a lot of good and some questionable actions) and not say that he isn't passionate about saving ocean life. While I don't always agree with Sea Shepherds actions to accomplish a goal, I trust their judgement as direct action conservationists, when it comes to understanding what needs done to save both natural resources and individual animals.

That said, I fundamentally disagree with their aquarium campaign. First, they are diverting their resources away from more needed action, such as going after shark finning, illegal seafood, environment damaging energy resources, these types of things. Sea Shepherd should be running a full time campaign against the Koch Brothers, whose combined industries are one of the most damaging environmental groups in the world.

I do think the reef aquarium industry needs to make some changes, to better educate aquarists and retailers, as well as support environmentally friendly and compassionate care programs. This needs to come from within the industry, with groups like Sea Shepherd acting with the industry, not against it. Sea Shepherd has taken views and beliefs, that are very questionable (both from a reality standpoint and a science standpoint) held by the vice president of their board, Bob Witner (Snorkel Bob) and used those to start a campaign. Bob Witner is a dive/snorkel operator in Hawaii, who simply seeks to generate more and more profit for his own enterprise, and uses Sea Shepherd to create a false black cloud over the reef aquarium industry. Sadly, Sea Shepherd has allowed him to do that.

aqua_man7010
10/07/2014, 10:18 AM
Like was said earlier, the legality of what they defend against, is somewhat meaningless. The whaling activity they went against, was for all intents and purposes, legal. The UN had ruled that whales could only be killed for scientific research. Japan created a research arm that killed whales for "research" and simply packaged the whale meat up, while still on the ocean, and sold it for consumption. Sea Shepherd, as well as many other nations including the U.S., saw that Japan was simply exploiting a loop hole in the UN whaling moratorium. Last year, their direct action helped, when the UN tightened that loop hole, and ruled Japan's whaling program was in fact, illegal.

Shark finning operations, that Sea Shepherd has continued to engage are illegal in Costa Rica and other nations where they have traveled. They were invited by the Galapagos Island park authority to defend surrounding waters from long lining. In the Mediterranean, the blue fin tuna operations they went up against had been banned.

The Canadian seal hunt is legal, but is it ethical or appropriate in the 21st century? That is based on objective opinion. The dolphin slaughter on Taji is legal, but is it right?

All of these things involve the needless slaughter of ocean animals, and Sea Shepherd is equating that slaughter with the high percentage of fish that die, when captured for the aquarium trade. They aren't sharing, or reading all of the information about the hobby. IMHO the film Blackfish did this same thing. I totally agree that Sea World does a lot of bad stuff, but, we wouldn't have 1/10th of the scientific data on Orcas, whether in the wild or captivity, without places like Sea World. Is there value in home aquarists learning about marine fish biology, physiology, breeding marine fish and propogating reef animals? Or should all marine life be left alone, and humans remain ignorant about it? Those are the questions that Sea Shepherd in their aquarium campaign, and films like Blackfish, fail to ask.

tkeracer619
10/07/2014, 01:43 PM
Don't care what they are until someone else steps in and enforces the laws.

Nativeshark
10/07/2014, 02:00 PM
Sea Shepherd should be running a full time campaign against the Koch Brothers, whose combined industries are one of the most damaging environmental groups in the world.


Harry Ried is that you? I would have never guessed that you are a reefer.

Fish Biscuit
10/07/2014, 03:52 PM
I think they are the marine version of PETA

fishhuman
10/07/2014, 06:27 PM
Paul Watson and his crew are way out of their league. I think that although it is uncivilized for japan to be killing whales on international waters and labeling it as scientific reasearch ( even though it is really for food), the sea Shepard is to aggresive and could take a more peacefull approach that would work better

Zoodiver
10/08/2014, 07:19 AM
After several lengthy conversation with staff, it's clear Sea Shepard as a whole doesn't support aquatic animals under human care - especially under private human care for entertainment (IE: the aquarium hobby). They are based on the idea that all animals need to be free, and keeping them is slavery.

syrinx
10/08/2014, 07:06 PM
There is fame and money to be made on "causes". If he were doing it quietly and with his own money I would think harder about it.

FinzAquatics
10/08/2014, 09:02 PM
I think they are the marine version of PETA

Minus the fact that they are nothing like PETA. PETA euthaizes more animals that any other organization, where Sea Shepherd does not take part in the killing of any...

https://www.petakillsanimals.com/

alton
10/09/2014, 06:17 AM
It is okay to kill an animal for research, but not okay to kill one to eat? What am I missing?

GreshamH
10/09/2014, 11:39 AM
It is okay to kill an animal for research, but not okay to kill one to eat? What am I missing?

good point

aqua_man7010
10/10/2014, 12:31 PM
Japan uses the research loop hole to whale. The IWC said that a limited number of whales could be killed, if the purpose of their killing was scientific research. Australia and a few other nations showed that the data Japan was getting by killing whales, could easily be obtained by cheaper, non-invasive methods, that didn't even hurt whales, let alone kill them. The IWC tightened the loop hole, but Japan continues to pursue whaling.

The reality is, there are legitimate arguments against the marine aquarium industry. NOAA has linked the industry to reef degradation, and I would suggest any reefer who wants to make a comprehensive argument in favor of reef aquariums read the NOAA report. NOAA also has resources available to learn more about a cohesive strategy for coral reef conservation.

First, when compared to commercial fishing, energy companies and other industries that abuse the ocean, reef keeping is very small. It means the impact of that industry is less, but it also means we are easy to pick on. Going up against an energy company is like tackling a behemoth. While the reef aquarium industry can afford some defense, (largely spent to lobbyists that line politicians' pockets) our coffers can and will run dry, in the wake of trying to repeal legislation. It makes reefing an easy target, it's economic impact when compared to other industries is small, and it gives the government bragging rights when it comes to cleaning up the coral reefs worldwide.

Our biggest problem is that industry has failed to police itself. MAC was a start, but turned out to be a big money making sham. Right now, there is no movement within the industry to police what goes on. Heck, on aquarium forum ********* vendors were selling illegally collected corals, species from the China Sea, which are illegal to import into the US. When the site administrator was told about this, they did zilch to correct it, and got angry that someone pointed it out. There are no degrees of oversight, certification, training ... nothing. When you consider the licensing and training other industries, such as real estate, require, it's amazing you can harvest threatened natural resources from around the globe, and there aren't really any rules about selling them.

I assume, with the new NOAA legislation that will change. Though, I find it humorous when the pet industry asks for money to lobby. They should be asking for money to form a policing agency within the industry, so they can tell the government, here are the steps we are taking to make the hobby sustainable. Until that happens, we are going to have a lot of Sea Shepherds, Snorkel Bobs, regulating agencies, etc - to deal with. If it never happens, the next NOAA list of threatened species may include any corals and a large variety of marine fish.

GreshamH
10/10/2014, 03:54 PM
for legal reasons, the hobby cannot form a mandatory policing agency. You cannot force a company to accept being regulated by an NGO without legislation, and even then, it'll be fought in court and probably loose.

accordsirh22
10/12/2014, 12:08 PM
terrorists, and if you think otherwise you are ignorant and kidding yourself

tkeracer619
10/13/2014, 02:08 PM
terrorists, and if you think otherwise you are ignorant and kidding yourself

:lol: because anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? What an ignorant thing to say :rolleyes:.

Whiterabbitrage
10/13/2014, 02:12 PM
:lol: because anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? What an ignorant thing to say :rolleyes:.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

FinzAquatics
10/13/2014, 06:18 PM
terrorists, and if you think otherwise you are ignorant and kidding yourself

Ignorant Statement

billsreef
10/13/2014, 09:22 PM
[flamealert]...