Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Whale Wars Nut Jobs Get Their Boat Sunk

They have been careful not to hurt anyone on the whaling ships. They stepped up efforts with the prop fouling when the Japanese started using acoustic weapons.

Yeah, but that fuuckwit WAS with Greenpeas, they thru him out. This is just part of the thread, but read the whole thread, Calvin, minke whales are NOT endangered at all.........

<http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/paul-watson-sea-shepherd-and>


Quote
Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace: some facts
Print Tell a friend Paul Watson is the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and an early member of Greenpeace. Over the last few years, Paul has become extremely critical of Greenpeace in the press and at his website. The information below is provided as a service to our supporters to get a few facts out on the table about Paul's history with Greenpeace and the nature of our disagreements.

Paul Watson became active with Greenpeace in 1971 as a member of our second expedition against nuclear weapons testing in Amchitka, and went on to participate in actions against whaling and the killing of harp seals. He was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder.

He was expelled from the leadership of Greenpeace in 1977 by a vote of 11 to one (only Watson himself voted against it).



Bob Hunter (one of Greenpeace's early leaders, after whom a Sea Shepherd vessel was named) described the event in his book, the Greenpeace Chronicles:

'No one doubted his [Watson's] courage for a moment. He was a great warrior brother. Yet in terms of the Greenpeace gestalt, he seemed possessed by too powerful a drive, too unrelenting a desire to push himself front and center, shouldering everyone else aside� He had consistently gone around to other offices, acting out the role of mutineer. Everywhere he went, he created divisiveness� We all felt we'd got trapped in a web no one wanted to see develop, yet now that it had, there was nothing to do but bring down the axe, even if it meant bringing it down on the neck of our brother."

Confusion: Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd

Watson founded his own group, Sea Shepherd, in 1977.


in 1986, Sea Shepherd carried out an action against the Icelandic whaling station in Hvalfjoerdur and sank two Icelandic whaling vessels in Reykjavik harbor by opening their sea valves;[1]
in December 1992, Sea Shepherd sank the vessel Nybroena in port;[2]
Sea Shepherd claimed to have sank the Taiwanese drift net ship Jiang Hai in port in Taiwan and to have rammed and disabled four other Asian drift net ships;[3]
a Canadian court ordered Watson and his former ship, the Cleveland Armory, to pay a total of $35,000 for ramming a Cuban fishing vessel off the coast of Newfoundland in June 1993;[4]
in January 1994 the group severely damaged the whaling ship Senet in the Norwegian port of Gressvik.[5]


Each of the whaling ships noted above was refloated and refitted for continued whaling.

In a 2008 article in the New Yorker, Watson claims that Sea Shepherd has sunk ten ships since its founding, but the author of the article notes, with some skepticism, that she was unable to verify that number.

Paul Watson's and Sea Shepherd's actions have sometimes been wrongly attributed to Greenpeace, often in an attempt by others to damage Greenpeace's reputation for

I do find it interesting that everyone seems anxious to hold Japan responsible to abide to a treaty they probably didn't ratify. From Japan's viewpoint, they are just harvesting animals for food, just like millions of American hunters feel they have a right to do. How would you going to feel if Europe and Asia decided that killing Bambi just isn't civilized anymore?

Australia declaring large chunks of the Antarctic Ocean off limits as private reserves would be like the US declaring everything from California to Hawaii as our private fishing hole and banning the rest of the world. While I do feel that we must be responsible stewards of this planet, I'm not yet comfortable with forcing my views on others who may disagree.

As for the ships, as a retired sailor and having watched the videos several times, I do think the fishing vessel tried to steer clear of the smaller ship but failed. Even US Navy ships get harrassed at sea and it's just not always possible to avoid contact. It's real easy for a small fast boat to put a larger ship into situation where nothing they can do is right. Nobody wants to take a chance on putting a hole in your ship in those waters and the proximity of a supportive fleet may not be enough to save your butt if the ship starts sinking quickly. The same tactics are performed by pirates to get ships to stop or slow down. There may come a day when such tactics will be viewed in light of the piracy attacks and force will come to play and someone will get hurt. Let's hope we don't start upping the ante with all this.

But they call it research. Something fishy there, don't you think?

Perhaps you missed it when I posted earlier. Questions for Calvin:

Calvin,

Do you support these type of actions and behavior?

How about Earth Liberation Front (ELF) or Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?

The funny part is I have no problem and would gladly support increasing the world's whale population to a sustainable level, but what these wannabe sea anarchist types do, causes my support to sway to the other side.

It also makes me think,

If these twits are willing to do what they do on camera, what actions are they taking off camera? Vandalism, arson, etc, like other eco terrorist/anarchist types?
_________________________

Maybe it is research for them.

After seeing some of the lunatic maneuvers employed on the high seas by the Sea Shepherd lunatics, putting lives at risk, I've often wondered what's to stop a Japanese warship from putting a torpedo up the mother ship's stern? Didn't the French blow up a Greenpeace ship some years ago? Sometimes I miss the good old days...

Maybe what the Japanese are doing is illegal and maybe it isn't.

The batboaters are a recognised law enforcement agency of what country Calvin ? are they an agency of the IWC ? no ?

I wonder just how much that Batboat cost ?


Mike

Yeah, it's commercial harvesting,in limited numbers, but minke whales are anything but endangered, they reproduce quickly, too.

But the Japanese are "trying" to be PC and call it research, whatever floats their boats in the Far South Seas.

It's really nothing to be excited about, as long as they are in International waters, if they stray into NZ or Australian waters, yeah, pitch a bitch, if not, mind yer own bidness.

Research in profitability, perhaps.

Mind my own business.. I can piss off my front deck and hit the ocean. It is my business. I don't live in Kentucky..

Haveing been on the recieving end of some of these "conservationists"anti-hunting efforts, I have no sympathy for them what so ever, The Japanese whailers are gett food, while I personally do not agree with killing and eatting whales,( possiblly a sentient species)I can not fault gathering Food,. after all it isnot like they are hunting heads or trophys.

Calvin,

Are you dodging my direct questions? Lee24 does that a lot too.

Notice the Discovery Channel does not put cameras on board the whaling vessels. The video is always from the viewpoint of the anti-whaling crowd.

If you disable propulsion of a boat on the open ocean, it will begin to drift parallel to the waves, and is at higher risk for capsizing. A man in that water, even in a survival suit, does not have much time before hypothermia can kill. A diver would have to go in and try to un-jam the prop/rudder, which is also hazardous in those conditions.

In another episode I saw, a boat was following them, monitoring their course, and they plotted to "board the boat and disable its communications", which could also put people in jeopardy.

If someone attempted to board, or disable my boat in the open ocean, who was not an authorized government agency, I would declare piracy and use deadly force. The harpoon gun would be useful. The Japanese will probably avoid that action, but I would not blame them if they did.

what a bunch of dorks

You bring up some good points. The anti's are not as harmless as some wish to portray.

I don't think anyone needs to even waste the time to figure out who rammed who when its very obvious who is following who and who is trying to obstruct someone else's business. Bottomline the ecotards deliberately put themselves at risk for obstruction of the whaler and publicity.

I can't imagine that any sane sportsmen would even consider defending their position. Giving them any credibility for their actions gives any other ecotard credibility for obstructing any sportsmen in their pursuit of game.

Whether whaling is legal or illegal is totally irrelevant to the issue. Has a world court called whaling illegal or is it called illegal because Australia claims these waters? Either way when a legal entity passes a law, it requires legal enforcement in order to be credible.

Supposing all whaling breaks international law it still is like the following comparison:
The actions of the ecotards are the same as me trying to run cars off the road who are going over the speed limit, because they are breaking the law. Its like me saying, well the cops were not doing anything about this guy flying by me, so I ran him off the road to stop the illegal driving.

Oh, and when I tried to run him off the road and crossed over into his path, can you believe that he actually hit me when he could have swerved to miss me!

I cannot imagine any commercial fisherman defending these guys, for the driving force behind ecotards is not the law, but their own demented values, which could just as well be against all commercial fishing.

Firstly, nobody is obligated to answer your questions. Comparing me with Lee 24 is about as stupid as your questions. Secondly, wtf does ALF and ELF have to do with the whale wars? Should anybody who is an environmental activist be compared to ALF or ELF?

It's animal planet, not Discovery Channel. At least try to act like you have a clue.

Obviously the Sea Shepard is not going to be sending it's RHI inflatables to disable the boats in big seas. They can't even launch the RHI's in big seas that could capsize a disabled boat. Come on guys..

I would hardly call throwing large diameter rope into propellers, or sinking vessels at harbor harmless. Disabling the propulsion and manueverability of any ship on the high seas places all aboard it in grave danger. The oceans are VERY unforgiving, especially if you can't move or turn.
If whaling is illegal, so be it. If countries agreed not to do it and then broke their promise, that sucks. Since there is no policing agency, the chances of them getting away with it are high.
EcoNuts are NOT the designated policing agency for anything, (even though they think they are) and I don't see their tactics any different than the bunny-hugging pussies that occasionally run around the countryside banging on pots and pans trying to save a deer or two.
They certainly don't seem to have half the nads of those skinny Somalis hijacking ships on the other side of the globe. It's just a bunch of 'code pink' type Berkeley fist shakers looking for a little press and a lot of contributions from those full of sorrow.
Obviously the sympathizers have funded some funky looking boats........