a general statement.

[sharkwater]

Future generations are going to view us as barbarians. What do we think nowadays when we look at, for example, the slaughter of the buffalo on the Great Plains? There are only two herds left, and we view them as cruel. What are people down the road going to think when they look at our actions? We can all have our opinions. Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right. If you have a cause you truly believe in because you KNOW that it's the right thing to do to stand up for it, then you do it. It may have been legal for Nazis to kill Jews in the Holocaust, but now we look at Nazis as evil. It was legal for there to be the systematic genocide of Native Americans, but now we think of America as cruel- so now we have children learn about the "Trail of Tears" in history class. It may be legal now, but I don't want children to learn about my generation as the savages who killed the ocean.

[shonan2]

DO NOT even try and compare hunting a few whales for food with what the Nazi's did. Especially as what the nazi's did wasn't legal back then, hence why they were tried for war crimes after the war.

[sharkwater]

Alright, this is essentially what's happening: genocide of a species. The species that Sea Shepherd are trying to protect are being slaughtered- we are going to be viewed as corrupt. Personally, I don't want to go down in history as the generation that killed the earth. Also, the Japanese don't even WANT whale meat. They hate it- even when the price got cut by half, they don't want it. The Japanese don't need the whales for food, and it isn't a few whales- they needed several hundred to break even with quota. 3/4 of the whale meat went unsold.
Also...
What the Nazis did WAS legal in their countries... just like how it's legal for the Japanese to kill whales in their country. It's illegal here, legal there. Trust me- my grandfather was in a concentration camp, and he says himself, "What we do to animals is no different from what the Germans did to me. They kill the animals like savages, the Nazis killed us like savages. It is all the same."

[shonan2]

you are so far off the mark its not even funny, a genocide? You have to be joking right, how is killing 400 whales from a population of nearly 1 million a genocide? The japanese hunt is allowing the species to still increase, strange example of a genocide.

Like i said, it wasn't legal for Nazi's to kill Jews hence why they were charged with crimes against humanity and hanged after the war.

Again comparing hunting animals for food and the extermination of different races of people are nowhere near the same thing and its offensive to even try comparing the two.

The oceans face great risks in the future, the japanese hunting a few doesn't even come close to being a risk. Keep focusing on the japanese and ignoring the real risks, its all you bunch of idiots ever do anyway, pick an easy target and ignoring the hard ones.

The average japanese hunt in the southern ocean is around 400 whales a year. Nearly 1000 whales are killed every DAY from ship strikes and pollution. Why don't you try and do something about that? Oh wait, its hard to be a biggoted violent racist in a fight against your countries ships killing whales ain't it?

[sharkwater]

Excuse me, but where are the papers that the whalers have published? Can you give me some examples that contain things we didn't already know? Also, stop insulting me. I didn't try to insult you. And, this IS genocide... of a species. Where are the statistics that prove whaling helps the whale populations? Where's the proof? Where's your sources? I'll happily tell you a few sites where you can see whaling is detrimental:
wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans/threats/whaling/whaling_facts/
www.un.org/works/OLD/environment/animalplanet/whale.html

[shonan2]

How about a source thats no so biased yeah, those links are nearly worthless.

How do you kill a species like the minke whales by killing 400 a year from a population of nearly 1 million. Female minke whales breed every year. The large number of minke whales around now may actually be causing other species of whale to decline.

The papers the researchers have published are really easy to find if you actually bother to look for them. check the ICR site to read all of them.

i will continue to have little respect for you while you continue to compare killing 6 million jews to the killing of 400 whales

For the final time a genocide is the systematic killing of an entire race, the japanese are merely hunting a few whales from an abundant species, thats as far from genocide as you can get. I think Col Sanders was on more of a genocide against chickens than the japanese ever will be on whales.

[DRJ30]

Aug 9, 2012 14:46:28 GMT -5 shonan2 said:

How do you kill a species like the minke whales by killing 400 a year from a population of nearly 1 million. Female minke whales breed every year. The large number of minke whales around now may actually be causing other species of whale to decline.

i will continue to have little respect for you while you continue to compare killing 6 million Jews to the killing of 400 whales

For the final time a genocide is the systematic killing of an entire race, the Japanese are merely hunting a few whales from an abundant species, that's as far from genocide as you can get. I think Col Sanders was on more of a genocide against chickens than the Japanese ever will be on whales.

I'm not sure where you have gotten your numbers from, but even if your numbers are correct of Japan is killing ONLY 400 a year, that leaves us with about 25 years before all those whales are gone. Now if you use the numbers provided by ICR for what they say they are collecting each year in the Southern Ocean, then the correct numbers would be 900+ and they would be all gone in about 11 years. Now granted, whales breed every year but we don't know how many of those births reach full growth.

What I don't understand is why they need to kill that amount EACH year. Shouldn't they be able to come up with the answers they are seeking, which shouldn't be that hard, if they were to collect the data once every 2 years or move? That would give the whales a better change to survive.

Just my two cents.

[shonan2]

The catch numbers are easy to find on the internet. The average catch over the last 10 years is around 400.

You seem to be confusing the quota number with the actual kill number. The Japanese are allowed to catch to catch 900+ whales but they don't, they never have caught over 900 whales in a year in the southern ocean.

A simple fact to try and remember is the Nisshin Maru can only hold about 400-450 whales in its freezers so that dictates the total number they can catch each trip.

The Japanese don't hunt in the same area of the southern ocean each year, there research pattern takes them to different areas each year.

Not sure how you done your maths but 400 times by 25 years is not 1 million, its 10 000. At 400 whales a year it would take 250 years to catch all the whales in the southern ocean. The only problem with that is the fact that minke whales breed like rats, once a female reaches maturity at the age of around 6 it will be able to have a calf every year, since they live to around 20 she could have 12-16 calfs. They are not going to die out from hunting at the current hunting levels.

[DRJ30]

Aug 12, 2012 4:15:12 GMT -5 shonan2 said:

The catch numbers are easy to find on the internet. The average catch over the last 10 years is around 400.

You seem to be confusing the quota number with the actual kill number. The Japanese are allowed to catch to catch 900+ whales but they don't, they never have caught over 900 whales in a year in the southern ocean.

A simple fact to try and remember is the Nisshin Maru can only hold about 400-450 whales in its freezers so that dictates the total number they can catch each trip.

The Japanese don't hunt in the same area of the southern ocean each year, there research pattern takes them to different areas each year.

Not sure how you done your maths but 400 times by 25 years is not 1 million, its 10 000. At 400 whales a year it would take 250 years to catch all the whales in the southern ocean. The only problem with that is the fact that minke whales breed like rats, once a female reaches maturity at the age of around 6 it will be able to have a calf every year, since they live to around 20 she could have 12-16 calfs. They are not going to die out from hunting at the current hunting levels.

Now it is possible that my math is incorrect, never said I was a math wizard. You still have to take into account the problems that the whales have while having and raising a calf. As you said yourself, they COULD have 12-16 in their lifetime. Just as a human COULD have over 30 children in their lifetime. There is a family right now that has 19 children. The largest number of kids born to one woman is 69. This was to a Russian in the 1700s. Those numbers are rare. There are many humans who have problems everyday trying to have a child, and the same is true for whales as well.

You also state that the Nisshin Maru can only hold 400-450 whales in the holds on the ship. What you don't take into account is that they do have a supply ship that can and I'm sure it does have a larger storage ability and holds what the factory ship can not. Why else would they have a stated quota of 900+ if they can't hold that much 'research'?

Also, there is no need to do the same research year after year. You only get the same exact results. You need to spread out what you are doing before your own research comes into doubt by others and including yourself as well.

Will us humans end up killing all of the whales before it is too late. It is possible. Will it happen in our own lifetime, that is possible as well.

Are there other ways to address what everyone is doing down in the Southern Ocean. Sure there is, the problem is that those other methods haven't worked in the past and there is a slim chance that they will work in the future. We all know that direct action isn't always the correct answer, but sometimes that is the only way to create change is by direct action.

No one will ever see eye to eye on everything that happens in this world. That is a fact. It is a part of our nature to disagree with others, always has been, always will be. The two main groups that people are talking about these days are either SSCS or Greenpeace. One attempts change by direct action and the other attempts change by protests. Both have been called Eco-terrorists.
Change is always happening and always will. If this was not the case, then we would have stopped existing many years ago.

Just my two cents.

[shonan2]

''You also state that the Nisshin Maru can only hold 400-450 whales in the holds on the ship. What you don't take into account is that they do have a supply ship that can and I'm sure it does have a larger storage ability and holds what the factory ship can not. Why else would they have a stated quota of 900+ if they can't hold that much 'research'?''

Haven't got time to answer your whol epost now but i will address this one piece. The supply ship does NOT carry whale meat back to Japan.
The high quota dates back to when they did offload half the catch to a supply ship, this is no longer done.
The previous supply ship, the Oriential Bluebird was used for a couple of years to carry whale meat back to japan. Its easy to see which years they did this because they are the only years they caught more than 450 whales, incidentally these high catches were all done once watson started going down there.

The oriental Bluebird has now been scrapped and the Japanese now charter the Sun Laurel to be the fleets supply ship and she doesn't carry any whale meat, hence why the catches have now dropped back to what they were before watson started messing around.


You do realise green peace started the direct action approace to japanese whaling long before watson showed his face down there, greenpeace tried it and it didn't work hence why they have changed to the protest route. watson hasn't yet realised that all direct action does is polorize the nation you are attacking behind the whaling fleet.

The average number of whales caught since watson has been going down there is much higher compared to the same number of years directly before watson arrived. So the stats say far from stopping whaling, watson has directly increased the number of whales killed by the japanese

[Me]

"The Japanese are allowed to catch to catch 900+ whales"

Please don't tell me that your that naïve. We all know that the IRC is a front to use a loophole in the whaling laws. The quotas that the IRC use are self prescribed. Most all of the scientific community agrees that they are grossly over what is needed for the so called research. And the science is not anything scientific. If the IRC was so interested in true research were is the tagging and tracking programs. Why don't they use plugging for taking samples?

So either your just real naive. (I don't thing so) or you think it ok to use a loophole to keep doing something that a law was put in place to prevent.

[shonan2]

Aug 13, 2012 1:29:32 GMT -5 @Me said:

"The Japanese are allowed to catch to catch 900+ whales"

Please don't tell me that your that naïve. We all know that the IRC is a front to use a loophole in the whaling laws. The quotas that the IRC use are self prescribed. Most all of the scientific community agrees that they are grossly over what is needed for the so called research. And the science is not anything scientific. If the IRC was so interested in true research were is the tagging and tracking programs. Why don't they use plugging for taking samples?

So either your just real naive. (I don't thing so) or you think it ok to use a loophole to keep doing something that a law was put in place to prevent.

How can it be a loophole when there is no LAW banning whaling, commercial whaling isn't illegal, hence why other countries go out commercial whaling.

The Japanese has done plenty of non lethal research, they could do alot more if they were being messed about with by you monkeys.

Have a nice read of this

theinconvenienttruthonwhaling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/legality-of-whaling-part-ii-research.html

[lastninja]

Sharkwater you perfectly illustrate the basic problem with SSCS mentality: You equate whales with humans. Genocide is a phenomenon exclusive to the human race, and the majority of the population on earth would find it very offensive of you to make that comparison.

Are you an educated person? Do you have the capacity to form your own opinions? What are your opinions on Darwin and the theory of evolution? Survival of the fittest?

A popular phrase of the good 'captain' is "the oceans die, we die". Could you explain to me exactly how that connection can be made, and furthermore how the removal of a few species would indeed kill the ocean. Species go extinct, have done so throughout the ages. New species evolve at the same time. Start seeing the big picture, and stop wasting resources on all this whales are intelligent faff.
Another point the good captain likes to make: "We will lose more species of plants & animals between 1980 & 2045 than we have lost in the last 65 million years" Stop and think for a moment. How can he or anyone make that claim? It's absolutely ridiculous. We in the Faroes pride ourselves in having documented harvest statistics since 1584 (the most comprehensive statistics in the world), and we see no such tendencies, and we really must ask ourselves where the hell does Watson get his statistics?

[fireboy]

Aug 13, 2012 9:42:54 GMT -5 lastninja said:

Sharkwater you perfectly illustrate the basic problem with SSCS mentality: You equate whales with humans. Genocide is a phenomenon exclusive to the human race, and the majority of the population on earth would find it very offensive of you to make that comparison.

Are you an educated person? Do you have the capacity to form your own opinions? What are your opinions on Darwin and the theory of evolution? Survival of the fittest?

A popular phrase of the good 'captain' is "the oceans die, we die". Could you explain to me exactly how that connection can be made, and furthermore how the removal of a few species would indeed kill the ocean. Species go extinct, have done so throughout the ages. New species evolve at the same time. Start seeing the big picture, and stop wasting resources on all this whales are intelligent faff.
Another point the good captain likes to make: "We will lose more species of plants & animals between 1980 & 2045 than we have lost in the last 65 million years" Stop and think for a moment. How can he or anyone make that claim? It's absolutely ridiculous. We in the Faroes pride ourselves in having documented harvest statistics since 1584 (the most comprehensive statistics in the world), and we see no such tendencies, and we really must ask ourselves where the hell does Watson get his statistics?

Aug 13, 2012 9:42:54 GMT -5 lastninja said:

Sharkwater you perfectly illustrate the basic problem with SSCS mentality: You equate whales with humans. Genocide is a phenomenon exclusive to the human race, and the majority of the population on earth would find it very offensive of you to make that comparison.

Are you an educated person? Do you have the capacity to form your own opinions? What are your opinions on Darwin and the theory of evolution? Survival of the fittest?

A popular phrase of the good 'captain' is "the oceans die, we die". Could you explain to me exactly how that connection can be made, and furthermore how the removal of a few species would indeed kill the ocean. Species go extinct, have done so throughout the ages. New species evolve at the same time. Start seeing the big picture, and stop wasting resources on all this whales are intelligent faff.
Another point the good captain likes to make: "We will lose more species of plants & animals between 1980 & 2045 than we have lost in the last 65 million years" Stop and think for a moment. How can he or anyone make that claim? It's absolutely ridiculous. We in the Faroes pride ourselves in having documented harvest statistics since 1584 (the most comprehensive statistics in the world), and we see no such tendencies, and we really must ask ourselves where the hell does Watson get his statistics?

If the oceans die, we die too. Do you not know basic ecology? And if you want to know how important a couple of species can be, watch "Secrets Of Our Living Planet" a BBC series. Its brilliant. It shows how important, what you see as trivial unimportant animals, are. It shows how animals would not survive if not for another species doing the smallest thing halfway across the globe. These species ARE important. And we are losing more and more each day. Sure you can live with the ethos that a couple of species going extinct doesnt matter, or a couple more, it cant make that much of a difference, can it? It

It makes a huge difference. It can mees up an entire ecosystem. Ecosystems are extremely fragile, tampering with them can have major effects. Like how global warming is meaning the great sardine run up the coast of Africa is occuring less and less frequently. And dolphins, sharks, seals, gannets, whales and people are all suffering. With people making a living from these fish, their lives are being made harder and harder.

Sure new species evolve. Over millions of years. But at the rate we are killing species off, they arent getting a chance.

[shonan2]

The problem is your doing nothing to save the oceans so isn't this a rather hypocritical arguement?