Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sea Shepherd signs for brand new vessel


Yamato

Recommended Posts

On 12/9/2016 at 6:30 PM, Yamato said:

Japanese whaling is less safe than Sea Shepherd actions on the high seas if we go by death tolls and serious injuries. 

Nonsense, accidents are accidents, what the Sea Shepherd does is deliberate, and therefore inexcusable. 

On 12/9/2016 at 6:30 PM, Yamato said:

The tide is turning, GMT.  Sea Shepherd is ushering in a new era of cooperation between civil society and world governments.  Their fleet keeps getting stronger and stronger, their crew bigger and bigger.  I expect other organizations around the world to emulate their success in the years to come.

That is nonsense too, Whaling has only got worse in the years the Sea Shepherd started their incredibly stupid vigilante actions. What the Sea Shepherd saves these days was once the entire Japanese haul for a season. The Sea Shepherd has irritated Japan into stepping up their operations and have made things worse than they ever were before they stuck their noses in where they do not belong. 

On 12/9/2016 at 6:30 PM, Yamato said:

And thank God someone is doing something. 

The Sea Shepherd is without doubt making the situation worse, no two ways about it. 

On 12/9/2016 at 6:30 PM, Yamato said:

We can just sit around and complain while govt and corporations destroy what little wilderness there is left like we don't even care. 

That is also nonsense, there is plenty of protest and court cases and you know full well it was the decisions made by the Reagan Administration that had the Japanese pick up their harpoons again after having laid them down. 

We would gettar more cooperation from Japan on this matter with negotiation. Attempting to intimidate a nation by shaming traditional practises is not ever going to work, and the ay years the Sea Shepherd has been failing at stopping the Japanese is outright proof of this. It is a stupid tactic bound to fail. 

On 12/9/2016 at 6:30 PM, Yamato said:

But some people do care, and there will be a battle waged for it, hopefully on as many fronts as possible.

Vigilante action can only worsen the situation, especially from a bunch of uniformed pirates with an axe to grind. The Sea Shepherd cases about promoting their organisation, you must be blind to think it is more than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the Japanese are exploiting loopholes, with their scientific research stuff, can't the loopholes be closed. I'm just a lobster boat captain , we vote yearly on various ways to sustain our fishery..Escapes on traps, sizes allowed to be caught etc. , I don't understand why other fisheries can't enforce themselves , its their own livelihood their destroying.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old Man by the Sea said:

If the Japanese are exploiting loopholes, with their scientific research stuff, can't the loopholes be closed. I'm just a lobster boat captain , we vote yearly on various ways to sustain our fishery..Escapes on traps, sizes allowed to be caught etc. , I don't understand why other fisheries can't enforce themselves , its their own livelihood their destroying.

Well, thing is there is, and there isn't a loophole. 

The IWC adopted a moratorium in 1982. Japan has objected to it, and has not signed it,, they whale in International Waters, so they are not actually under any specific jurisdiction, so the loophole only applies to countries that agree to it. 

 

Good history of how it all went bad here - LINK Did Greens help kill the whale?

The US had two pieces of legislation which it could use to put pressure not only on Japan in general, but on its huge fisheries interests directly.

The Packwood-Magnuson Amendment allowed Washington to cut the fishing quotas in US waters of any country which it felt was undermining an international conservation agreement; under the Pelly Amendment, it could impose trade sanctions on any offending nation.

Fishing quotas were hugely important to Japan. Its boats were catching more than a million tonnes of fish per year in US waters, mainly off the Alaskan coast. The New York Times of 1983 priced the catch at $425m annually, well beyond the value of Japan's whaling.

At the end of 1984, a coalition of environmental groups initiated a lawsuit aimed at forcing Ronald Reagan's administration to invoke Packwood-Magnuson and Pelly against Japan.

But in bilateral discussions, the two governments reached an agreement. Japan would cease whaling in 1988, two years beyond the moratorium date, and withdraw its objection; in return, Ronald Reagan's administration agreed not to take action under Packwood-Magnuson or Pelly.

Again, it seemed that an end to Japanese whaling was in sight. However, the court action continued, the NGOs claiming the administration had no right to make a deal with Japan.

Eventually, in June 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the administration. The deal, apparently, was sealed; in return for keeping its fishing nets full, Japan would hang up its harpoons for good.

The next month, Japan formally withdrew its objection to the whaling moratorium.

Gone west

However, on the US west coast, a completely different issue was raising its head.

In a bid to develop their own industry, US fishermen were pushing for the removal of foreign access to US waters. They were aided by a coalition of 14 NGOs led by Greenpeace who went to court against Japan, claiming its fishing methods harmed porpoises, seals and birds.

The Japanese quota plummeted. From 900,000 tonnes in 1985, it halved in 1986, then fell to 104,000 tonnes the following year. In 1988, the quota was zero; an estimated 130 Japanese fishing boats had nothing to catch.

Shigeko Misaki, who worked with Japanese IWC delegations first as an interpreter and later as an advisor, recalls great anger within the Japanese government and fishing industry at the time.

"(The US) said 'we didn't promise - we just have to give more fish to our fishermen'," she says.

"Anger is the only word that can describe it - why did America have to cheat us like that?"

Within months, Japan had announced it would begin hunting whales for scientific research, a programme that continues to this day.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Well, thing is there is, and there isn't a loophole. 

The IWC adopted a moratorium in 1982. Japan has objected to it, and has not signed it,, they whale in International Waters, so they are not actually under any specific jurisdiction, so the loophole only applies to countries that agree to it. 

 

Good history of how it all went bad here - LINK Did Greens help kill the whale?

The US had two pieces of legislation which it could use to put pressure not only on Japan in general, but on its huge fisheries interests directly.

The Packwood-Magnuson Amendment allowed Washington to cut the fishing quotas in US waters of any country which it felt was undermining an international conservation agreement; under the Pelly Amendment, it could impose trade sanctions on any offending nation.

Fishing quotas were hugely important to Japan. Its boats were catching more than a million tonnes of fish per year in US waters, mainly off the Alaskan coast. The New York Times of 1983 priced the catch at $425m annually, well beyond the value of Japan's whaling.

At the end of 1984, a coalition of environmental groups initiated a lawsuit aimed at forcing Ronald Reagan's administration to invoke Packwood-Magnuson and Pelly against Japan.

But in bilateral discussions, the two governments reached an agreement. Japan would cease whaling in 1988, two years beyond the moratorium date, and withdraw its objection; in return, Ronald Reagan's administration agreed not to take action under Packwood-Magnuson or Pelly.

Again, it seemed that an end to Japanese whaling was in sight. However, the court action continued, the NGOs claiming the administration had no right to make a deal with Japan.

Eventually, in June 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the administration. The deal, apparently, was sealed; in return for keeping its fishing nets full, Japan would hang up its harpoons for good.

The next month, Japan formally withdrew its objection to the whaling moratorium.

Gone west

However, on the US west coast, a completely different issue was raising its head.

In a bid to develop their own industry, US fishermen were pushing for the removal of foreign access to US waters. They were aided by a coalition of 14 NGOs led by Greenpeace who went to court against Japan, claiming its fishing methods harmed porpoises, seals and birds.

The Japanese quota plummeted. From 900,000 tonnes in 1985, it halved in 1986, then fell to 104,000 tonnes the following year. In 1988, the quota was zero; an estimated 130 Japanese fishing boats had nothing to catch.

Shigeko Misaki, who worked with Japanese IWC delegations first as an interpreter and later as an advisor, recalls great anger within the Japanese government and fishing industry at the time.

"(The US) said 'we didn't promise - we just have to give more fish to our fishermen'," she says.

"Anger is the only word that can describe it - why did America have to cheat us like that?"

Within months, Japan had announced it would begin hunting whales for scientific research, a programme that continues to this day.

Complicated stuff. Thank you for educating me psyche101. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Old Man by the Sea said:

Complicated stuff. Thank you for educating me psyche101. 

Most welcome, I learned it all from some Marine Biologists, I thought the Sea Shepherd was doing a good thing too until I learned from people in the know what damage they have done, and continue to do for their own benefits and nobody elses.

This is how devoted Watson really is:

Watson: “You see, the seal is very easy to exploit as an image. We have posters, we have buttons; we have shirts … all of which portray the head of the baby seal with tears coming out of its eyes. Baby seals are always crying because the salt tears keep their eyes from freezing. But they have this image of ... they are baby animals; they are beautiful. And because of that, coupled with the horror of the sealer hitting them over the head with a club, it is an image which just goes right to the heart of animal lovers all over North America.”

What they do best is manipulate people into supporting their actions which just make the whole situation so much worse. They act in International Waters just like the whalers, so we can do as much about them as we can the Whalers at the moment - unfortunately. What we all want to see is an end to them both. I understand the Japanese position of "tradition" but it can be reformed to suit modern times. With a bunch of idiots telling them centuries old traditions have to go, and attacking them for them, it is just only going to keep getting worse. Negotiations, as per the ones that had Japan hanging up it;s harpoons once already are the only solution that have ever had an actual impact on Whaling. Shame that deal was quashed, this thread would not have existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2016 at 9:16 PM, psyche101 said:

Nonsense, accidents are accidents, what the Sea Shepherd does is deliberate, and therefore inexcusable. 

That is nonsense too, Whaling has only got worse in the years the Sea Shepherd started their incredibly stupid vigilante actions. What the Sea Shepherd saves these days was once the entire Japanese haul for a season. The Sea Shepherd has irritated Japan into stepping up their operations and have made things worse than they ever were before they stuck their noses in where they do not belong. 

The Sea Shepherd is without doubt making the situation worse, no two ways about it. 

That is also nonsense, there is plenty of protest and court cases and you know full well it was the decisions made by the Reagan Administration that had the Japanese pick up their harpoons again after having laid them down. 

We would gettar more cooperation from Japan on this matter with negotiation. Attempting to intimidate a nation by shaming traditional practises is not ever going to work, and the ay years the Sea Shepherd has been failing at stopping the Japanese is outright proof of this. It is a stupid tactic bound to fail. 

Vigilante action can only worsen the situation, especially from a bunch of uniformed pirates with an axe to grind. The Sea Shepherd cases about promoting their organisation, you must be blind to think it is more than that. 

Nonsense.   Accidents are accidents and if whaling isn't more dangerous than what Sea Shepherd does then they're just incompetent.

Nonsense.  Sea Shepherd is without a doubt winning the war and you're in the minority in Australia siding with criminal poachers.

Total nonsense.  Reagan was right to drive the Japanese out of our waters.  

Nonsense.  If you had any better ideas to stop whaling you'd have started doing them a long time ago.   People who sit and do nothing but run their mouths about others who actually do something?   They have nothing better to do because they don't know any better.    All you do is defend commercial whaling till you're out of breath.  You're the last person who knows how to stop poachers.  You know nothing but defending them and regurgitating the propaganda from the whaling bureau.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2016 at 1:52 AM, psyche101 said:

Well, thing is there is, and there isn't a loophole. 

The IWC adopted a moratorium in 1982. Japan has objected to it, and has not signed it,, they whale in International Waters, so they are not actually under any specific jurisdiction, so the loophole only applies to countries that agree to it. 

 

Good history of how it all went bad here - LINK Did Greens help kill the whale?

The US had two pieces of legislation which it could use to put pressure not only on Japan in general, but on its huge fisheries interests directly.

The Packwood-Magnuson Amendment allowed Washington to cut the fishing quotas in US waters of any country which it felt was undermining an international conservation agreement; under the Pelly Amendment, it could impose trade sanctions on any offending nation.

Fishing quotas were hugely important to Japan. Its boats were catching more than a million tonnes of fish per year in US waters, mainly off the Alaskan coast. The New York Times of 1983 priced the catch at $425m annually, well beyond the value of Japan's whaling.

At the end of 1984, a coalition of environmental groups initiated a lawsuit aimed at forcing Ronald Reagan's administration to invoke Packwood-Magnuson and Pelly against Japan.

But in bilateral discussions, the two governments reached an agreement. Japan would cease whaling in 1988, two years beyond the moratorium date, and withdraw its objection; in return, Ronald Reagan's administration agreed not to take action under Packwood-Magnuson or Pelly.

Again, it seemed that an end to Japanese whaling was in sight. However, the court action continued, the NGOs claiming the administration had no right to make a deal with Japan.

Eventually, in June 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the administration. The deal, apparently, was sealed; in return for keeping its fishing nets full, Japan would hang up its harpoons for good.

The next month, Japan formally withdrew its objection to the whaling moratorium.

Gone west

However, on the US west coast, a completely different issue was raising its head.

In a bid to develop their own industry, US fishermen were pushing for the removal of foreign access to US waters. They were aided by a coalition of 14 NGOs led by Greenpeace who went to court against Japan, claiming its fishing methods harmed porpoises, seals and birds.

The Japanese quota plummeted. From 900,000 tonnes in 1985, it halved in 1986, then fell to 104,000 tonnes the following year. In 1988, the quota was zero; an estimated 130 Japanese fishing boats had nothing to catch.

Shigeko Misaki, who worked with Japanese IWC delegations first as an interpreter and later as an advisor, recalls great anger within the Japanese government and fishing industry at the time.

"(The US) said 'we didn't promise - we just have to give more fish to our fishermen'," she says.

"Anger is the only word that can describe it - why did America have to cheat us like that?"

Within months, Japan had announced it would begin hunting whales for scientific research, a programme that continues to this day.

Replacing one damaging act with another doesn't do a fragile ecosystem any favors.  The oceans are over 90% fished out.  

In summary Japan can't catch $425 million in fish a year in US waters, so they get mad and start whaling again.   Proving what it's really all about - money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yamato said:

Nonsense.   Accidents are accidents and if whaling isn't more dangerous than what Sea Shepherd does then they're just incompetent.

So now you are saying the Sea Shepherd is more dangerous? 

Japanese whaling is less safe than Sea Shepherd actions

 if whaling isn't more dangerous than what Sea Shepherd does then they're just incompetent.

 

You are not making any sense here Yam. You want to clarify and offer some examples?

10 hours ago, Yamato said:

Nonsense.  Sea Shepherd is without a doubt winning the war and you're in the minority in Australia siding with criminal poachers.

If that is true, why has the Sea Shepherd actions resulted in Japan threatening, and carrying out bigger hunts than ever in direct response to Sea Shepherd actions? The number of whales taken by Japan thanks to them getting riled up by the Sea Shepherd and retaliating is proportional, what the Sea Shepherd now saves used to equal the entire Japanese haul. how does that happen if things are getting better?

The Sea Shepherd has been making a nuisance of themselves in this way since 2003, here we are in 2016 and the catch is bigger than ever - what is the so called victory in that? How is that helping the situation? 

10 hours ago, Yamato said:

Total nonsense.  Reagan was right to drive the Japanese out of our waters.  

He should never have agreed in the first place then should he? 

Japan had HUNG UP their harpoons, they stopped whaling, and when Reagan did that, they started again. How is that not just as bad as what the Japanese do? 

10 hours ago, Yamato said:

Nonsense.  If you had any better ideas to stop whaling you'd have started doing them a long time ago.   People who sit and do nothing but run their mouths about others who actually do something?   They have nothing better to do because they don't know any better.    All you do is defend commercial whaling till you're out of breath.  You're the last person who knows how to stop poachers.  You know nothing but defending them and regurgitating the propaganda from the whaling bureau.

Negotiations are the ONLY practise that have ever had Japan offer a reasonable response, this mess has resulted in more whales being taken than ever - that is proof this vigilante action is NOT about saving whales, it is about lining the Sea Shepherd pockets. Just like how Watson told us he takes advantage of people's emotions with the Baby Seal pictures. Your support of the Sea Shepherd means more whales will continue to die, and according to historical record, that number will continue to rise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yamato said:

Replacing one damaging act with another doesn't do a fragile ecosystem any favors.  The oceans are over 90% fished out.  

But it is OK for the US to continue that trend and fish out what is left, whilst forcing other nations into International Waters to rape the eas for what they can get. 

10 hours ago, Yamato said:

In summary Japan can't catch $425 million in fish a year in US waters, so they get mad and start whaling again.   Proving what it's really all about - money.

It sure is, the US did not want to lose that $425 million, so they did the old Indian Giver trick and had Japan pick it's harpoons up again. 

How many times have the Sea Shepherd actions have actually had Japan agree to stop whaling, and actually hang up their harpoons? Like those negotiations did? 

From Japans perspective, it is about feeding its people. Look at how much farmland the US had, it does not need to ever be short of beef, lamb or pork. Japan does not have such land to farm animals, They have the Sea to farm, and traditionally always have. The US is not using the fish to feed it's nation, it is using the fish to sell and profit from. Whale meat even fed school kids. Yes, it is about money, just not how you are insinuating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.