The Great Sea Shepherd Debate

[Mattshark]

if i may ask,what does your conservation group do?

Studies sharks, analyses their behaviour and their ecology and that helps us develop better models of their communities and better conserve their environment because we can make detail arguments with hard evidence and this is how marine reserves are created.

[seashepherd_vixen]

Studies sharks, analyses their behaviour and their ecology and that helps us develop better models of their communities and better conserve their environment because we can make detail arguments with hard evidence and this is how marine reserves are created.

i supose i must be fair and say your work is great for conservation.but not all sea shepherds are like watson.just hope yo know that.

[Mattshark]

i supose i must be fair and say your work is great for conservation.but not all sea shepherds are like watson.just hope yo know that.

I understand that, but Watson is the public face of the organisation and the organisations tactics are still unsavoury and do not help Japan change their policy because it based on emotion and not science. If you really want to help, show that their whaling is unsustainable and their methods are inhuman, this is why experimentation (often the type people consider a waste of time) are so important because with out the science you cannot make a viable argument.

[seashepherd_vixen]

I understand that, but Watson is the public face of the organisation and the organisations tactics are still unsavoury and do not help Japan change their policy because it based on emotion and not science. If you really want to help, show that their whaling is unsustainable and their methods are inhuman, this is why experimentation (often the type people consider a waste of time) are so important because with out the science you cannot make a viable argument.

the way my group and i see it there are 2 types of sea shepherds.there are the sea SERPENTS like you see on tv who are the ones who at times take things to far.then there those of us who are just shepherds we don t take maters in to our own hands but teach peope on wat is goin on.that s wat we of veritas are all about.

[Queen in the North]

Exactly, would the site of "eco-warriors" in the get up you see shown by the media (the ones who take the stereotypical look of dreadlocks, dirty baggy clothing) help promote their idea to most people? It certainly would not to me and it is the same with SS, they come across as extremists and as a group promote a negative image for conservation.

Agreed. The negative image of conservationists shown by the media because of the stunts SS pull is doing absolutely no good at all for proper conservation. How can you expect to properly educate the public in general about the importance of conservation if they associate pirates with it and are completely unsympathetic towards the organisations trying to help the creatures, because in some cases their 'conservation efforts' are doing far more harm than good?

[seashepherd_vixen]

Agreed. The negative image of conservationists shown by the media because of the stunts SS pull is doing absolutely no good at all for proper conservation. How can you expect to properly educate the public in general about the importance of conservation if they associate pirates with it and are completely unsympathetic towards the organisations trying to help the creatures, because in some cases their 'conservation efforts' are doing far more harm than good?

okay.what say you to the 2008 RV FARLEY MOWAT incident?

[Queen in the North]

okay.what say you to the 2008 RV FARLEY MOWAT incident?

Are you referring to the coastguard collisions?

[Mattshark]

okay.what say you to the 2008 RV FARLEY MOWAT incident?

It is word against word. However much I disagree with seal hunts, I can't help but feel that Sea Shepherd, who have little regard for law, probably did move in waters they were not allowed to.

Seriously though, if you really care about conservation, support real conservation groups like the WDCS, not ones who are at best vigilantes at worst terrorists.

[seashepherd_vixen]

It is word against word. However much I disagree with seal hunts, I can't help but feel that Sea Shepherd, who have little regard for law, probably did move in waters they were not allowed to.

Seriously though, if you really care about conservation, support real conservation groups like the WDCS, not ones who are at best vigilantes at worst terrorists.

word aganst word maybe but a fully armed tactic squadron borded the MOWAT which is technicaly a citzens ship an not military.that is ilegal

[Mattshark]

word aganst word maybe but a fully armed tactic squadron borded the MOWAT which is technicaly a citzens ship an not military.that is ilegal

When Sea Shepherd has been associated with piracy and terrorism, no it is not. Their actions have brought this upon themselves, Sea Shepherd were also found guilty in court.

[seashepherd_vixen]

When Sea Shepherd has been associated with piracy and terrorism, no it is not. Their actions have brought this upon themselves, Sea Shepherd were also found guilty in court.

and now the MOWAT is left to rot docksid.i understnd but it stil does not seem righ.and i sorry if i make yo mad.but i hav my own opinions and repct yours too.

[Mattshark]

Also here is an article from April 10, 1994

What has been achieved since this?

Edited October 1, 2009 by Mattshark

[Cetacea]

I have absolutely nothing positive to say about the Sea Shepherd, her captain, or her crew. They are pirates and criminals, and I relegate them to the same intellectual tier as members of PETA. No offense to any members of PETA on this board, but I believe the emotionally driven shenanigans of characters like the crew of the Sea Shepherd (particularly its Captain) and members of PETA around the world is an affront to logic, rationality, and good science. Is what the Japanese whaling ships are doing bad? Yes. Is the correct response piracy? No. The Japanese apparently found a loophole that they have exploited, and if its really that much of a problem, then you go back to the drawing board and start over.

I'm tired of the fact that when I tell lay people that I'm studying to be a biologist, many seem to connect my love of biology to the emotional and reactionary M.O. of a group of people that are basically environmentalist-terrorists. These people are not rational, and while I do have concerns for the environment, their methodology is more harmful than helpful. At the very least their actions only serve to promote a stereotype that people who have concerns about the environment are "green" nutjobs who would gladly burn down subdivisions, instigate acts of piracy against whaling ships, dump animal blood on people who choose to wear fur, etc. etc.

Its a shame that these people exist, let alone that they have a television show. There is no need for irrational, emotionally driven approaches to problems. Science solves problems by keeping a cool head and employing a rational, logically sound approach when solving problems. These people solve problems by creating bigger problems, and are morally, emotionally, and especially intellectually stunted. That is all they are.

God yes, it has been in media well before Sea Shepherd and their idiocy came in.

Extremist groups like sea shepherd don't help, they don't help the average person understand conservation and the moronic crap spouted by Watson actually just makes a lot of people think that conservations are all unbathed, veggie-fascist nut cases. It doesn't help and it just galvanises Japan.

I agree completely, well said

Sea Shepherd does absolutely nothing for conservation groups around the world apart from promoting prejudices and aggrevating already uncoperative opposition. It's the 'shock to get attention' approach. And undeniably it does get attention but I'm afraid that's about all it does. If people do give it a second thought it's more likely to be, wow, those environmentalists are completely insane!

There is a reason they have been banned from the IWC and more serious conservation groups will not associate with them or even take money from them. Not even Greenpeace who have undoubtedly done some borderline things themselves are very careful not to associate with them because they know exactly that this would cost them their credibility.

Sea Shepherd put themselves above the law to enforce laws which is just not acceptable.

It's easy to dismiss serious conservationists as being armchair critics and not achieving anything but in the end, these are the people that achieve results and lay down the laws Sea Shepherd has taken onto itself to enforce whether asked to or not. It's easy to be the media darling and make big compassionate speeches about how noone but you cares about the well being of these animals but it is a lot harder, a lot more tedious and requires as much or more dedication to trudge through the paper work over and over again, defend you case over and over again and keep on persevering despite overwhelming opposition to make an actual contribution to conservation without resorting to violence or illegal actions and without publically receiving credit for you work and non of your actions being acknowledged because they are not spectacular enough to be noticed by the media.

Interestingly despite claiming he is not an eco-terrorist/pirate/conducting illegal actions and the whalers are the ones that are, a quote from Paul Watson:

"There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history." Sierra Club board member Paul Watson, at the Animal Rights 2002 convention

Interesting article on pressure of environmental groups (not exclusively Sea Shepherd) galvanising Japanese with their unyielding position:

Did the Greens kill the whales

Something to be taken with a large pinch of salt due to an admittedly very dubious source:

Sea Shepherd's history However I have seen most of these confirmed by other more reliable sources so am fairly sure it is anything but completely made up, in fact some of it is actually supported by Sea Shepherds own site

In short, Sea Shepherd is ineffective because it causes more damage than good in the long run. This is because:

1. Alienation of the public from conservation efforts:

Conservation will only ever be a complete success if it has support from the public, if Sea Shepherds method are perceived as being the work of conservationists, less people are likely to want to associate with conservation as it would seem it endorses violence and extremism.

2. Alienation of opponents of conservation efforts.

A lot of opponents of conservation efforts have enough trouble understanding why what they are doing is wrong, for example Japanese whalers, having their ships sunk and being attacked will make them even less willing to cooperate and listen to reasonable compromises suggested by serious conservation groups.

3. It is illegal. Two rights don't make a wrong and violence just breeds more violence.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Cetacea

[seashepherd_vixen]

I agree completely, well said

Sea Shepherd does absolutely nothing for conservation groups around the world apart from promoting prejudices and aggrevating already uncoperative opposition. It's the 'shock to get attention' approach. And undeniably it does get attention but I'm afraid that's about all it does. If people do give it a second thought it's more likely to be, wow, those environmentalists are completely insane!

There is a reason they have been banned from the IWC and more serious conservation groups will not associate with them or even take money from them. Not even Greenpeace who have undoubtedly done some borderline things themselves are very careful not to associate with them because they know exactly that this would cost them their credibility.

Sea Shepherd put themselves above the law to enforce laws which is just not acceptable.

It's easy to dismiss serious conservationists as being armchair critics and not achieving anything but in the end, these are the people that achieve results and lay down the laws Sea Shepherd has taken onto itself to enforce whether asked to or not. It's easy to be the media darling and make big compassionate speeches about how noone but you cares about the well being of these animals but it is a lot harder, a lot more tedious and requires as much or more dedication to trudge through the paper work over and over again, defend you case over and over again and keep on persevering despite overwhelming opposition to make an actual contribution to conservation without resorting to violence or illegal actions and without publically receiving credit for you work and non of your actions being acknowledged because they are not spectacular enough to be noticed by the media.

Interestingly despite claiming he is not an eco-terrorist/pirate/conducting illegal actions and the whalers are the ones that are, a quote from Paul Watson:

"There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history." Sierra Club board member Paul Watson, at the Animal Rights 2002 convention

Interesting article on pressure of environmental groups (not exclusively Sea Shepherd) galvanising Japanese with their unyielding position:

Did the Greens kill the whales

Something to be taken with a large pinch of salt due to an admittedly very dubious source:

Sea Shepherd's history However I have seen most of these confirmed by other more reliable sources so am fairly sure it is anything but completely made up, in fact some of it is actually supported by Sea Shepherds own site

In short, Sea Shepherd is ineffective because it causes more damage than good in the long run. This is because:

1. Alienation of the public from conservation efforts:

Conservation will only ever be a complete success if it has support from the public, if Sea Shepherds method are perceived as being the work of conservationists, less people are likely to want to associate with conservation as it would seem it endorses violence and extremism.

2. Alienation of opponents of conservation efforts.

A lot of opponents of conservation efforts have enough trouble understanding why what they are doing is wrong, for example Japanese whalers, having their ships sunk and being attacked will make them even less willing to cooperate and listen to reasonable compromises suggested by serious conservation groups.

3. It is illegal. Two rights don't make a wrong and violence just breeds more violence.

aftr all this,i see plnty about sea shepherds whaling campaign.surly you hav an opinon about other campagins?

[Cetacea]

aftr all this,i see plnty about sea shepherds whaling campaign.surly you hav an opinon about other campagins?

Regardless of their other campaigns, they have completely lost their credibility due to previously mentioned reasons.

Their violent campaigns against whaling is what gets them in the news and what gets them remembered and is what is damaging conservation, this is not changed in any way by their other campaign(which do tend to take a backseat to whaling anyhow, they buggered off in the middle of sharkwater to 'save the whales'), either way their violent, illegal 'shock' methods are not limited to their campaigns against whaling as highlighted by the link I posted earlier, in fact Paul Watson was arrested for his activities in their sealing campaign and they ran a publicity campaign with Lush where a woman hung herself from fish hooks which in my opinion did very little actual good apart from the normal initial 'shock effect' that in the long run does very little good and makes people think environmentalists are a load of nutters- though to be fair, at least that was legal for once...

Edited October 2, 2009 by Cetacea

[seashepherd_vixen]

Regardless of their other campaigns, they have completely lost their credibility due to previously mentioned reasons.

Their violent campaigns against whaling is what gets them in the news and what gets them remembered and is what is damaging conservation, this is not changed in any way by their other campaign(which do tend to take a backseat to whaling anyhow, they buggered off in the middle of sharkwater to 'save the whales'), either way their violent, illegal 'shock' methods are not limited to their campaigns against whaling as highlighted by the link I posted earlier, in fact Paul Watson was arrested for his activities in their sealing campaign and they ran a publicity campaign with Lush where a woman hung herself from fish hooks which in my opinion did very little actual good apart from the normal initial 'shock effect' that in the long run does very little good and makes people think environmentalists are a load of nutters- though to be fair, at least that was legal for once...

so wat is yor take on the dyin of seal fur?i see you point on watson but i do beleve that the dying campans had a positiv affect.

[village_idiot]

and now the MOWAT is left to rot docksid.i understnd but it stil does not seem righ.and i sorry if i make yo mad.but i hav my own opinions and repct yours too.

Vixen, the Farley Mowat was basically sent to Canada with the intentions of being seized...Look it up in the interviews. Paul Watson even refers to the Mowat as a 'rust bucket'.

[Mattshark]

Has anyone figured what Sea Shepherds terrorism direct action has achieved yet? I mean they have had 33 years of making it difficult for everyone else, has it done anything?

Also would anyone like to try an excuse Paul Watson saying any person dying from Sea Shepherds actions would be collateral damage?

[village_idiot]

Has anyone figured what Sea Shepherds terrorism direct action has achieved yet? I mean they have had 33 years of making it difficult for everyone else, has it done anything?

Also would anyone like to try an excuse Paul Watson saying any person dying from Sea Shepherds actions would be collateral damage?

Not to excuse Paul, but Sea Shepherd guidelines do mention something about members not putting their lives on the line. But i do see some light in what he meant. There are those that would go to that length and I think he knows it.

[seashepherd_vixen]

Vixen, the Farley Mowat was basically sent to Canada with the intentions of being seized...Look it up in the interviews. Paul Watson even refers to the Mowat as a 'rust bucket'.

i m sory.i shoold hav read ferther.

[Cetacea]

Not to excuse Paul, but Sea Shepherd guidelines do mention something about members not putting their lives on the line. But i do see some light in what he meant. There are those that would go to that length and I think he knows it.

Seeing that Sea Shepherd have threatened people with guns, rammed ships and thrown glass bottles, I am not completely convinced he was talking of his followers or himself...

Would you care to answer his first question at all?

so wat is yor take on the dyin of seal fur?i see you point on watson but i do beleve that the dying campans had a positiv affect.

I presume you mean dying the fur red and all that. It may raise awareness while being legal (certainly surprising for Sea Shepherd) but it's not exactly an idea that is unique to them either, nor does it change anything about what I said previously about their detrimental effect on conservation that they are having by portraying themselves as they do. It's a comparatively minor campaign and their more violent action in the fields of sealing do overshadow it...

Edited October 3, 2009 by Cetacea

[Queen in the North]

so wat is yor take on the dyin of seal fur?i see you point on watson but i do beleve that the dying campans had a positiv affect.

Okay, I am confused. You do not seem interested in defending the organisation that you're a part of.

You only seem to ask people to pick it apart further, rather than refuting any of their arguments.

Are you in fact beginning to doubt the sainted Sea Shepherd?

[seashepherd_vixen]

Okay, I am confused. You do not seem interested in defending the organisation that you're a part of.

You only seem to ask people to pick it apart further, rather than refuting any of their arguments.

Are you in fact beginning to doubt the sainted Sea Shepherd?

i suport sertain sectons of sea shepherd.lik village idiot thoug i do not aprove of evrything they hav done but i see some light amidst darknss.i accpt them like i do m country.i do not aprov of half the crap mi goverment dos but i stil suport them.surly yu don t suport evrythin 100%?

[Farmer77]

I do not know the totality of what sea shepherd does however I find it refreshing to see someone actually doing something to stand up for what they believe in.

If I were single id love to be involved. I'd also love to see some group get that involved and passionate about the pebble mine project. Horrible things are being done to our earth and very few are actually doing something about it.

[Cetacea]

I do not know the totality of what sea shepherd does however I find it refreshing to see someone actually doing something to stand up for what they believe in.

Even if what they are doing is actually damaging?

That is the point I was making earlier, the people who are really making differences in conservation are the ones you don't see, the ones that are not in the spotlight because their methods are not as spectacular but in the long run a lot more effective...