New Weapons for Sea Shepherd to Fight Whaling

[Yamato]

I'm always up for new ideas on how to fight back against the criminal Japanese whalers, who have to sail 7,000 miles away from Japan to a Whale Sanctuary to find some whales to kill. Criminal Japanese whalers are driven to bankruptcy by Paul Watson's sometimes hated and often misunderstood organization of passionate oceanic defenders. But the criminal Japanese whaling fleets are literally kept afloat with tens of millions of dollars worth of federal government subsidies each year. The support for their illegal enterprise is flagrant.

How do we fight this menace?

Australia could flex its rights under the law and out-muscle anything the Japanese navy can throw at them, and put an end Japan's butchery in a matter of hours, not days. But Japan is way too valuable a trading partner. All someone has to do to figure out what side of this issue he's on is to think of one of two words, either Honda or Toyota. Or if you're a kid, Sony or Nintendo. Governments haven't been reliable at enforcing their own rules and regulations, so the burden falls into civil society's lap, and Sea Shepherd are the ones who've stepped up to do something about it. The question becomes: How much force is necessary to stop these poachers?

Let's discuss new weapons and tactics for Sea Shepherd to subdue the Japanese whalers!

New Weapon #1: The Butter Gun

Sea Shepherd volunteers have thrown bottles of Butyric Acid at the Japanese mother ship (the death factory known as the Nisshin Maru), to taint her flensing deck and slipway (and more generally, in areas where whalers have to work) with nasty chemicals in the form of slippery, putrid butter. The whalers effectively countered this by putting up giant nets that prevent it from landing on their decks. Watson put a water cannon on the deck of his flagship the 'Steve Irwin' a few years ago and showed that, while a simple and even antique design, it performed very well against its Japanese counterparts. Why not inject acid into the water of the gun and give the whalers an acid shower right through their nets? One butter gun is as good as all the Japanese water guns combined. It may have to be completely engineered as a one-off, but I think it's affordable and doable on Sea Shepherd's budget.

New Weapon #2: The Whale's Cry

Don't we have sounds of whales being slaughtered? Why not broadcast these horrible sounds underwater whenever whaling is being done Even if we can't speak the whale's language, we can at least use sound associations that they're smart enough to understand in an attempt to warn them. Point an underwater acoustic device at the whalers, or even better yet, attach them onto the whalers' hulls if it's cost-effective enough. But in any case, try to keep the whaling ships surrounded in a cone of noise that sounds exactly like whale murder.

New Weapon #3: The Eagle's Eye

Why hasn't Sea Shepherd added an aircraft hangar and flight deck onto the Bob Barker? Having one aircraft carrier in the Southern Ocean is good. Having another one is awesome! Sea Shepherd will have a fourth ship joining their fleet in next year's defense of the Sanctuary. If they can afford a 4th ship, they can afford a 2nd aircraft carrier.

As concerned citizens of the world, we must make the choice that is most important to us. The choice between the survival of the ocean's fragile ecosystem, and how soon the small number of government-subsidized Japanese have to wait before putting more whale meat into their mouths. The choice is clear: Defend our oceans!

I'll let Bindi take it from here:

[media=]

[/media]

[captain pish]

Why not just concoct some home made napalm and splatter the scum bags with it?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Personally, I think Australia should just declare the whalers fishermen, declare whale fishing illegal in Australian waters and then seize a ship, put the crew on a slow plane to Japan and scuttle the ship. You'd only have to do it once.

[Coffey]

I just wish the navy was used for this stuff. Should be made a priority, got a lot of respect for sea shepherd.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Coffey

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Hmmm...what annoys me more is that three quarters of the meat taken from the whales that are caught by the IRC(research my ar$E) goes to waste.Its just appalling to think it still goes on..terrible.

http://revmodo.com/2012/06/19/three-quarters-of-japans-ill-gotten-whale-meat-goes-to-waste/

The picture in this article is absolutely disgusting....

[Coffey]

Hmmm...what annoys me more is that three quarters of the meat taken from the whales that are caught by the IRC(research my ar$E) goes to waste.Its just appalling to think it still goes on..terrible.

http://revmodo.com/2...-goes-to-waste/

The picture in this article is absolutely disgusting....

That is so wrong. Something humans are bad at as a whole, is waste. We always do it, even without thinking. I'm not getting up on my high horse here either cause I do it as well.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

That is so wrong. Something humans are bad at as a whole, is waste. We always do it, even without thinking. I'm not getting up on my high horse here either cause I do it as well.

Its wrong that they do it to begin with but when you start taking mothers and calf's,what hope is left for the survival of that species...?....i cant think of one..

[Coffey]

Its wrong that they do it to begin with but when you start taking mothers and calf's,what hope is left for the survival of that species...?....i cant think of one..

Completely agree, it's the reason i completely back sea shepherd.

[Yamato]

Personally, I think Australia should just declare the whalers fishermen, declare whale fishing illegal in Australian waters and then seize a ship, put the crew on a slow plane to Japan and scuttle the ship. You'd only have to do it once.

Bravo. Australia could single-handedly stop it cold and become the enlightened center of the Pacific but other than a lot of flowery rhetoric, it just can't get it up. It's already double or triple illegal to kill whales there. If we want to address the matter legally, we supporters of Sea Shepherd represent the Global Moratorium on Commercial Whaling, the World Charter for Nature, the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone, and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Japan would be slaughtered in court, that's why they tolerate Sea Shepherd as much as they do.

[Yamato]

Elephant poachers in Africa might get a bullet through the head, and who amongst us is crying about that? We should be overjoyed that civil society is applying the brakes on an illegal operation without killing anyone. If Australia could get with New Zealand and the rest of the Pacific region and resist Japan on the federal/state level, this industrial scale operation would probably "grind" to a halt in less than a year. Japan is a moral hazard in the world. If Japan can do this for "research" anyone can do it for "research", and the law is moot and the whales are in danger of extinction.

I'd rather think that the law isn't moot.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Yamato

[Keel M.]

I do not support vigilante justice.

[Coffey]

I do not support vigilante justice.

So you are saying if someone saved a child from being abused by having to physically remove and possibley harm the attacker... You would be against it?

[Yamato]

I do not support vigilante justice.

If I and two of my friends detained a back-alley rapist caught in the act until the police arrived, would you support that? Yes, of course you would! You support vigilante justice! My friends and I made sure justice was done. We did more than just call 911 and report a crime in progress.

What if it was a situation where the police didn't arrive, or wouldn't arrive? Then you'd support vigilante justice even more, right? That's how it is with our oceans.

[Bavarian Raven]

If I and two of my friends detained a back-alley rapist caught in the act until the police arrived, would you support that? Yes, of course you would! You support vigilante justice!

just to throw my two cents in, but what i think he meant was, he does not support people physically assaulting the whaling ships, etc.

there is a difference between detailing a rapist and beating the crap out of him as pleasing as it might be for most of us

[Yamato]

just to throw my two cents in, but what i think he meant was, he does not support people physically assaulting the whaling ships, etc.

there is a difference between detailing a rapist and beating the crap out of him as pleasing as it might be for most of us

Do three civilians have a duty to subdue a rapist caught in the act? Would you just run away and call 911? Would you keep standing there and watching the rape after you called 911? Would you feel okay afterwards with doing that? I would feel morally obligated to intervene and possibly save someone's life. I do believe in vigilante justice so long as justice is done.

[Yamato]

Everything in the ocean is the way it is because of the shark, the top predator shaping millions of years of oceanic evolution.

Mankind is a bloodthirsty savage slaughtering tens of millions of sharks a year. This butchery must end before our oceans die.

[Keel M.]

I'm sorry I didn't know we were talking about child abusers and rapists. My mistake.

But since you asked, if I knew a child was being abused, I'd call the authorities, because that's what they're there for. Otherwise, let's fire them all and just mete out justice any way you like, because hey that's more civilized.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Lady Kasey

[Yamato]

I'm sorry I didn't know we were talking about child abusers and rapists. My mistake.

It's not a mistake, Kasey. The point was to show that you do support some examples of vigilante justice. But when it comes to the destruction of our oceans, for some reason vigilantism is not okay. When it's our oceans that are dying it's okay not to call the authorities. Because whales and sharks and dolphins aren't humans, right?

[Coffey]

I'm sorry I didn't know we were talking about child abusers and rapists. My mistake.

But since you asked, if I knew a child was being abused, I'd call the authorities, because that's what they're there for. Otherwise, let's fire them all and just mete out justice any way you like, because hey that's more civilized.

What if the authorities didn't do anything? Would you not try and help?

That's the problem, they are ilegally whaling in protected areas and the authorities ignore it msot of the time.

[Bavarian Raven]

Do three civilians have a duty to subdue a rapist caught in the act? Would you just run away and call 911? Would you keep standing there and watching the rape after you called 911? Would you feel okay afterwards with doing that? I would feel morally obligated to intervene and possibly save someone's life. I do believe in vigilante justice so long as justice is done.

Obviously you didnt read what i said. I said there is a difference between restraining said rapist and beating his teeth out (even if it might very well be a just punishment)

[Yamato]

Obviously you didnt read what i said. I said there is a difference between restraining said rapist and beating his teeth out (even if it might very well be a just punishment)

Sure there's a difference but how do you apply the difference? Even in the 3-on-1 scenario, how about restraining the rapist with sufficient force required to subdue him, including physically beating him if necessary? I'm not sure what the motive is here for not being able to support vigilante justice. Let's say I'm alone when I encounter the rape in progress. Not being able to physically overpower the rapist, now what should I do? I would be much more likely to use maximum force (lead pipe to the back of the head) or no force at all (run and call 911). I used rape in the human example, but what if I'm bearing witness to murder? What if I happen upon a woman being beaten severely? Does that change your answer or are we still just restraining the violent criminal without injuring him here.

The fact is, Sea Shepherd is non-violent resistance who doesn't kill or seriously injure anybody. Detaining the whalers until the police show up isn't possible because the police don't show. Therefore the only alternative is to shut the whalers down.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

name='Yamato' timestamp='1342024369' post='4363259']

Everything in the ocean is the way it is because of the shark, the top predator shaping millions of years of oceanic evolution.

Mankind is a bloodthirsty savage slaughtering tens of millions of sharks a year. This butchery must end before our oceans die.

[media=]

[/media]

[/b]

Im glad you brought this up Yam...some people forget that the sharks are being slaughtered also...and mostly just for there fins.I didn't watch the video because i know what its about and it would get my back up....excellent point sir!

[psyche101]

So you are saying if someone saved a child from being abused by having to physically remove and possibley harm the attacker... You would be against it?

I would not call that vigilante justice, I would call the intervention. I would be against the attacker not being reported to police and thrown in jail where the perpetrator belongs.

If I and two of my friends detained a back-alley rapist caught in the act until the police arrived, would you support that? Yes, of course you would! You support vigilante justice! My friends and I made sure justice was done. We did more than just call 911 and report a crime in progress.

What if it was a situation where the police didn't arrive, or wouldn't arrive? Then you'd support vigilante justice even more, right? That's how it is with our oceans.

That is not vigilante justice, that is intervention, the authorities are still involved and the authorities will be the ones to deal out the justice. I just cannot see why authorities would refuse to arrive to a life threatening situation. Vigilante Justice is what the Sea Shepard is doing, punishing the crime in their own court of law, that's not right, and all it is doing is getting more whales killed. As long as the Sea Shepard tells Japan that they cannot take whales, Japan will take a little more each year, even if not needed because of national pride. Be that right or wrong, the Sea Shepard is making the situation worse. All that rancid butter in the past did not stop the Japanese killing so many whales that they ended up putting it in school lunches to get rid of it. What is more rancid butter going to do?

What we need to do is try and get something akin to the 1986 Whaling moratorium happening again, and do it right his time. As long as the Sea Shepard is out there, the Japanese will be too.

[psyche101]

Bravo. Australia could single-handedly stop it cold and become the enlightened center of the Pacific but other than a lot of flowery rhetoric, it just can't get it up. It's already double or triple illegal to kill whales there. If we want to address the matter legally, we supporters of Sea Shepherd represent the Global Moratorium on Commercial Whaling, the World Charter for Nature, the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone, and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Japan would be slaughtered in court, that's why they tolerate Sea Shepherd as much as they do.

The Japanese do not enter globally recognised Australian Waters. Australia can do no more than Canada on this one. The US stuffed the moratorium that allowed whaling to start up again. That agreement is the only break whaling has had in recorded history. The Sea Shepard have only managed to aggravate the situation year after year. They cause more death by provocation. If they left well enough alone, the situation may well not be as bad as it is today. Time for the Sea Shepard to realise they are doing just as much harm as they think they are doing good.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

I would not call that vigilante justice, I would call the intervention. I would be against the attacker not being reported to police and thrown in jail where the perpetrator belongs.

That is not vigilante justice, that is intervention, the authorities are still involved and the authorities will be the ones to deal out the justice. I just cannot see why authorities would refuse to arrive to a life threatening situation. Vigilante Justice is what the Sea Shepard is doing, punishing the crime in their own court of law, that's not right, and all it is doing is getting more whales killed. As long as the Sea Shepard tells Japan that they cannot take whales, Japan will take a little more each year, even if not needed because of national pride. Be that right or wrong, the Sea Shepard is making the situation worse. All that rancid butter in the past did not stop the Japanese killing so many whales that they ended up putting it in school lunches to get rid of it. What is more rancid butter going to do?

What we need to do is try and get something akin to the 1986 Whaling moratorium happening again, and do it right his time. As long as the Sea Shepard is out there, the Japanese will be too.

Two wrongs dont make a right though psyche....we are raping the seas of all her bounties...what happens when they are all dry?..