Japanese whalers had a quota of 850 minke whales for the just-ended hunting season but are heading home having caught only 551, which the country's Fisheries Agency blames on "sabotage by activists." The militant Sea Shepherd Society had been all up in whalers' biz throughout the season. Anti-whalers were quick to point out that hunters admitted to catching zero fin whales, instead of 50, because they didn't spot very many. A hard time finding whales, says Greenpeace's Junichi Sato, "is a good reason why they should not conduct lethal research."
sources:
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Threaded
caniscandida Posted 5:29 pm
14 Apr 2008
It will be interesting to see what developments there will be at the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission. The Australians, with a new government and a new commitment to ending Antarctic whaling, are perhaps poised to pressure the Japanese much more than in the past.
With regard to the Japanese assertion that whaling is a tradition of theirs, it cannot be emphasized enough that the technique of whaling that they employ, involving a mother factory ship accompanied by smaller chaser ships equipped with harpoon cannons, is a European invention, specifically Norwegian. Before they became masters of modern industrial naval technology toward the end of the 19th century, the Japanese might very well have killed whales not far off their coasts, even as the people of a couple of coastal villages continue to trap and kill dolphins in their bays. But surely they never killed nearly so many whales as they do now using originally European technology.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:25 pm
14 Apr 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:19 pm
14 Apr 2008
I don't think they actually did, claim victory that is. It was the Japanese Fishieries Agency that said it was disrupted by activists (amongst other things).
I don't think victory will be claimed until the whaling stops entirely.
Also, they had a quota of 850, but ended up with 551...but do the normally catch the full quota anyway?
And this may be less whales than were caught last year, but it's still more than it was 3 years ago.
Still have a ways to go.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:32 pm
14 Apr 2008
I am thinking in terms of a rivalry between Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, with the latter tending to count coup in this last season. But it is the Japanese spokesman for Greenpeace who reminds us that there is nothing to congratulate ourselves for; a high number of minke whales (such as the one in Grist's picture) was killed, never mind that the number was not as high as the whalers had hoped.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:49 pm
14 Apr 2008
Whales would be a good species to preserve, evolution could continue on a more productive post-human path that way.
Will life go all the way back to the bacterial level this time? We won't be around to realize it, if so. Maybe mother earth will have to start life up again with spores from space?
"Humans, their heartbeat annoys me!" ("So Beautiful and So Dangerous" 1974?).
Permalink
Dutch Ubertrout Posted 4:36 am
15 Apr 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:42 am
15 Apr 2008
My experience with Greenpeace bears out Captain Watson's complaints. While Greenpeace does a lot of good work, it pales in comparison to Sea Shepherd Society. I still like Greenpeace, but strongly prefer Sea Shepherd.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:43 am
15 Apr 2008
From what I have read lately, especially in connexion with this past whaling expedition, I gather that publicly, the Sea Shepherd people, including Captain Watson, do not at all mind praising Greenpeace; but the Greenpeace people by contrast try to distance themselves from Sea Shepherd, allegedly because of their violence-skirting tactics, and harbor some sort of resentment against Watson. E.g., I think when the Esperanza knew the position of the Japanese fleet but the Steve Irwin did not, Watson requested knowledge of the position from Greenpeace, and Greenpeace refused.
So, I cannot help suspecting that aside from what Watson and the Sea Shepherd people say publicly, privately they are feeling proud of themselves for outdoing Greenpeace this time.
What I have learned in the last couple of months is that I need to learn more about Sea Shepherd. Generally, I like what the Steve Irwin did in the South, and now I like what the Farley Mowat was doing in the North, before the Mounties boarded them, silenced them, and locked them down in Sydney.
("Never fear, Nell! I, Dudley Do-right, am here to save you!" Only this time, Dudley is on the side of Mister Big.)
As for fund-raising: A lot of environmentalist and conservationist groups are accused of devoting too much effort to fund-raising. I am too anti-puritanical, or too much of a greenhorn, to bother myself about it.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:22 pm
15 Apr 2008
<<
In the last few days Sea Shepherd (http://www.SeaShepherd.org) has been making international news, including many front pages, on two counts: The Canadian government handed the organization a wealth of publicity when it stormed and seized the group's ship, the Farley Mowat. And the Japanese Whalers are ending their hunt with half as big a kill toll as they had hoped; they blame the activists.
It is interesting to note that while the stories have made front page news in Canada, and leading news throughout Australia and the UK, both have been largely ignored by the US media. Papers such as USA Today and the Los Angeles Times have not touched on the stories this week. The New York Times did a perfunctory story on Monday April 14, headed "Bail in Canada for 2 From Protest Ship" which said only:
"A court in Nova Scotia granted bail on Sunday to two crew members of a seal hunt protest ship that was stormed and seized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
"The protest ship, Farley Mowat, which is owned by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, was raided on Saturday after Canadian officials charged that it had endangered the lives of seal hunters off the coast of Newfoundland, interfered with fisheries officers and 'forced two collisions' with a Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker.
"The animal rights group contends that the ship, which is registered in the Netherlands, was in international waters at the time of the raid, making the police action illegal.
"There were 17 crew members, including 6 Americans, aboard the Farley Mowat when it was boarded by the police tactical squad, said Allison Lance, a spokeswoman for Sea Shepherd. However, charges were made against only the captain, a Dutch national, and his first mate, a Swede."
You'll find it on line at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/world/americas/14canada ...
Some letters to the editor could generate more discussion of the matter. The New York Times takes letters at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 109';l[26]=' 111';l[27]=' 99';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 115';l[30]=' 101';l[31]=' 109';l[32]=' 105';l[33]=' 116';l[34]=' 121';l[35]=' 110';l[36]=' 64';l[37]=' 115';l[38]=' 114';l[39]=' 101';l[40]=' 116';l[41]=' 116';l[42]=' 101';l[43]=' 108';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
"But Canada knew days in advance they were dealing with a shipshape photo op.
"By staging a heavy-handed takedown of a vessel run mostly by youthful volunteers acting more like a nuisance than a menace, they may have inadvertently become a willing partner in an anti-sealing crusade."
You can respond to the National Post at http://tinyurl.com/3agn6t
If the story is in your local paper, please respond there!
The other big Sea Shepherd story is in the Australian, The Age, and in the UK's Independent, Tuesday, April 15, where it is headed "Japanese whalers blame 'sabotage'." (pg 24)
It tells us:
"A Japanese fishing fleet is expected to return from its latest expedition having killed just over half its target number of whales.
"The 8,000-tonne Nisshin Maru factory ship and five other whaling vessels were due to dock in Japan last night after returning from the Antarctic laden with the meat from 551 minke whales caught during a four-month 'research' voyage which was repeatedly targeted by animal rights activists.
"The catch was far below the target of 935 set by the Japanese authorities, which in turn blamed the campaigners, the American-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Greenpeace, for reducing the amount of time it could devote to hunting for 'scientific purposes'".
We read that "Activists on board a vessel from the Sea Shepherd group repeatedly clashed with the Japanese fleet as it plied the Southern Ocean looking for minke whales and the much larger fin whales." And we have the following quote from a spokesman for Japan's Fisheries Agency: "Sabotage by activists is a major factor behind our failure to achieve our target. We did not have enough time for research because we had to avoid sabotage."
You'll find that article on line at http://tinyurl.com/3hemdr and can send a letter to The Independent at letters@independent.co.uk. The paper advises, "Letters for publication in the newspaper must include the sender's name, postal address and daytime telephone number."
Again, if the story appears in your local media, please take the opportunity to send a letter to the editor.
Yours and the animals',
Karen Dawn
(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. You may forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts if you do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this parenthesized tag line. If somebody forwards DawnWatch alerts to you, which you enjoy, please help the list grow by signing up. It is free.)
Please go to http://www.ThankingtheMonkey.com to read advance reviews of Karen Dawn's new book, "Thanking the Monkey: Rethinking the Way we Treat Animals" and watch the fun celebrity studded promo video.
>>
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:31 am
16 Apr 2008
<<
Whales: The Japanese whaling fleet returned to port short of their quota by nearly half, and blamed environmentalists for disrupting the hunt. We should all be proud of the role we played in saving 439 whales when our ship the Esperanza pursued the Nisshin Maru for 15 days across 4,300 miles of the Antarctic whale sanctuary, shutting down the whole whaling operation for the entirety of the epic chase.
>>
The issue of rivalry turns on which group, Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd, claims to have saved the lives of more whales. And, more specifically, how does Greenpeace's claim, that just "pursuing" the Nisshin Maru (the whaling fleet's mother ship, i.e. the factory ship) was enough to "shut down the whole whaling operation," hold up against Sea Shepherd's implied rival claim, that the more aggressive tactics of the Sea Shepherd people were required?
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:11 am
17 Apr 2008
This is exactly what I meant about Greenpeace's obsession with fundraising. Due to that obsession, Greenpeace feels it has to be more conservative in order to not alienate its contributors.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:19 am
17 Apr 2008
That's not really true, Wolverine. The fleet tried to postpone all whaling in the prescence of Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, and the Australian observers.
They only resumed whaling operations after tryiin' to outrun all three, but eventually the pressure was too much and they whaled anyway, but tried to position their boats in a way so the actual actions couldn't be seen.
In years past, when it was just Greenpeace and Sea shepherd wasn't on the scene yet, they did the same thing.
The only difference in this situation may have been the few days lost when the Japanese were chasin' after Sea Shepherd with their "hostage pirates" aboard.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:55 pm
18 Apr 2008
The Sea Shepherd people had amazing good luck, in getting aboard the whalers' mother ship a global-positioning device. That made them much more effective in locating and homing in on the whaling fleet.
Earlier, when the Greenpeace people had located the whaling fleet first, they refused to give coordinates to Sea Shepherd's Steve Irwin, in spite of Captain Paul Watson's request for information -- the published reason being, that Greenpeace wanted to be free of association with a "violent" group of activists.
Eventually, the Sea Shepherd people discovered on their own -- no thanks to Greenpeace! -- the position of the whaling fleet; and their boarders managed to stick a GPD on board the mother ship. So, possibly, it could be argued that any disruption of whaling activities prior to that was thanks to Greenpeace activities; and any disruption subsequent was thanks to Sea Shepherd activities.
But that strikes me as rather too legalistic.
I think TasPar's general judgement is OK. But I also think that Wolverine may be right, that the Sea Shepherd people's aggressive tactics put a scare into the whalers, which neither the Greenpeace people nor the Australians gave them.
Permalink