Sea Sheperd has a rough day in the 9th Circuit Court

[Humptulips]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/12/51237.htm

Whale Defenders Take a Beating in 9th Circuit
By JUNE WILLIAMS
   ShareThis   


     SEATTLE (CN) - The 9th Circuit showed no mercy at a hearing involving activists who launch high seas attacks on the Japanese whalers that allegedly invoke research to cloak their kills.
     The Institute of Cetacean Research has permits from the Japanese government to kill whales for scientific research, but critics say the whales killed are used for food and that the research permits circumvent the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling.
     For the last seven whaling seasons, which run from December through March, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has sent a fleet of boats to confront the whalers. Some of the Sea Shepherd's tactics include attempting to disable the whalers' propellers, throwing projectiles filled with paint or butyric acid at the ships, and intentionally piloting its ships to cause collisions with the whaling ships.
     The Sea Shepherd's tactics have also been the subject of the "Whale Wars" television series on Animal Planet.
     The Institute of Cetacean Research sued the Sea Shepherd and its founder Paul Watson in 2011, asking the court to prevent the environmentalists from attacking the crew or interfering with the navigation of whaling ships by imposing an 800-meter safety zone.
     Claiming that Sea Shepherd engages in piracy and terrorism, the complaint also sought to freeze the group's assets under the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
     The terrorist claims will be heard at a trial in 2013, but U.S. District Judge Richard Jones denied a preliminary injunction after finding that the whalers claim were not likely to suffer irreparable harm. Jones said the Sea Shepherd has "hurt no one despite using essentially the same tactics for eight whaling seasons."
     "Sea Shepherd's small boats presents no risk of injury to the whalers," he wrote in March. "The navigation of its large ships to collide with or come too close to the whaling ships presents a risk of injury, but there is nothing in the record from which the court could conclude that injury is likely as a result."
     The order also said that public interest weighs against an injunction.
     "The public interest no doubt favors the right of ships and their crew to travel freely on the open seas," Jones wrote. "But that interest is tempered by two countervailing interests: the preservation of marine life and the interest in avoiding judicial interference in international political controversies."
     "If the court were to grant the whalers their injunction, more whales would die," he added. "This is not in the public interest."
     The whalers argued before a three-judge appeals panel on Tuesday that the lower court "misapplied" the standard for evaluating the likelihood or irreparable harm.
     John Neupert, representing the Institute of Cetacean Research, said it "wasn't logical" to find that collisions are "highly likely" yet still deny irreparable harm.
     Approving an 800-meter "safety zone" would allow the Sea Shepherd to observe, film and protest whaling activities, but end the violence directed at the ships and crew, the Miller Nash attorney said.
     "It's a simple case," Neupert said. "Violence should not be condoned."
     Arguing that the whalers' actions are legal in international waters, Neupert compared his client's plight to the case to a woman prevented from entering an abortion clinic by protesters throwing rocks and bottles.
     Sea Shepherd attorney Dan Harris faced a barrage of hostile questions from the judges, who at times raised their voices and talked over one another as they tried to pin down irreparable harm.
     "Sinking a boat at sea, people could drown," Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said. "That sounds to me like likelihood of irreparable harm. Your clients are deliberately engaging in activities that put vessels and people on them in harm's way."
     Kozinski asked Harris how he could conclude that harm, if it occurred, would not be irreparable.
     Harris said the Sea Shepherd has never sunk a ship with anyone on it. Kozinski then asked if the environmentalists had rammed ships.
     "The Sea Shephard has not rammed any ships belonging to the whalers," Harris said.
     "Has it rammed ships?" Kozinski asked again.
     Harris replied that he was unsure.
     Judge Milan Smith noted that, "in this case clearly, repeatedly, there have been attempts to disable the ship."
     Judge A. Wallace Tashima jumped in to ask: "Don't you think an attempt to foul a propeller is a dangerous activity?"
     Harris said it was not dangerous because the whaling vessels are "state of the art" and had anti-prop-fouling devices.
     Smith raised his voice in reply. "Are you representing to the court, as an officer of the court, that your clients have not repeatedly tried in the hope that they would be successful, to foul props?" he asked.
     Harris answered: "No, because I don't know what the intent of my clients has been when they have employed prop fouling."
     "Counsel, that is so disingenuous," Smith said.
     Harris insisted there is no evidence that the Sea Shepherd had ever come close to fouling a prop. And he said that the environmentalists plan to make the next whaling season "safer than the last."
     This statement infuriated Smith.
     "Come on!" Smith said. "You mean to try to increase the likelihood of fouling the props -- that is an attempt to make it safer for everybody on board that ship?"
     Kozinski interjected: "If they really wanted to make it safer they just wouldn't do it," while Smith chimed in: "Don't go at all."
     Harris said: "What they're trying to do is stop whaling. They're certainly not trying to injure anyone."
     But Smith had no patience for this argument.
     "That's because they weren't successful," Smith said. "Not because you didn't try."
     Kozinski ended the exchange by asking Harris about the piracy claim.
     "Your clients have a view of life and they try to pursue that by damaging other people's property," Kozinski said. "I don't see how this doesn't meet the definition of piracy."
     Harris said that universal standards define piracy as an act of theft or stealing.
     The lawyer then cautioned the court against issuing an injunction.
     "If this court issues an injunction, it will be stepping into an international controversy," Harris said.
     Tashima was not impressed. "Is that a reason to not exercise judicial bar?" he asked. "Because you might be stepping into a controversy?"
     Harris replied: "It is when the executive branch has already expressed its views on this controversy and the most recent views from the executive branch are condemning whaling."

[blackdog]

Hang em high!

[pianoman9701]

I hope they get the injunction. And then, I hope they disobey it. That will be the end of that ego-maniacal windbag and their vessels.

[jackmaster]

i am all for hunting but i will never see the point in killing whales or dolphins, not in this day and age anyways, i understand that it was necesary back in the day or even for some of the real remote eskimos, if they want to kill sea going creatures then come here and kill the sealions i guess, idk i just dont agree with killn whales i guess

[pianoman9701]

i am all for hunting but i will never see the point in killing whales or dolphins, not in this day and age anyways, i understand that it was necesary back in the day or even for some of the real remote eskimos, if they want to kill sea going creatures then come here and kill the sealions i guess, idk i just dont agree with killn whales i guess

Then, if you're a hunter, you favor killing of some animals over another based nothing more than emotion to justify your stance.

The responsible harvest of any animal should be supported by hunters, especially when the food is part of centuries old diet and customs, as is the case with whales and Japan. Whales became endangered with over-harvest and have been protected for many decades. They've now rebounded to numbers not seen since the early 1800s. If populations can be monitored and conservation of the resource is made a priority, then we can use science to determine harvest goals, the same way we do with elk, deer, or bears. Just because it's not part of our culture doesn't mean we get to make the rules for everyone. You saying we shouldn't hunt them would be tantamount to the Japanese saying that killing elk is inhumane and should be stopped. How would that sit with you?

[X-Force]

i am all for hunting but i will never see the point in killing whales or dolphins, not in this day and age anyways, i understand that it was necessary back in the day or even for some of the real remote Eskimos, if they want to kill sea going creatures then come here and kill the sealions i guess, idk i just dont agree with killn whales i guess

Then, if you're a hunter, you favor killing of some animals over another based nothing more than emotion to justify your stance.

The responsible harvest of any animal should be supported by hunters, especially when the food is part of centuries old diet and customs, as is the case with whales and Japan. Whales became endangered with over-harvest and have been protected for many decades. They've now rebounded to numbers not seen since the early 1800s. If populations can be monitored and conservation of the resource is made a priority, then we can use science to determine harvest goals, the same way we do with elk, deer, or bears. Just because it's not part of our culture doesn't mean we get to make the rules for everyone. You saying we shouldn't hunt them would be tantamount to the Japanese saying that killing elk is inhumane and should be stopped. How would that sit with you?

Im glad to see there is some common sense on the bench in regards to the 3 judge panel.

Judge Jones should be thrown off the bench for his activist bs!

[lokidog]

i am all for hunting but i will never see the point in killing whales or dolphins, not in this day and age anyways, i understand that it was necesary back in the day or even for some of the real remote eskimos, if they want to kill sea going creatures then come here and kill the sealions i guess, idk i just dont agree with killn whales i guess

Then, if you're a hunter, you favor killing of some animals over another based nothing more than emotion to justify your stance.

The responsible harvest of any animal should be supported by hunters, especially when the food is part of centuries old diet and customs, as is the case with whales and Japan. Whales became endangered with over-harvest and have been protected for many decades. They've now rebounded to numbers not seen since the early 1800s. If populations can be monitored and conservation of the resource is made a priority, then we can use science to determine harvest goals, the same way we do with elk, deer, or bears. Just because it's not part of our culture doesn't mean we get to make the rules for everyone. You saying we shouldn't hunt them would be tantamount to the Japanese saying that killing elk is inhumane and should be stopped. How would that sit with you?

This is dead on target.  Everyone that hunts should support the CONSERVATION (wise use) of wildlife.  If a population of ANY animal can support a managed hunt, there should be no reason not to allow the hunt.

"Sea Shepherd engages in piracy and terrorism..."  If they were my whaling ships, each would have at least one .50 cal rifle on board to be used to disable any attacking pirate vessels.

[Huntbear]

i am all for hunting but i will never see the point in killing whales or dolphins, not in this day and age anyways, i understand that it was necesary back in the day or even for some of the real remote eskimos, if they want to kill sea going creatures then come here and kill the sealions i guess, idk i just dont agree with killn whales i guess

Then, if you're a hunter, you favor killing of some animals over another based nothing more than emotion to justify your stance.

The responsible harvest of any animal should be supported by hunters, especially when the food is part of centuries old diet and customs, as is the case with whales and Japan. Whales became endangered with over-harvest and have been protected for many decades. They've now rebounded to numbers not seen since the early 1800s. If populations can be monitored and conservation of the resource is made a priority, then we can use science to determine harvest goals, the same way we do with elk, deer, or bears. Just because it's not part of our culture doesn't mean we get to make the rules for everyone. You saying we shouldn't hunt them would be tantamount to the Japanese saying that killing elk is inhumane and should be stopped. How would that sit with you?

This is dead on target.  Everyone that hunts should support the CONSERVATION (wise use) of wildlife.  If a population of ANY animal can support a managed hunt, there should be no reason not to allow the hunt.

"Sea Shepherd engages in piracy and terrorism..."  If they were my whaling ships, each would have at least one .50 cal rifle on board to be used to disable any attacking pirate vessels.

Disable hell... sink the *censored*s.   They are committing acts of terrorism and piracy. 

But other than that.. SPOT ON!!!!

[boneaddict]

Interesting enough, eventhough these are ecoterrorists, I understand their anger and their plight.  The japenese are manipulating the sytem to get what they want, and the Sea Sheppard is standing up for what they believe is right to this injustice.     I can almost relate to what we have going on in this state regarding tribal hunting and the helpless feeling we all have with the injustices that go on with it.     Never played devils advocate for a environmentalist freak of nature before so bare with me.     I'm sure its comparing apples to oranges, but it reminds me of that anyways, and its probably going to take the same type of character to stand up to the crap in order to get public opinion to make it stop.   Crazy huh?

[PlateauNDN]

i am all for hunting but i will never see the point in killing whales or dolphins, not in this day and age anyways, i understand that it was necesary back in the day or even for some of the real remote eskimos, if they want to kill sea going creatures then come here and kill the sealions i guess, idk i just dont agree with killn whales i guess

Then, if you're a hunter, you favor killing of some animals over another based nothing more than emotion to justify your stance.

The responsible harvest of any animal should be supported by hunters, especially when the food is part of centuries old diet and customs, as is the case with whales and Japan. Whales became endangered with over-harvest and have been protected for many decades. They've now rebounded to numbers not seen since the early 1800s. If populations can be monitored and conservation of the resource is made a priority, then we can use science to determine harvest goals, the same way we do with elk, deer, or bears. Just because it's not part of our culture doesn't mean we get to make the rules for everyone. You saying we shouldn't hunt them would be tantamount to the Japanese saying that killing elk is inhumane and should be stopped. How would that sit with you?

This is dead on target.  Everyone that hunts should support the CONSERVATION (wise use) of wildlife.  If a population of ANY animal can support a managed hunt, there should be no reason not to allow the hunt.

"Sea Shepherd engages in piracy and terrorism..."  If they were my whaling ships, each would have at least one .50 cal rifle on board to be used to disable any attacking pirate vessels.

Disable hell... sink the *censored*s.   They are committing acts of terrorism and piracy. 

But other than that.. SPOT ON!!!!

 

Interesting enough, eventhough these are ecoterrorists, I understand their anger and their plight.  The japenese are manipulating the sytem to get what they want, and the Sea Sheppard is standing up for what they believe is right to this injustice.     I can almost relate to what we have going on in this state regarding tribal hunting and the helpless feeling we all have with the injustices that go on with it.     Never played devils advocate for a environmentalist freak of nature before so bare with me.     I'm sure its comparing apples to oranges, but it reminds me of that anyways, and its probably going to take the same type of character to stand up to the crap in order to get public opinion to make it stop.   Crazy huh?

The air of distinction.  Amazing how so few japanese citizens could cause such a commotion or the Faroese or the Tribes.  I still say they are pirates and eco-terrorists and should be tried and dealt with.

[Huntbear]

Interesting enough, eventhough these are ecoterrorists, I understand their anger and their plight.  The japenese are manipulating the sytem to get what they want, and the Sea Sheppard is standing up for what they believe is right to this injustice.     I can almost relate to what we have going on in this state regarding tribal hunting and the helpless feeling we all have with the injustices that go on with it.     Never played devils advocate for a environmentalist freak of nature before so bare with me.     I'm sure its comparing apples to oranges, but it reminds me of that anyways, and its probably going to take the same type of character to stand up to the crap in order to get public opinion to make it stop.   Crazy huh?

I can understand someone wanting to stop it, to a degree.  HOWEVER, by being ecoterrorists, pirates, and getting it espoused on TV as being the good guy, all it does it prove, that if you are anti, anything, violence and trying to hurt people, and destroying others property is an acceptable way of doing so.... as long as you are a left wing whacko..   Wonder how long it would be before a group of NON natives were drug into court and beaten with a horse whip and jailed for using those tactics Because they were trying to stop the OFF RES hunting...  BUT because most anti anythings are left wing nut jobs, if they do it, it is acceptable and allowed.

Again, there is no equality in any of our laws.  Has not been in many many years.  The thought process that Justice is Blind went away a long long time ago..... 

You do not believe me?  Go ask a Spanish speaking illegal....   But then, just by saying that, I can be branded a racist, because again, there is no EQUALITY of JUSTICE anymore.

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

i am all for hunting but i will never see the point in killing whales or dolphins, not in this day and age anyways, i understand that it was necesary back in the day or even for some of the real remote eskimos, if they want to kill sea going creatures then come here and kill the sealions i guess, idk i just dont agree with killn whales i guess

Then, if you're a hunter, you favor killing of some animals over another based nothing more than emotion to justify your stance.

The responsible harvest of any animal should be supported by hunters, especially when the food is part of centuries old diet and customs, as is the case with whales and Japan. Whales became endangered with over-harvest and have been protected for many decades. They've now rebounded to numbers not seen since the early 1800s. If populations can be monitored and conservation of the resource is made a priority, then we can use science to determine harvest goals, the same way we do with elk, deer, or bears. Just because it's not part of our culture doesn't mean we get to make the rules for everyone. You saying we shouldn't hunt them would be tantamount to the Japanese saying that killing elk is inhumane and should be stopped. How would that sit with you?

The problem with your argument is that the whales are protected and there is a worldwide ban on hunting them.  The japs found a loophole and are abusing it. 

It's like there is a ban on elk hunting statewide because they were over hunted, but Ted nugent gets degree in biology and can harvest elk for scientific purposes.   We all know he found a loophole and is abusing it for personal gain.  Would the sit well with you?

[boneaddict]

I agree with both of you.   Thats how convoluted this is.   

[Huntbear]

I agree with both of you.   Thats how convoluted this is.

 

 

 

[lokidog]

i am all for hunting but i will never see the point in killing whales or dolphins, not in this day and age anyways, i understand that it was necesary back in the day or even for some of the real remote eskimos, if they want to kill sea going creatures then come here and kill the sealions i guess, idk i just dont agree with killn whales i guess

Then, if you're a hunter, you favor killing of some animals over another based nothing more than emotion to justify your stance.

The responsible harvest of any animal should be supported by hunters, especially when the food is part of centuries old diet and customs, as is the case with whales and Japan. Whales became endangered with over-harvest and have been protected for many decades. They've now rebounded to numbers not seen since the early 1800s. If populations can be monitored and conservation of the resource is made a priority, then we can use science to determine harvest goals, the same way we do with elk, deer, or bears. Just because it's not part of our culture doesn't mean we get to make the rules for everyone. You saying we shouldn't hunt them would be tantamount to the Japanese saying that killing elk is inhumane and should be stopped. How would that sit with you?

The problem with your argument is that the whales are protected and there is a worldwide ban on hunting them.  The japs found a loophole and are abusing it. 

It's like there is a ban on elk hunting statewide because they were over hunted, but Ted nugent gets degree in biology and can harvest elk for scientific purposes.   We all know he found a loophole and is abusing it for personal gain.  Would the sit well with you?

Wolves are protected in many areas as well.  Does that mean that it is right?  The whales that are being targeted by the Japanese are not endangered, just like the gray whales targeted by the Makahs.  Maybe the laws need to be revised?  Maybe science should be used instead of emotion to manage wildlife (whales and wolves).  Most game animals had their hunting closed at one point or other in some location, management has allowed those populations to rebound enough to allow for managed hunting, maybe the whales need to be looked at again in a scientific manner.

Either way, nothing excuses PIRACY or terrorism.