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

[boneaddict]

politics, and give a *censored* factor.  Same reason for some of our woes.

[boneaddict]

Is SSS in fact a form of "eco -terrorism" or not?  or is it reverse eco-terrorism

[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?

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?

The Japanese don't recognize the ban. They didn't sign the whale treaty because it infringes on their sovereignty and is no longer based on any scientific data, seeing that whales are in full recovery world-wide. Much like we shouldn't sign a UN small arms treaty - we don't believe it's necessary and have the data to back it up.

A ban on elk hunting would occur if herd sizes were dangerously low. When they rebounded, the ban would be lifted. The ban on whaling should be lifted, as well. There are plenty of them and responsible harvest should be recognized as a valid conservation option.

So because I choose not to recognize a law or ban that makes it ok?

 Fine I don't know what spike only rule your talking about. ; )

Again, you're using an apples to oranges comparison. Our laws guide our actions within the US. If we don't follow them, we get busted. However, we don't get to tell a sovereign nation what their people have to do. If they agree with a treaty, yes, it's binding. But if they don't, that's up to them. In the case of the whales, the Japanese never signed onto a whale ban, like we never signed onto the Kyoto Protocol. The whales are now in full recovery and could be hunted responsibly like any other resource. Just because you think the whales are cute and shouldn't be hunted doesn't mean you have the right to assert your opinion, however right you think it is, over another sovereign country.

[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?

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?

The Japanese don't recognize the ban. They didn't sign the whale treaty because it infringes on their sovereignty and is no longer based on any scientific data, seeing that whales are in full recovery world-wide. Much like we shouldn't sign a UN small arms treaty - we don't believe it's necessary and have the data to back it up.

A ban on elk hunting would occur if herd sizes were dangerously low. When they rebounded, the ban would be lifted. The ban on whaling should be lifted, as well. There are plenty of them and responsible harvest should be recognized as a valid conservation option.

So because I choose not to recognize a law or ban that makes it ok?

 Fine I don't know what spike only rule your talking about. ; )

Again, you're using an apples to oranges comparison. Our laws guide our actions within the US. If we don't follow them, we get busted. However, we don't get to tell a sovereign nation what their people have to do. If they agree with a treaty, yes, it's binding. But if they don't, that's up to them. In the case of the whales, the Japanese never signed onto a whale ban, like we never signed onto the Kyoto Protocol. The whales are now in full recovery and could be hunted responsibly like any other resource. Just because you think the whales are cute and shouldn't be hunted doesn't mean you have the right to assert your opinion, however right you think it is, over another sovereign country.

Bone, I got what you were saying right off the back.  I can agree that there are those that are abusing what our ancestors fought and died for and they should be punished but, I also don't agree with a State government attempting to intervene in an agreement they did not sign or agree to.  Two (2) Nations came to an agreement to stop the blood shed and to allow one another to continue on with their ways in a smaller more controlled lifestyle.  While we are abiding by our Treaty that WE signed with the Federal Govt. there is conflicting issues and until the abusers are dealt with there will always be conflicting issues.

They don't agree with the Treaty so they didn't sign it just as our country here doesn't agree with the arms treaty.  Everybody doesn't agree with something but, does that mean they or we have the right to force our will on another Nation just because we don't agree with them? 

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

Yes but isn't the hunting going on it international waters?  Or are the hunting in Japanese waters only?  The argument is not about whether the population can handle a few animals I be taken, it's the fact that other nations have agreed to not hunt these animals, anywhere, yet Japan has found a way to say fruck roo evrebody rlese, we doring what re  rwant!!!  (my attempt at a Japanese accent)

If its in international waters, which everyone can use, then every nation that uses them should agree to what is
Allowed and not allowed in them, right?
If its only Japanese waters, then it's their choice, we wouldn't want someone telling us we can't catch crab or tuna in our waters.

[pianoman9701]

Yes but isn't the hunting going on it international waters?  Or are the hunting in Japanese waters only?  The argument is not about whether the population can handle a few animals I be taken, it's the fact that other nations have agreed to not hunt these animals, anywhere, yet Japan has found a way to say fruck roo evrebody rlese, we doring what re  rwant!!!  (my attempt at a Japanese accent)

If its in international waters, which everyone can use, then every nation that uses them should agree to what is
Allowed and not allowed in them, right?
If its only Japanese waters, then it's their choice, we wouldn't want someone telling us we can't catch crab or tuna in our waters.

International waters are just that; everyone gets access to it. Laws and treaties are two different things. No one has the right to tell you what to do in international water unless it hurts another and has been established as an international maritime crime, which whaling is not. Piracy is covered under international maritime law, however and the Sea Sheppard is in danger of being blown out of the water for committing that crime.

[BOWHUNTER45]

About time ... I have been praying the dang boat would sink 

[boneaddict]

full recovery and could be hunted responsibly like any other resource

Who manages the resource?
Who declairs whether they are in recovery or not?

[pianoman9701]

full recovery and could be hunted responsibly like any other resource

Who manages the resource?
Who declairs whether they are in recovery or not?

Monterey Bay Aquarium. although they're not likely to support harvest, they can provide population statistics on each species. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. is another that tracks whale populations

[boneaddict]

and do they control how many and of what whale can be harvested?  and would they enforce and with what if one individual country took more than they were supposed to?

[pianoman9701]

and do they control how many and of what whale can be harvested?  and would they enforce and with what if one individual country took more than they were supposed to?

Unless an individual country signed a treaty of cooperation, it would be unenforceable. I have no idea who would control whale harvest. Not in the business lately.

[Bofire]

Who controls it for all the other marine life?? fish or animals??
Carl

[pianoman9701]

There is an International Whaling Commission which oversees the Whale Ban Treaty and reports to the members on those hunting. I think there are other countries who do limited whaling, like Iceland and/or other Nordic countries.

[pianoman9701]

IWC:
http://iwcoffice.org/

[boneaddict]

Unless an individual country signed a treaty of cooperation, it would be unenforceable. I have no idea who would control whale harvest. Not in the business lately.

It seemed like you were advocating that Japan could harvest what they want where they wanted because the whale population was whole.  You were discussing that as a soveriegn nation, we had no input on that harvest.  Is that similiar to tribal harvest here in Washington?  I guess the Mikahs also are considered a soveriegn nation for if the US had signed that treaty of no whaling, and they violated that treaty then what?