Post by: Humptulips on October 14, 2012, 01:52:11 PM
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."
Post by: blackdog on October 14, 2012, 07:21:24 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 06:54:14 AM
Post by: jackmaster on October 15, 2012, 07:01:27 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
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?
Post by: X-Force on October 15, 2012, 07:56:39 AM
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?
:yeah: 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!
Post by: lokidog on October 15, 2012, 09:03:15 AM
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.
Post by: Huntbear on October 15, 2012, 09:10:52 AM
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!!!!
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 09:28:00 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 15, 2012, 09:36:12 AM
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!!!!
:yeah:
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. :chuckle: 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.
Post by: Huntbear on October 15, 2012, 09:40:14 AM
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. :chuckle: 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.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on October 15, 2012, 09:40:14 AM
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?
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 09:42:55 AM
Post by: Huntbear on October 15, 2012, 09:44:43 AM
I agree with both of you. Thats how convoluted this is.
:yeah:
:o :o :o
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: lokidog on October 15, 2012, 09:51:32 AM
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.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 15, 2012, 09:53:36 AM
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.
:yeah: From what I hear it sounds exactly like how this State is managing wildlife, with emotions/feelings and not science. :dunno:
Post by: jackmaster on October 15, 2012, 09:58:51 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 09:59:27 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 10:02:55 AM
if someone could show me that the japanese are using whales for reason other than making a ton of money off of them, then by all means if the number of whales support the taking a few of them then fine, but when they are killing them so they can sell them in their sushi shops for a crap load of money then WTF, we cant do that with elk and deer can we? no we cannot kill elk and deer for profit, like i said there is a bunch of sealions that need alot more thinning than whales do, what do they do with these big ass whales when they do kill one, they sell them.....atleast some of the remote eskimos actually still use the whole whale, for clothes, food, weapons and if i remember right they make candles out of the fat, i think it would be sweet to get to go on a hunt with the eskimos to get a whale i bet it would be quite the experience..... :tup:
The same could be said for elk hunting, especially for trophies. You don't get to tell other countries what to do with their food. It's elitist, socialist thinking that we should have any say in responsible harvests that happen internationally. If they sell them, they're supporting their economy like we do by selling timber. It's a sustainable resource and you've made no argument that says we should interfere. I certainly don't want them coming over here and telling me what i should be doing with our animals.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 10:04:09 AM
if someone could show me that the japanese are using whales for reason other than making a ton of money off of them, then by all means if the number of whales support the taking a few of them then fine, but when they are killing them so they can sell them in their sushi shops for a crap load of money then WTF, we cant do that with elk and deer can we? no we cannot kill elk and deer for profit, like i said there is a bunch of sealions that need alot more thinning than whales do, what do they do with these big ass whales when they do kill one, they sell them.....atleast some of the remote eskimos actually still use the whole whale, for clothes, food, weapons and if i remember right they make candles out of the fat, i think it would be sweet to get to go on a hunt with the eskimos to get a whale i bet it would be quite the experience..... :tup:
The same could be said about our fishing for salmon or cod. It's all for profit, so we shouldn't be able to do it. You don't get to tell other countries what to do with their food. It's elitist, socialist thinking that we should have any say in responsible harvests that happen internationally. If they sell them, they're supporting their economy like we do by selling timber. It's a sustainable resource and you've made no argument that says we should interfere. I certainly don't want them coming over here and telling me what i should be doing with our animals.
Post by: jackmaster on October 15, 2012, 10:12:13 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 15, 2012, 10:14:10 AM
ok thats fine i will agree with you on all of that, but if the numbers are high enough then should i get to jump in my boat and go out to neah bay and kill a whale? if the japanese get to then we should be able to, right? and who is gonna keep the japs from coming into american waters and killing are whales that we want to kill? like i said before that might have gotton missed, i am for taking a few whales if the number support it.
Our US MILITARY who else. They are operating in international waters not foreign waters.
Post by: lokidog on October 15, 2012, 10:18:44 AM
ok thats fine i will agree with you on all of that, but if the numbers are high enough then should i get to jump in my boat and go out to neah bay and kill a whale? if the japanese get to then we should be able to, right? and who is gonna keep the japs from coming into american waters and killing are whales that we want to kill? like i said before that might have gotton missed, i am for taking a few whales if the number support it.
The same thing that keeps them from coming to Westport or into Puget Sound to catch salmon would keep them from killing "our" whales. If there was a whale season and you could harvest one by yourself without wasting it, go for it!
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 10:23:50 AM
ok thats fine i will agree with you on all of that, but if the numbers are high enough then should i get to jump in my boat and go out to neah bay and kill a whale? if the japanese get to then we should be able to, right? and who is gonna keep the japs from coming into american waters and killing are whales that we want to kill? like i said before that might have gotton missed, i am for taking a few whales if the number support it.
I agree completely. I'd love to whale hunt. And, our territorial waters extend for 250 miles out. If they fished for what we consider protected species in our waters, their boats would be boarded and taken, just like any others.
Post by: rasbo on October 15, 2012, 10:24:55 AM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on October 15, 2012, 10:25:51 AM
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. ; )
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 15, 2012, 10:28:19 AM
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. ; )
No, because they are a completely separate Nation not under the jurisdiction of this Nation. We can't go to their home and tell them what to do just as they can't do the same. They didn't agree with the Whale Compact so they didn't sign, they don't have to sign or recognize it so they didn't.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 15, 2012, 10:29:27 AM
thought I harvested one once,turned out it was a fat chick in a gray tavern jacket..no more tequila for me...bad bad juju :chuckle:
If you woke up next to it then I think that counts as harvesting it. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Tequila made your clothes fall off! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 10:32:26 AM
One of the issues I am thinking is being missed is that they are fishing what kind of waters....Japanese waters or someone elses or shared, or is this their CEDED area. :).
Post by: kentrek on October 15, 2012, 10:34:07 AM
nothing ? at what point WOULD it be "okay"..piracy an terrorism are just tacticts used by lesser power individuals who believe in a cause...havent Americans used these taticts ?? :dunno:
money makes the world go round an until that stops peaple are going to abuse rules for personal gain..back to the op,if the whale hunters were infact bending the rules why wouldnt higher powers have gotten involved ? :dunno: they love whale backstraps :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 10:36:23 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 10:37:16 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 10:59:52 AM
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.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 15, 2012, 11:09:13 AM
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?
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on October 15, 2012, 11:19:34 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 11:26:46 AM
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.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 15, 2012, 12:06:58 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 12:24:39 PM
Quote
full recovery and could be hunted responsibly like any other resource
Who manages the resource?
Who declairs whether they are in recovery or not?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 01:01:22 PM
Quotefull 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
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 01:21:46 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 01:25:17 PM
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.
Post by: Bofire on October 15, 2012, 01:27:40 PM
Carl
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 01:35:34 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 01:36:12 PM
http://iwcoffice.org/ (http://iwcoffice.org/)
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 01:38:54 PM
Quote
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?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2012, 01:45:53 PM
QuoteUnless 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?
I didn't say we had no input. But, opinions are like butt holes. Our input would be an opinion. There's presently no need for a blanket ban on whaling. I believe that the Japanese would sign onto a treaty which included reasonable harvest goals and conservation of specific whale populations. The ban as it now stands takes into account none of the advances and population increases. I understand completely why they're telling the signers of the ban treaty to fo guck themselves.
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 01:56:43 PM
Quote
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. ....... 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?
curious of how this juxtapositions itself to wolves and wolf recovery in this state, and how tribal hunting or "unregulated harvest by a soverign nation." that in this case refuses to amend a treaty as it dips into their purse or consumption, and those furious about that.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 15, 2012, 02:44:18 PM
So, right back to page one....QuoteInteresting 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. ....... 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?
curious of how this juxtapositions itself to wolves and wolf recovery in this state, and how tribal hunting or "unregulated harvest by a soverign nation." that in this case refuses to amend a treaty as it dips into their purse or consumption, and those furious about that.
It does go back to square one for your question. It will take a lot for anything to occur and as you can tell it took a lot for the Japanese to do what? Nothing. It will take a lot here to bring the abusers to some form of justice. Like I said before, if anybody wants the abusers to stop then step forward and put it down on paper and stand behind their word before those that have the power to do something about it, otherwise they're not doing anybody or anything any good. Talking is one thing, doing something is something completely different.
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 02:57:32 PM
Post by: Atroxus on October 15, 2012, 03:01:32 PM
With todays environment is it even worth it? You know, put your family at risk just because you see someone do something. Keep your mouth shut and turn your head........ Kind of why I almost admire their convictions eventhough I think they are whackjobs.
I would admire their convictions if they went about things in a responsible, ethical and legal manner. As is I can't get past seeing them as not just whackjobs, but dangerous whackjobs. They really need to be arrested or at the very least be forced to pay for any damages they have caused with their antics.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 15, 2012, 03:04:21 PM
With todays environment is it even worth it? You know, put your family at risk just because you see someone do something. Keep your mouth shut and turn your head........ Kind of why I almost admire their convictions eventhough I think they are whackjobs.
I can agree, something needs to be done to the abusers, not the entirety and I can also agree that at least they're doing something other than sitting around complaining even though I know it's piracy and eco-terrorism and don't agree with it. I don't however agree with keeping ones mouth shut or turning ones head. If I see something wrong I will speak up and act upon it. :tup:
With todays environment is it even worth it? You know, put your family at risk just because you see someone do something. Keep your mouth shut and turn your head........ Kind of why I almost admire their convictions eventhough I think they are whackjobs.
I would admire their convictions if they went about things in a responsible, ethical and legal manner. As is I can't get past seeing them as not just whackjobs, but dangerous whackjobs. They really need to be arrested or at the very least be forced to pay for any damages they have caused with their antics.
:yeah:
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 03:22:19 PM
Quote
would admire their convictions if they went about things in a responsible, ethical and legal manner. As is I can't get past seeing them as not just whackjobs, but dangerous whackjobs. They really need to be arrested or at the very least be forced to pay for any damages they have caused with their antics.
I can agree with that. NOW the question, if you'd answer it honestly. How do you feel about SSS with wolves?
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 03:24:35 PM
Post by: Atroxus on October 15, 2012, 03:33:40 PM
Quotewould admire their convictions if they went about things in a responsible, ethical and legal manner. As is I can't get past seeing them as not just whackjobs, but dangerous whackjobs. They really need to be arrested or at the very least be forced to pay for any damages they have caused with their antics.
I can agree with that. NOW the question, if you'd answer it honestly. How do you feel about SSS with wolves?
I wouldn't do it personally. However at this point our state has proven unwilling and/or incapable of managing wolf populations in an effective way that would allow for healthy wolf populations in wilderness areas while protecting interests of land owners, so I likely would look the other way if someone else did. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 04:40:59 PM
Post by: whacker1 on October 15, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
Quotewould admire their convictions if they went about things in a responsible, ethical and legal manner. As is I can't get past seeing them as not just whackjobs, but dangerous whackjobs. They really need to be arrested or at the very least be forced to pay for any damages they have caused with their antics.
I can agree with that. NOW the question, if you'd answer it honestly. How do you feel about SSS with wolves?
Aren't honest answers for P.m.'s? :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on October 15, 2012, 05:11:37 PM
Post by: Highcountry360 on October 23, 2012, 04:32:04 PM