Sea Shepard & "Whale Wars": Personal Opinions

[alexrom1207]

I figured I would put this issue out there and see what kind of responses I got. For those of you who are not familiar with Sea Shepard and its founder, Captain Paul Watson, they are a conservation group that directly intervenes in illegal fishing operations. They do everything from throwing stink bombs, to messing up a ships running gear, to ramming and even sinking boats. Anyone who has seen Sharkwater will have a pretty good idea of what this organization is about.

I'm a big fan of environmentalist movements, and at first I thought this group was doing some good, but then I watched the new Discovery Channel Special "Whale Wars." It is a show that documents Sea Shepard's voyages in the Arctic ocean to interfere with the Japanese whaling fleet's operation there. The basic problem is that by law the Japanese can take 1000 whales a year from the ocean for scientific research but cannot let the rest of the whale go to waste, so they sell it. Obviously everyone knows they don't care about the scientific research but rather about making money. But what they are doing is technically not illegal.

Here is the problem. I had a lot of respect for Paul Watson and the entire movement after watching Sharkwater, but this show has changed my opinion completely.
The crew is made up of volunteers, who go into one of the most dangerous oceans in the world and, honest to God, have very little experience or expertise in seamanship. Their first launching of their inflatable resulted in it flipping over and nearly drowning 4 people (directly as a result of insufficient and improper line handling (1 bow line is not sufficient to stabilize an inflatable being lowered by crane from a moving boat)) The officers, particularly the 1st mate, are incompetent and indecisive. Their doctor is completely without proper medical equipment. And the ships operations are unordered, unstructured, and unplanned.
On one episode they sent an inflatable out at night with no radar, a short range radio that did not work, a satelite phone that was not turned on, and no plan for maintaining communication. The boat was lost and no one could decide what to do. Finally the boat called on the Sat phone and found its way back, but it just seems reckless.

The latest tactic Captain Watson is using is convincing his crew that boarding these fishing vessels at sea is a good way to get political attention. Completely without ANY legal knowledge AT ALL, Captain Watson assures his crew that this does not amount to piracy. While he is willing to pressure and coerce his crew into doing these things, he refuses to give any orders. Most likely to protect himself. In one episode he convinces the crew that they should boad a japanese vessel and destroy their communication gear even after the crew repeatedly tells him they don't want to do it and it seems like a bad idea.

The question I have is what people think about this. Obviously I am rather annoyed about this issue and would like to know what others think. Is this worth it? Are the captain's actions (towards his crew) improper? Does this operation show a lack of concern for the safety of its volunteers? Every and all opinions are welcome. Please keep it civil, but feel free to be honest.

 

[jay cluskey]

the international whaling commission decides who takes whales and how many they take
this body is a do nothing body it just trys to please too many people
i suggest you watch a documentary called " a life amongst whales " then see how you feel
these guys that join the likes of sea shepeard do so not because of their nautical knowledge but their gut beliefs and their detestment of the barbaric treatment of the worlds sea species which are under major threat.
so my opinion of mr watson is yes he is a bit controversial but id say he goes that bit further than what any one else will and he is totaly selfless and so more so his crew

lets not forget it all makes good tv the more stuff that goes wrong ,some how i dont think the likes of steve irwin "god bless him" or that idiot " dog" the bounty hunter would get much coverage or sponsorship or help if thety whent around their job in a normal manner.

i do see your point , totaly , but i see captain watsons point too , and if he were that much of a pirate he would not manage to get out of most worldwide ports.

there are other bodies that should be given credit " shark watch" " shark angels " all risking them selves seflesly for a cause which is going ignored untill it will be too late

picture reading a book with your grankids about sharks and trying to explain what they used to be like or walking round the ancient whale section of a museum with them now that is a scary thought
regards
jay
p.s a life amongst whales try google video have a look at the wright whale being electricuted

 

[apneaboy]

I am a big fan of the Sea Shepards and their cause.

I hope with time they recruit more people and become better at what they do and make a BIG difference otherwise there will be far fewer magnificent creatures in sea.

Its that or wait for the natural levellers of man reduce the population of this overcrowded planet.

Go sea shepards GO!!.

 

[Oldsarge]

Watson will be able to get away with this until somebody gets killed. Then the entire thing will hit the fan and no amount of favorable comment by anyone will make it better. He's playing with fire and the lives of his crew. Good intentions pave the way to Hell, especially when 'publicity' is involved.

 

[Erik]

I'll go a bit off into ethics and philosophy here if that's ok- I think it's relevant to alexrom's post.

I am not happy with any killing of things that have emotions, and certainly not if there is a possibility of sentience. We could argue about the self-awareness of dolphins/whales but in any case, mammals have feelings. Hunting mammals may be one's choice and I would not hold it against anyone, but dolphins and whales are different enough that I think they should be off the list- without question.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if confrontation at a high level is the answer. Anger begets anger etc. Gentler ways of achieving change are better IMO. For example, a Japanese poulation that was not interested in eating whales, or a Chinese population that didn't eat tiger and seal penises would be better. Anything that would help enable a paradigm shift in a global or community consciousness would be a welcome relief.
I don't think the question should be "Does this animal understand?", it should be "Does this animal feel emotions?" Talk to my cat if you don't think animals have feelings!
Someday we'll realize the contributions that animals make and we wont need to have people killing themselves to save anything or anyone.

 

[Spaniard]

I'm sure this thread will provoke some lively debate!!!

Technically the whalers aren't doing anything illegal but whaling makes for good press because Joe Public typically cannot stomach seeing a big Mammal being harpooned and then enduring the death throes with lots of blood in the water - makes for very graphic images and invokes horror in Joe public.

When you present the average viewer of images of commercial fishing i.e. netting, trawling, long-lining etc. it doesn't hit home in the same way although you could argue that it is equally barbaric, painful or whatever for the fish involved. As someone who takes fish from the sea using a speargun I find myself thinking that I am 'harpooning' but on a smaller scale so am I a hypocrite if I denounce the whalers? Playing Devils advocate here I can only say it raises the question of 'holier than thou'? What I really can't stomach is the length of time it seems to take to kill a whale and the issue of how humane the methods used actually are - in much the same way I denounce the slaughter of Dolphins in a certain location in Japan.

At the end of the day though we all have the right to express our opinions and beliefs and I can fully understand the motivation of the guys behind Sea Shepherd although I would not like to see anyone die because of it.

Just because we don't eat whalemeat in the UK for example don't forget that within some cultures, not just in Japan, it has been a staple for centuries!!

I deplore any senseless acts of cruelty towards marine life and to me, as far as I have observed, whaling practices could be improved so as to limit pain and suffering. Imagine what a bass would look like if 500 times bigger with a spear through it? Or am I being daft?

Anyway I hope the conversation stays civil and it is a very interesting subject to deabte, especially if you spear fish.

 

[sunfish]

Most of what I know about Sea Shepard comes from reading the book "Whale War" by David Day but here's my opinion for what it's worth.
I have great respect for Paul Watson and crew because at times it seems that they are the only people doing anything that is making any difference in the "whale wars". If they go into some situations at sea without relevant experience, I can only admire their courage. At least they do discuss things before deciding to do them. The whaling commission was originally formed by whalers and while worth persevering with, is still very slow to achieve anything.

 

[Erik]

Spaniard we generally kill our catch as soon as possible to spare any suffering, plus we become personally involved in the lifecycle of the prey. Even a hunter who does not share my ethic or belief system understands this at a deep level of awareness. Many hunters feel some regret (healthy respect I think) when they take down a big game animal. Commercial operations do not, because it is not profitable. A commercial operation does not care about an individual life or how it ends. That is the difference. A hunter who stalks a deer sees it face to face, understands at a very deep level that he is taking a life, and tries for a kill shot or at least a quick death. He honours it in many ways. A cattle-killing operation does not.
And shrimp trawler scraping the bottom has no such attachment to its prey.

 

[Spaniard]

I agree Erik, I guess the isue is that all the 'non-hunters' would not understand this and emotions take a front seat?

 

[efattah]

Some cetaceans like the bottlenose dolphin have brains that even bigger than ours. Their vocalisations contain complicated communication (i.e. talking), so who knows what they could be planning.

Perhaps the whale-dolphin community is planning a research project. I would imagine that they have voted to kill & take 1,000 humans per year, for research purposes. Any attempt to 'spare' the lives of those 1,000 humans will be considered illegal and punishable with time inside the dolphin jail.

Humans cannot escape from karma & natural law, as much as they think they would like to. If your actions don't catch up with you in this life, they will catch up with you in the next, whether you believe in reincarnation or some other heaven/hell.

A person who takes up arms in a war must take personal responsibility for their actions. They cannot 'defer' responsibility to their commanders. The natural laws of nature do not understand hierarchy. Similarly, a whale hunter or anyone who boards a whale hunting vessel must take responsibility for the deaths they cause. And each death they contribute to will come back to haunt them in other ways, later on.

As I don't see much difference between the life of a whale/dolphin and a person, then attacking and killing whales & dolphins is basically the same as an act of war, and when you attack someone, they will often fight back if they are able to, and if they are not then sometimes a 3rd party will step in to defend them.

So in the thinking of a traditional war, the Sea Shepherd would have the right to blow up & destroy any whaling vessel in the name of defending an innocent 3rd party. However, I'm not sure I agree with the traditional war mentality, and as I am against the killing of whales & dolphins, I'm also against the killing of people.

So as always the answer is gray.

 

[alexrom1207]

After reading some of the posts people have really good opinions. I'm glad people find this topic interesting because it's something that really tickles me. However, I would like to keep the debate a little more focused on Sea Shepard more so than the general practice of fishing and killing for profit. (My fault for asking an open ended question.) No one doubts the worthiness of their cause, but my questions is whether the methods they use and the recklessness they seem to exhibit for the lives of people devoted to the cause is worth it. I had a lot of respect for Captain Watson before I saw this show. Now he seems like a manipulator willing to risk other people's lives without taking the simple precautions such as having a proper doctor with proper equipment, properly training people to do what they do, and just generally having a good structure and order. I understand that "Whale Wars" is a dramatization of the reality, but some of the mistakes they've made are just foolish. They lowered a raft from their moving boat with one guy holding a bow line and no stern line on the boat (I'm a boater and we lower our rafts by crane while the boat is tied to the dock with a bow and stern line and two people holding them). Furthermore, I'm a law student and Captain Watson doesn't seem to have any clue as to the laws he assures his crew they're not breaking. It just seems wrong that people who really care for the cause (and I think we can all agree it is a good cause) are being put in harms way by a Captain who assures them that they are safe but then fails to train them, supply them with proper medical care, and coerces them into doing quasi-legal/plain illegal things by telling them they're legal when he doesn't know whether they are or not himself. Just seems manipulative to me. Basically, I like sea shepard's ideas, I love the cause, but I've really lost all respect for Captain Watson. A captain has a duty to care for his crew, and Watson seems to treat them like they are expendable.

 

[jay cluskey]

you either hunt or you dont you either understand or dont
i admiire anyone who uses their natural instincts to hunt . our predecessors did it before we all got un-civilised.. i admire you spearos

i just dont see anything scientific in exploding a 200lb arrow into the spine of the most gracefull of all species and destabelising total marine ecosytems with little thought for any thing else than financial gain


hunters kill and take selectivley silently and cleanley

 

[Spaniard]

I wouldn't like to see anyone die in this dispute, whalers or anti-whalers. If the Captain in question is unfit for duty and his actions lead to someone losing their life then he should be accountable for that life. The motivation for people following this cause is understandable but they shouldn't have to pay for it with their life! Unfortunately it looks like this might be inevitable given the circumstances - then the Media will have a Martyr for the cause and it will all become an International bun fight.

 

[Erik]

Alex I tend to agree with you on the points of this man's seamanship. A captain has a duty and responsibility to his crew, no matter the mission. Captain's are expected to be mentors and role models, and pay for that respect by being the last off a sinking ship.
This guy sounds like he's a good motivator but not understanding the more important part of his role. The crew is already motivated I'm sure. He should follow strict protocols and have a mission plan that includes the least amount of risk within the parameters of the mission!

 

[sunfish]

I didn't see the documentary and so can't comment on the crew's understanding of the risks or on how much pressure the captain puts on them but I do feel that they have a right to risk their lives if they feel their cause justifies it. No one who sets out to obstruct whalers could think that no risk is involved.

 

[BatRay]

I am not a fan of Sea Shepherd because they are on the edge of radicalism. While that sometimes gets results, those results are often based on unscientific ideas and unsafe practices. In doing so, Sea Shepherd and other such organizations make themselves look incompetent at best, and rabidly fanatical at worst. Even more disturbing is the potential for injury or death among the volunteers who probably didn't know what they were getting into in the first place. I don't think that it would hit the fan - on the contrary, that could be a great publicity angle. "Selfless volunteer dies to save whales" Now that has a ring, doesn't it? Captain Watson seems more concerned about political attention than the human angle. If that's the case, he has no right to call himself a captain.

Try examining the whaling issue from a different perspective. Scientifically, is whaling sustainable? Do sufficient numbers exist to allow 1,000 individuals to be removed from the population each year? How many whales are out there, and are the numbers stable? Which species appear to be having trouble, and which have steady or growing populations? Responsible hunters, like many of us the spearfishers on this forum, are those who hunt the species that have a huntable surplus. I don't know the numbers on the whaling situation, but I would definitely consider those before I considered Sea Shepherd's antics.

I disagree with practices that are cruel or ignorant. A good hunter does his best to bring down his prey as quickly as possible. Stone shots are a thing to brag about because the fish died instantly. Every hunter and spearo that I know is responsible, cognizant, and respectful of the animal that he hunts, and even some slaughterhouses mplement research to ensure minimal stress to the animals that they process.

I am against whaling because viable food alternatives exist, we don't really know the state of the population, and the current methods for killing them are unacceptable. To me, killing a whale is tantamount to cutting down an old Giant Sequoia for roof shingles and fence posts. That doesn't mean that I am against logging. It means that I believe the Sequoia has value beyond lumber. That's why I advocate cutting select trees for the good of the forest and people. Similarly, I advocate responsible hunting and food production, and to me, whaling does not fall into that category.

 

[apneaboy]

I think the world has a problem that needs to be addressed. Commercial fisheries are extremely destructive and as a species we don't have the right simply to make other species extinct for profit.

If someone volunteers for such a project its partly their own responsibility (if not wholly) to decide whether what they are trying to achieve is balanced against the personal risks they face. It seems that that point hasn't been put accross. Maybe they know the risks themselves. I would credit them with that intelligence although emotions may cloud their view.

All possible precautions and training should be put in place to safeguard them, i agree that if that is not being done it is wrong.

More expert volunteers needed for the cause.

 

[jay cluskey]

i think if sea shepeard had more governmental support then i do no think its actions would need to be so radical
as it has been proved , one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist , therefore captain watson has his critics he also is credited with saving countless animals .

i think it is wrong to kill whales there is no need too i also think a life is also too high a price to pay to defend either cause .

but i do think the series will have been edited for dramatic effect and made to look like a fly on the ships wall documentary

and as for people being ordered to board ships against their will , well they knew what they were signing up to when they joined sea shepeard so that is captain watsons disclaimer
ps alex good thread topic i do hope to catch the series when it airs in uk
regards and best wishes
james

 

[BatRay]

Volunteers are high on enthusiasm and low on training and experience, which is a very easy combination to manipulate, and anyone who would leave his everyday life in favor of protesting whaling in the Arctic is a little...different. To draw a parallel, you can accept that there are some risks involved on a safari, but people who don't know what they are doing should be wise enough to employ someone who does if they want to survive. The Sea Shepherd volunteers have the responsibility to calculate their own risks, but they don't really know how it will be until they arrive. In case like these, which can be life and death, the person in charge has a responsibility to prevent foolish and unnecessary risks. That's what a captain does for the good of the crew, the ship, and the organization that he represents.

I agree - we do have a problem that needs to be addressed, but the problem is not a simple one and the solution is even less simple.

 

[jay cluskey]

I agree - we do have a problem that needs to be addressed, but the problem is not a simple one and the solution is even less simple
hear heari hope a solution comes in our life time