It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sea Shepherd Protesters Ram Japanese Whalers in Intense Clash

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:47 AM

Originally posted by yizzel

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
If Australians really want this practice to end, they are going to have to hit the Japanese where it hurts, in their pocket books. I would suggest a boycott of all Japanese goods.

Japan is a very important export market for Australia. Boycotts from both side would have severe economic consequences.

I agree that if no solution is found, sooner or later someone's going to get hurt.
Lets hope it won't come to this..

I would never advocate a trade embargo as it would definitely be quite detrimental to your economy. However, if a grassroots movement were to be started then it would not have the negative effects you mentioned and would send a message to the Japanese people that they could not deny.

The whaling industry in Japan generates hundreds of millions of dollars and employs thousands of people. However, that pales in comparison to the electronics, automobile, and other consumer goods industries. If you cut into these profits just 10-20% there would be huge ramifications and would place massive pressures on the Japanese whaling fleet to reexamine its policies.

Essentially, a grassroots movement would not force the Japanese government to enact detrimental policies to Australia's economy and at the same time it would cause the Japanese people to see how this issue is viewed in other countries.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Kalrana
As for starting what would end up as a trade war. We would loose out. There is nothing we produce that cant be sourced from other sources.

I really don't think that it would start a trade war. IMO it would serve to educate the Japanese people as to how this practice is viewed by other countries. Essentially, for this to work it would have to not involve the government of Australia. If the Australian government stays out of the movement, a trade war would not ensue.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by ANNED

You can rant and rave all you want about the illegality of what the Sea Shepherds' Steve Irwin was doing but it does not change the fact that the Australian Government ordered Japan to stop whaling in our Australian Antarctic Territory and it refused.

In my mind, and in the mind of the Australian Government, the Japanese are illegally harpooning whales in our waters.

End of Story.

[edit on 6/2/2009 by Kryties]

and you can rant and rave all you want but the Sea Shepherd Steve Irwin has NO legal authority to comment ANY action against ANY ship of ANY county and as such if i am was captain of a ship in international waters and they endangered my ship i would do what i had to to protect my ship.
including firing at there bridge.

On the boat I had I carried a shotgun and a rifle mounted 37mm flare gun with flares and "ship to close shells/bird scare rounds" that traveled 150 feet and went off with the power of a stick of dynamite.
i had one of these flare launchers mounted on my AR 15

I bet most people would think it was a 40mm M203 that is why i carried it at sea.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by ANNED]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:30 AM

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
I really don't think that it would start a trade war. IMO it would serve to educate the Japanese people as to how this practice is viewed by other countries. Essentially, for this to work it would have to not involve the government of Australia. If the Australian government stays out of the movement, a trade war would not ensue.

The problem that will arise is that the Japanese may see this as western government trying to impose their will over the people of japan and could lead to being interpretated as a slap in the face. Remember Japanese people, as well as a lot of other races, have a totally different way of acting, different
customs and different ways of interpretating things than we do.
The Australian government doesnt have to be directly involved, just perceived to be.
Diplomacy is the only way to go or perhaps a multination embago involving all non whaling countries and even that could end up back firing big time.
Now lets look at this a bit differently.....TOTALLY FORGET ABOUT WHALING FOR A MOMENT

A new scenerio:

Hindus find Cows sacred. They then decide to put pressure on Australians because we eat to much beef and dont respect the cows. Next thing the Indian government is putting pressure on the Australian government to stop the slaughter of all cows.
How would you react?
Soon exports from Australia to India dry up. Rumors that the Indian government are behind this, but no evidence.....

Now it doesnt matter that cows are not endangered just remember how sacred they are.
Do the Indians have the right to impose their will on Australians?
Would you advocate not then buying things from India as payback? What about Australian business not having their support/call centres over there?
Pretty easy to escalate it

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Kalrana

Any and all hunters and this is what the japanese are doing, hunting, are for sustainable harvest. If theres no whales the whalers are out of a job, a future that no one wants. A small number are harvested, and harvested to rules. And yes there are rules. Generally mothers and calves are avioded if possible to ensure future generations. If a mother is killed the calve is then also killed if it is still reliant on the mother to save it from starving to death. Adult males are the main target . In an ideal situation no females would be shot but ID can be hard.

So doesn't that go against the whole argument the Japanese are fighting for, and that is for scientific research?
Why do you need to up the harvest for research, surely they would be able to reduce the numbers now after all they have been researching a few years now.

Whale isn't a staple diet of the Japanese, they got given 2 whaling vessels from the US after WWII to help feed the population.
2 small cities in Japan hunted Dolphin and whale and that was done by much smaller boats and it was in the Japanese waters.

The major issue here is that it is cheap meat, once one species of whale is extinct they will move on to the next and say that more research than ever is needed.

You say that fishermen will not over fish because they wouldn't have a job.

Take a look at Blue fin tuna numbers for starters
and then we have drift nets which can be up to 50km long
Japan operated about 900 drift net vessels earning around $300 million a year. Those fishing boats were blamed not only for the indiscriminate destruction of marine life, but also for the poaching of North Pacific salmon, harming the U.S. and Canadian fishing industries, and threatening the jobs of fishermen who did not use such methods.

Do you still think that Japan will stop once a species is wiped out?

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:00 AM
reply to post by Kalrana

I don't disagree that the scenario you laid out is a possibility. However, I doubt that things would escalate to the degree you mentioned. It would kind of be like the "Buy American" movement in the US during the 80s and early 90s.

With regards to the India analogy, I think that you are missing a large point in this issue. The part that you are missing is not that Australians dislike whaling, it is that they dislike whaling in waters they perceive to be theirs and have set aside as a whale sanctuary. It would be like if Australians began killing cows in the disputed region of Kashmir and then exporting the meat back to Australia or if they sent a "fleet" of cow hunters into India to harvest cows.

Essentially a boycott of Japanese goods in Australia by Australians would send a message to the Japanese that whaling in Australian waters, or waters perceived to be Australian, is not acceptable to the people of Australia. I can't guarantee that a boycott would not lead to ramifications to the economy of Australia, however I find it to be only a remote possibility so long as the Australian government does not get involved.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:20 AM
There are a few important points to be made:

1. Where was the location of the whaling ships? Were they in opean seas (international territory)?

2. Did the Sea Shepherd boat ram the whaling ship? If so, why did the whaling ship not retaliate?

3. Australia is perfectly entitled to ban whaling in their UN-defined waters. However Australia has a habit of being expansionist and unilateral when it comes to their highly contentious Antarctic territory.

If the whaling ship was in the "Australian whale sanctuary" in the Antarctic EEZ, then Australia has an extremely shaky argument as to whether or not they are allowed to protect the whales in the area. It is a disputed territory, and as such Japan is perfectly entitled to conduct whatever it wants in the area, as it is presently and officially classed as international waters.

I don't much care for whaling, but in this case I think Japan probably has the legal right, if not the moral one to whale wherever they want as long as its in international waters.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:28 AM
I find it ironic and comical at the same point, especially when i read some of the posts here. If those species are endangered then they shouldn't be hunted..but the japanese have to eat just like everyone else.

What hurts me about this case is that these people are willing to do this for animals but not for their fellow man. They are willing to risk their own lives for some whales in the sea, but when over 100,000 africans (it's just an example,
these folks are no where around. Oh yea thats rights, they'd rather donate money that won't be used to help fund an organization that is incapable of tying its own shoe. Jeez

Could it be the possibility that they will be shot? Everyone talks a big game until the barrel in your grill.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:33 AM
lol, this is stupid, there are people dying in africa and people care about whales

This is mass stupidity ,

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:41 AM
Good for Sea Shepherd, those whales belong to all of us, not just the people with enough money to go out and kill them. Once they become extinct the whale hunters will simply move on to the next money making species.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:49 AM
reply to post by munkey66

Dont forget the japanese longliners. Use to catch and cut up their lines when we were fishing for marlin and dolphin FISH (not to be confused with dolphins) both are totally INDISCIRIMINATE in what that catch. Pretty poor comparison actually.
Harpoon cannons are an accurate aimed weapon.

They only call it scientific research to make it sound nicer. Its HUNTING, a term that upsets nearly as many people.

It doesnt matter if it was 2 small villages or 20 large cities, and they have hunted whales since at least the early 1600s, they still hunted whales and as for using modern equipment, its called technological advancement.

The same argument that allows our own Aborigines to use modern synthetic gill nets in our estuaries and rivers, firearms to hunt in areas not permitted for hunting to anyone else, modern boats with outboard motors to travel out to islands and between them, fishing with fishing rods, spear guns and occasional dynamite in remote rivers and lakes, applies to the native inhabitants of Japan as much as it does the native inhabitants of a lot of countries

As to your last comment re wiping out a species. Well if you knew anything about the history of whaling and the slaughter of them not a even century ago right here in Australia (Fremantle on the west coast and Eden on the east coast are due to whaling) by Australians, over 26000 southern right whales in just over 108 years. Thats just one species and what happened in the Americas and right throughout ALL the oceans of the world, if they were not wiped out then, they wont be wiped out by hunting now. Do some research on the International Whaling Commission, its history and original goals may suprise a few people and while your at it the history of whaling, the numbers killed then and the numbers killed now and the estimate numbers of whales prior to the introduction of the IWC and the estimated numbers now to see just how sustainable whaling really is

DENY IGNORANCE seems to be a catch cry on here but so many people seem to take only one side of the story as gospel. Research both sides of an argument first saves a lot of arguments in the long run

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:58 AM
I'd like to point out that the photo's of the collision if anything prove that the Steve Irwin was in the wrong and rammed the whaling ship.

On the water, you must give way to vessels approaching from the starboard side (right). The whaling vessel has clearly traversed from the right side of the Steve Irwin to the left.

The OP's statement that the ship is trying to manoeuvre to starboard are also false. Anyone with any idea of physics and experience of ships at sea will tell you that the Steve Irwin is moving to port in that picture. If they were trying to turn to starboard as claimed, the deck would be sloped from right to left (right side high) and not left to right as pictured.

In addition, the OP's statement that all Australians oppose whaling is incorrect. You can't presume to speak for every one of your countrymen.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:22 AM

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
reply to
With regards to the India analogy, I think that you are missing a large point in this issue. The part that you are missing is not that Australians dislike whaling, it is that they dislike whaling in waters they perceive to be theirs and have set aside as a whale sanctuary. It would be like if Australians began killing cows in the disputed region of Kashmir and then exporting the meat back to Australia or if they sent a "fleet" of cow hunters into India to harvest cows.

See this is were the problem starts. Territorial waters extend for a set distant around the coast of all countries that border the seas usually about 22 km. Then you have the contigious zone, another 22kms of water. An exclusive economic region extends for about 370km from the coast. Beyond that is international waters.
Now Australia trys to claim the waters around the Australian Antarctic Territory as our own, a very dubious claim and this happens to be the very area that whaling is carried out.
Now for the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. It was set up by the IWC. Somethimg very important to remember.
Now direct from wiki (cause im tired and cant be bothered finding the proper wording, but its close enough)
IWC is an voluntary international organisation and are not backed up by treaty. Therefore, the IWC, in essence, is a voluntary organisation which has substantial practical limitations on its authority. First, any member countries are free to simply leave the organisation and declare themselves not bound by it if they so wish. Second, any member state may opt out of any specific IWC regulation by lodging a formal objection to it within 90 days of the regulation coming into force(such provisions are common in international agreements, on the logic that it is preferable to have parties remain within the agreements than opt out altogether). Third, the IWC has no ability to enforce any of its decisions through penalty imposition.
Now because the sanctuary is set up by the IWC Japan is UNDER NO OBLIGATION to observe it.
If they tried to force a penalty on Japan they can withdraw from the commitee and im sure a few other nations will join them and then were back to square one.
Unless of course we had ONE WORLD government. A situation no one wants
Perhaps its the NWO promoting Anti Whaling and you anti whalers may just be playing right into there hands.

[edit on 6/2/09 by Kalrana]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:23 AM
reply to post by Kryties

I agree with you that this tragedy needs to be stopped. But I strongly

disagree how you told another poster to worry about issues in his own

damn country if he's not willing to take your side. No offense but the

Australian government won't get anywhere with this without foreign help.

Especially since Japan is a great allie to the US. So I suggest you change

your tone or next time ask the OP to change the thread title so that

Foreigners and people who disagree need not post. Absolutely

rediculous and protestors can't seem to realize why nobody takes them

seriously, because if you disagree with them they become hostile.

TRagedy absolute tragedy.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by TNT13]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by Beelzebubba

Great thread, I've been aware of this for quite sometime but I think the general public doesn't know much about it. Thanks for educating the uneducated, we have to stop species from becoming extinct; the future of our planet depends on it.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:54 AM
The crew of the Sea Shepherd are heroes. People like them make the differerence. It makes me proud that its sailing under Dutch flag. Frankly I tought only the Japanese are ignorant about whale hunting. They dont know, dont care and have no clue whats the opinion of the rest of the world about killing endangered species for food.
I dont know anybody in my surrounding that support the killing of whales.
The fact that some individuals here on ATS just dont care makes me speechles. When I see whale hunting on tv my blood boils.

I have broken several bones of people who molested animals.
If you kick a cat or dog, you are in big trouble when Im around.
Be good for all animals, make the difference.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by bigfoot1212
we have more pressing issues in this world than worrying about the F###ing whales. life will go on without them. maybe we should worry more about humans killing humans than some marine animal? and peta needs to be wiped out like our congressmen do

you are definitely entitled to your opinion, and here is mine. humans can defend themselves...whales on the other hand are the most intelligent, peaceful species, and us barbaric humans could learn some things from whale society. They deserve our protection. I agree some hunting for feeding the hungry, and research would be acceptable, but they kill nearly 1000 of these majestic creatures yearly. WOW
why cant they learn the same thing from 100 whales- even that is a compramise to my belief, I believe whales should be protected from any hunting, but that wont happen any time soon.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by Saf85

The point is these whales are an endagered species, what will happen to the income/livelyhoods of the whalers when they are extinct??? Thats right they won't have one!! Whats your answer to that?

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:21 AM
After reading 4 pages of this thread I had to go back to re-read the OP. I personnally don't care if its about harpooning whales or blowing away "tweetie birds"(as you probably notice I'm not a bunny-hugger) I feel the issue here is the blantant disreguard for maritime law. The "Steve Irwin" was in the wrong for its tactics of demostrating their beliefs. I've watch some of their shows on Natgeo, I believe, and they are quite intimidating. What's the difference between the whalers using a non-lethal sound device and the "Steve Irwin" throwing acidic stink bombs and "slick" devices onto the decks. I feel the bottom line is the "Steve Irwin" is terrorizing these other ships and as a captain of one of these ships, my first priority would be the safety of my crew. If the "Steve Irwin" wants to achieve their goal they need to find another way before it gets way outta hand.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by bigfoot1212
After reading your post and seeing the stars I don't have any problem putting whales or any other creature of the animal kingdom before humans.

Be sure I won't come to the fight with a knife!

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in