Sea Shepherd
- Thread starter Nativeshark
- Start date
- Status
BioCubeGuy
New member
It's hard to say... I'm all for whale conservation etc.. But, they're not the ocean police nor do they have any standing authority to justify their actions. I've watched a few episodes and it kills me when they're so dramatic about the whaling fleets actions... "OMG they're going to ram us" or "Did they just :uzi: at us." Well no duh, your interfering with their operation in the middle of the ocean! I wouldn't be out there unless I had legal authority backing me up. It's only a matter of time until someone dies or gets seriously injured.
For me, what's moral is much more important than what's legal. If all they care about is that they think the whaling is illegal, then it's silly for them to break the law to stop or call attention to it. If they think it is truly and horrifically immoral, however, then the law simply doesn't matter. If the United States were to make hunting redheads legal, for instance, that would not make it moral. Many people (myself included) would be engaged in illegal and violent action to prevent something that we believe to be horrifically immoral from happening and to force the immoral laws to change. I don't get why people keep talking about laws and legality, when, as far as I know, to the Sea Shepherds it is a moral issue. Can anyone tell me if this organization (and the people in it, etc.) think that whales are people or equal to humans?
More of their campaigns have been against legal activities, then not. Among these campaigns there have been charges cast against Paul Watson, and has been branded as an ecoterrorist by numerous governments.
aqua_man7010
New member
As a supporter of Sea Shepherd, and an aquarist, I know for a fact that the group is made up of passionate aquarists. You can't look at Paul Watson's work (there is a lot of good and some questionable actions) and not say that he isn't passionate about saving ocean life. While I don't always agree with Sea Shepherds actions to accomplish a goal, I trust their judgement as direct action conservationists, when it comes to understanding what needs done to save both natural resources and individual animals.
That said, I fundamentally disagree with their aquarium campaign. First, they are diverting their resources away from more needed action, such as going after shark finning, illegal seafood, environment damaging energy resources, these types of things. Sea Shepherd should be running a full time campaign against the Koch Brothers, whose combined industries are one of the most damaging environmental groups in the world.
I do think the reef aquarium industry needs to make some changes, to better educate aquarists and retailers, as well as support environmentally friendly and compassionate care programs. This needs to come from within the industry, with groups like Sea Shepherd acting with the industry, not against it. Sea Shepherd has taken views and beliefs, that are very questionable (both from a reality standpoint and a science standpoint) held by the vice president of their board, Bob Witner (Snorkel Bob) and used those to start a campaign. Bob Witner is a dive/snorkel operator in Hawaii, who simply seeks to generate more and more profit for his own enterprise, and uses Sea Shepherd to create a false black cloud over the reef aquarium industry. Sadly, Sea Shepherd has allowed him to do that.
That said, I fundamentally disagree with their aquarium campaign. First, they are diverting their resources away from more needed action, such as going after shark finning, illegal seafood, environment damaging energy resources, these types of things. Sea Shepherd should be running a full time campaign against the Koch Brothers, whose combined industries are one of the most damaging environmental groups in the world.
I do think the reef aquarium industry needs to make some changes, to better educate aquarists and retailers, as well as support environmentally friendly and compassionate care programs. This needs to come from within the industry, with groups like Sea Shepherd acting with the industry, not against it. Sea Shepherd has taken views and beliefs, that are very questionable (both from a reality standpoint and a science standpoint) held by the vice president of their board, Bob Witner (Snorkel Bob) and used those to start a campaign. Bob Witner is a dive/snorkel operator in Hawaii, who simply seeks to generate more and more profit for his own enterprise, and uses Sea Shepherd to create a false black cloud over the reef aquarium industry. Sadly, Sea Shepherd has allowed him to do that.
aqua_man7010
New member
Like was said earlier, the legality of what they defend against, is somewhat meaningless. The whaling activity they went against, was for all intents and purposes, legal. The UN had ruled that whales could only be killed for scientific research. Japan created a research arm that killed whales for "research" and simply packaged the whale meat up, while still on the ocean, and sold it for consumption. Sea Shepherd, as well as many other nations including the U.S., saw that Japan was simply exploiting a loop hole in the UN whaling moratorium. Last year, their direct action helped, when the UN tightened that loop hole, and ruled Japan's whaling program was in fact, illegal.
Shark finning operations, that Sea Shepherd has continued to engage are illegal in Costa Rica and other nations where they have traveled. They were invited by the Galapagos Island park authority to defend surrounding waters from long lining. In the Mediterranean, the blue fin tuna operations they went up against had been banned.
The Canadian seal hunt is legal, but is it ethical or appropriate in the 21st century? That is based on objective opinion. The dolphin slaughter on Taji is legal, but is it right?
All of these things involve the needless slaughter of ocean animals, and Sea Shepherd is equating that slaughter with the high percentage of fish that die, when captured for the aquarium trade. They aren't sharing, or reading all of the information about the hobby. IMHO the film Blackfish did this same thing. I totally agree that Sea World does a lot of bad stuff, but, we wouldn't have 1/10th of the scientific data on Orcas, whether in the wild or captivity, without places like Sea World. Is there value in home aquarists learning about marine fish biology, physiology, breeding marine fish and propogating reef animals? Or should all marine life be left alone, and humans remain ignorant about it? Those are the questions that Sea Shepherd in their aquarium campaign, and films like Blackfish, fail to ask.
Shark finning operations, that Sea Shepherd has continued to engage are illegal in Costa Rica and other nations where they have traveled. They were invited by the Galapagos Island park authority to defend surrounding waters from long lining. In the Mediterranean, the blue fin tuna operations they went up against had been banned.
The Canadian seal hunt is legal, but is it ethical or appropriate in the 21st century? That is based on objective opinion. The dolphin slaughter on Taji is legal, but is it right?
All of these things involve the needless slaughter of ocean animals, and Sea Shepherd is equating that slaughter with the high percentage of fish that die, when captured for the aquarium trade. They aren't sharing, or reading all of the information about the hobby. IMHO the film Blackfish did this same thing. I totally agree that Sea World does a lot of bad stuff, but, we wouldn't have 1/10th of the scientific data on Orcas, whether in the wild or captivity, without places like Sea World. Is there value in home aquarists learning about marine fish biology, physiology, breeding marine fish and propogating reef animals? Or should all marine life be left alone, and humans remain ignorant about it? Those are the questions that Sea Shepherd in their aquarium campaign, and films like Blackfish, fail to ask.
tkeracer619
New member
Don't care what they are until someone else steps in and enforces the laws.
Nativeshark
In Memoriam
Harry Ried is that you? I would have never guessed that you are a reefer.
Fish Biscuit
Active member
I think they are the marine version of PETA
Paul Watson and his crew are way out of their league. I think that although it is uncivilized for japan to be killing whales on international waters and labeling it as scientific reasearch ( even though it is really for food), the sea Shepard is to aggresive and could take a more peacefull approach that would work better
Zoodiver
As seen on TV
After several lengthy conversation with staff, it's clear Sea Shepard as a whole doesn't support aquatic animals under human care - especially under private human care for entertainment (IE: the aquarium hobby). They are based on the idea that all animals need to be free, and keeping them is slavery.
FinzAquatics
New member
Minus the fact that they are nothing like PETA. PETA euthaizes more animals that any other organization, where Sea Shepherd does not take part in the killing of any...
https://www.petakillsanimals.com/
good point
aqua_man7010
New member
Japan uses the research loop hole to whale. The IWC said that a limited number of whales could be killed, if the purpose of their killing was scientific research. Australia and a few other nations showed that the data Japan was getting by killing whales, could easily be obtained by cheaper, non-invasive methods, that didn't even hurt whales, let alone kill them. The IWC tightened the loop hole, but Japan continues to pursue whaling.
The reality is, there are legitimate arguments against the marine aquarium industry. NOAA has linked the industry to reef degradation, and I would suggest any reefer who wants to make a comprehensive argument in favor of reef aquariums read the NOAA report. NOAA also has resources available to learn more about a cohesive strategy for coral reef conservation.
First, when compared to commercial fishing, energy companies and other industries that abuse the ocean, reef keeping is very small. It means the impact of that industry is less, but it also means we are easy to pick on. Going up against an energy company is like tackling a behemoth. While the reef aquarium industry can afford some defense, (largely spent to lobbyists that line politicians' pockets) our coffers can and will run dry, in the wake of trying to repeal legislation. It makes reefing an easy target, it's economic impact when compared to other industries is small, and it gives the government bragging rights when it comes to cleaning up the coral reefs worldwide.
Our biggest problem is that industry has failed to police itself. MAC was a start, but turned out to be a big money making sham. Right now, there is no movement within the industry to police what goes on. Heck, on aquarium forum ********* vendors were selling illegally collected corals, species from the China Sea, which are illegal to import into the US. When the site administrator was told about this, they did zilch to correct it, and got angry that someone pointed it out. There are no degrees of oversight, certification, training ... nothing. When you consider the licensing and training other industries, such as real estate, require, it's amazing you can harvest threatened natural resources from around the globe, and there aren't really any rules about selling them.
I assume, with the new NOAA legislation that will change. Though, I find it humorous when the pet industry asks for money to lobby. They should be asking for money to form a policing agency within the industry, so they can tell the government, here are the steps we are taking to make the hobby sustainable. Until that happens, we are going to have a lot of Sea Shepherds, Snorkel Bobs, regulating agencies, etc - to deal with. If it never happens, the next NOAA list of threatened species may include any corals and a large variety of marine fish.
The reality is, there are legitimate arguments against the marine aquarium industry. NOAA has linked the industry to reef degradation, and I would suggest any reefer who wants to make a comprehensive argument in favor of reef aquariums read the NOAA report. NOAA also has resources available to learn more about a cohesive strategy for coral reef conservation.
First, when compared to commercial fishing, energy companies and other industries that abuse the ocean, reef keeping is very small. It means the impact of that industry is less, but it also means we are easy to pick on. Going up against an energy company is like tackling a behemoth. While the reef aquarium industry can afford some defense, (largely spent to lobbyists that line politicians' pockets) our coffers can and will run dry, in the wake of trying to repeal legislation. It makes reefing an easy target, it's economic impact when compared to other industries is small, and it gives the government bragging rights when it comes to cleaning up the coral reefs worldwide.
Our biggest problem is that industry has failed to police itself. MAC was a start, but turned out to be a big money making sham. Right now, there is no movement within the industry to police what goes on. Heck, on aquarium forum ********* vendors were selling illegally collected corals, species from the China Sea, which are illegal to import into the US. When the site administrator was told about this, they did zilch to correct it, and got angry that someone pointed it out. There are no degrees of oversight, certification, training ... nothing. When you consider the licensing and training other industries, such as real estate, require, it's amazing you can harvest threatened natural resources from around the globe, and there aren't really any rules about selling them.
I assume, with the new NOAA legislation that will change. Though, I find it humorous when the pet industry asks for money to lobby. They should be asking for money to form a policing agency within the industry, so they can tell the government, here are the steps we are taking to make the hobby sustainable. Until that happens, we are going to have a lot of Sea Shepherds, Snorkel Bobs, regulating agencies, etc - to deal with. If it never happens, the next NOAA list of threatened species may include any corals and a large variety of marine fish.
accordsirh22
New member
terrorists, and if you think otherwise you are ignorant and kidding yourself
tkeracer619
New member
:lol: because anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? What an ignorant thing to say
.- Status
