
How Sea Shepherd lost battle against Japan’s whale hunters in Antarctic - Tomte
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/23/sea-shepherd-loses-antarctic-battle-japan-whale-hunters
======
sathackr
> And to top that they have also made it an act of terrorism for anybody to
> approach within 500 metres of a whaling vessel.

The slippery slope that it seems the whole world is already sliding down.

~~~
fencepost
So can anyone declare an act of terrorism? Can it be declared terrorism if an
armed (almost by definition) whaling vessel approaches a protecting ship?

I'm curious as to whether the Japanese scientists involved in this "scientific
study" actually ever release anything, or does Japan not bother to carry the
pretense that far? Or is the contention that their scientists are too
incompetent to actually get any useful research out of these oh-so-important
hunts?

~~~
Fnoord
Among academics, terrorism is defined by The Revised Academic Consensus
Definition by Alex P. Schmid [1]. The source I normally refer to
(terrorismanalysts.com) is down at this moment.

Whether that is used by the Japanese or not, I don't know.

I share your curiosity regarding the Japanese scientists.

[1]
[http://www.internationalsecurityinterest.com/index.php/resea...](http://www.internationalsecurityinterest.com/index.php/research-
insi/background/terrorism/12-the-revised-academic-consensus-definition-of-
terrorism)

------
blondie9x
It's false logic to assume that ending the killing of whales will lead to the
International Community's condemnation of killing fish as well. Killing large
game mammals is an entirely separate concern when compared to killing fish and
other species that are used for sustenance and to feed the population. If the
Japanese government is to acquiesce on this issue I do not feel as though the
government should have concerns about pressure on other types of marine life
that is seized for sustenance all over the world.

We should all come together as globsl citizens of this planet and make an
agreement on what is safe to capture so we can protect and manage the sea as
one international community. Being an outlier and killing these mammals as
brutally as it is done is not a position Japan's government and the people who
elect that government should be willing to accept.

~~~
ant6n
Plus whales are (near?) sentient, while most fish are not.

~~~
trothamel
[Citation needed], especially for the minke whales.

~~~
Fnoord
Orca and dolphin recognize themselves in mirror test [1].

Whales are mammals [2].

Mammals all possess a neocortex [3]. "The neocortex, also called the
neopallium and isocortex, is the part of the mammalian brain involved in
higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation
of motor commands, spatial reasoning and language." [4] and AFAIK a CNS
(Central Nervous System) as well.

Animals are recognized as sentient beings in certain jurisdictions such as
Canada and New Zealand, but not world-wide.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_te...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_test)

[2]
[http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2536](http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2536)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_nervous_system#Mammals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_nervous_system#Mammals)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex)

------
SamReidHughes
If killing animals for food is immoral at all, then whale meat is one of the
least immoral forms of meat consumption there is. The reason is, you get a
huge amount of meat per animal, and their lives are much better than those of
livestock. Maybe better than minke whale is venison, since we need to cull the
deer population anyway -- might as well eat it. Or maybe all hunting,
moderated to prevent overhunting to extinction, is equally sound, because the
animals would otherwise overpopulate and starve to death or get killed by some
other predator. It might depend on whether there's some other predator in the
food chain.

~~~
CryptoPunk
Whales are so intelligent though. Their brains are very large, and it's
possible that they possess languages.

------
IBM
Pretty sure the protection of whales (and other sea life) was being negotiated
as part of TPP to at least be stronger than the International Convention for
the Regulation of Whaling.

------
quantum_state
People would want to work on to have an international treaty of banning whale
hunting altogether ...

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _People would want to work on to have an international treaty of banning
> whale hunting altogether_

People have tried [1]. It's complicated.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_the_Regulation_of_Whaling)

------
simooooo
Anyone know what this military equipment is?

~~~
mcguire
Better radars?

" _In addition, the Japanese have provided military tracking hardware to the
fleet, according to Sea Shepherd. “Essentially, they can see exactly where we
are, but we still only have a rough idea of their position,” said Watson._ "

------
Overtonwindow
It lost the "battle" by resorting to violence rather than policy and law.

~~~
Fnoord
That's a wild statement given the facts, some of which you can read throughout
the article.

* They're generally not resorting to violence; they're blocking the boats. That's akin to me standing before you so you cannot cross the zebra (while I have the moral highground).

* Furthermore, Japan claims it requires these whales for "scientific" purposes. In reality they're used for consumption.

* As can be read in the article: Japan is hunting in a conservation zone, the Southern Ocean.

* Quoting from the article: "Then, a few years ago, the International Court of Justice – at the instigation of Australia and New Zealand – ruled that the country’s whaling plan had no scientific basis. [...]" [1]

* After which they increased the "research" area: Quote "But, crucially, the Japanese also doubled the area of the Southern Ocean from which they said they would seek whales"

Furthermore, the reason why they lost isn't because they resort to violence.
The reason, as stated in the article: "In addition, the Japanese have provided
military tracking hardware to the fleet, according to Sea Shepherd." and "This
is all part of the vast subsidy provided by the Japanese government for their
whalers. And to top that they have also made it an act of terrorism for
anybody to approach within 500 metres of a whaling vessel"

And, as you can read from the article, the reasons why Japan opposes quitting
whale hunting is three-fold: 1) nation pride and its tradition to receive
large amounts of protein from dish 2) the fear for a domino effect 3) Quote:
"And then there is the issue of the Antarctic Treaty which strictly controls
how the continent and its waters are exploited. That treaty does not expire
until 2048. But if Japan maintains a presence in Antarctic waters it could
make a claim to be allowed greater influence in the region when a new treaty
is negotiated by world powers."

[1] The International Court of Justice, which has its seat in The Hague, is
the principal judicial organ of the United Nations [http://www.icj-
cij.org/](http://www.icj-cij.org/)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _They 're generally not resorting to violence; they're blocking the boats_

They're sometimes violent. "Mr. Watson and his Sea Shepherd Conservation
Society have rammed, sabotaged, shot water canons at and thrown stink bombs on
whalers and commercial fishing vessels" [1].

There is an odd symbiosis between the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism and the
Japanese government's protests. Peacefully tailing and documenting would be
more effective in the long run. But de-esclating would piss off the Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society's donors. In the meantime, Japan uses the Sea
Shepherd's vigilantism to distract from its own activities.

> _The International Court of Justice, which has its seat in The Hague, is the
> principal judicial organ of the United Nations_

The ICJ's jurisdiction is complicated, _e.g._ "compulsory" jurisdiction is
limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision [2].
(Japan has rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction over this issue [3].)

In any case, the Sea Shepherd regularly breaks suites of international
maritime laws. Advocating for the limited application of the law is advocating
for no law.

[1] [https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-
News/2010/0106/Whale-...](https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-
News/2010/0106/Whale-Wars-The-aggressive-tactics-of-Sea-Shepherd-Paul-Watson)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#Jurisdiction)

[3] [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-
news/japan-...](http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-
rejects-international-court-jurisidiction-over-whaling-20151018-gkc7rm.html)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Do you fault a country’s coast guards (South Korea and Argentina) when they
fire on or sink Chinese fishing vessels violating their sovereign waters to
pillage their natural resources?

If so, that’s unfortunate, as violence is sometimes necessary against a bully.
If not, what’s the difference?

Disclaimer: I am pro “use of force” when all other options are exhausted.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Do you fault country’s coast guards_

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].

> _Violence is sometimes necessary_

Per the article, Japan reduced its Southern Ocean whaling in response to the
International Court of Justice, not the Sea Shepherd.

Protesting in an international forum is fundamentally different from
protesting domestically. There is no coërcive third party to enforce the
rules. You have to convince the people you're protesting to want to change.
Contrast the culture at the UN to _e.g._ a regulatory agency.

Most Japanese don't eat whale [2]. Whaling has become a symbol of national
sovereignty and pride. Foreign vessels ramming your ships stokes national
pride. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society may have eliminated a diplomatic
solution to whaling for a generation or two.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Soci...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society)

[2] [https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1201/Almost-nobody-
in...](https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1201/Almost-nobody-in-Japan-
eats-whale.-Why-is-whaling-so-important-to-Japan)

~~~
pygy_
>> Do you fault country’s coast guards

> The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].

Private entities are allowed to enforce the law in international waters,
actually.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
On your own ship, and depending on jurisdiction (based on flag flown and the
UNCLOS) [1]. Nobody allows running out to find a ship doing things one doesn’t
like and then ramming or blocking its path.

In any case, what law are the Japanese vessels breaking? They amended their
quotas to comply with the ICJ ruling [2].

Ramming things makes for good TV. It is emotionally satisfying. Practically,
however, it is ineffective or even detrimental towards the goal of saving
whales. (It is very effective at maintaining certain peoples’ livelihoods and
drumming up nationalistic support for whaling in Japan.)

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law)

[2] _the article_

------
Simulacra
I read the article and I do think with the sea Shepherd was doing was wrong.
They were confronting Japanese whaling ships in a hostile act, and should have
resorted to legal means.

~~~
a235
The sea shepherds are the key in seeding the legal debate - they are
documenting and exposing whale hunting as it is.

Without this documentation and tracking, the whalers will continue to hide
from anyone's view.

~~~
pixelbill
They have a HUGE bias, I doubt anything coming out of them is the actual
truth.

There are around 500,000 minke whales (the type they hunt) in the Antarctic,
Japanese whaling kills approximately 300 whales per year.

Please explain to me why you think this is such an issue?

~~~
JohnGB
There are 8 billion humans. So we should be allowed to hunt a few hundred
thousand a year without anyone having a problem with it.

The problem isn't primarily about the numbers of minke whales. It's that they
are hunting what many people consider a sentient species, in an inhuman way.
In most parts of the world, you aren't allowed to slaughter an animal (at
least in theory) in a way that causes pain or distress. With whales there is
no reasonable way of doing this due to their size.

