And no not in the romanticized, like to drink, and wears eyepatches kind of way. In the our activities put people’s live and ships endanger on the high seas kind of way.

“When you ram ships, hurl glass containers of acid, drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders, launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate,”

That statement comes from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit US court of Appeals about Sea Shepherd (SS).  He overturned a lower court’s ruling against Japanese Whalers.

This was true “no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be,” he added in a ruling that dubbed SS founder Paul Watson “eccentric.”

At DSN, we have had a long tradition of being anti-SS.  Kevin argued that their seamanship was at the best atrocious and at the worst endangering lives of crew.  I posted that SS’s tactics make them pirates, terrorists, or a vigilante group.  None of these are desirable, move whale conservation ahead, and are a waste of donor’s good will and money. As I mentioned in that post

Watson’s brand of truthiness is often criticized by other conservation organizations and conservationists. Even among organizations who have similar end goals, they are deemed destructive to the overall cause of conservation. Yet those opposing Watson’s acts, people often very committed to the ultimate cause, are demonized by the organization’s supporters.  The general public is often turned off by this level extremism.  Reducing your support, dividing your base, making enemies of your compatriots, and relying on blind faith is not effective conservation.

Swimming with Sharks has several posts that articulate these and other reasons why you should never support SS.

Back to the case at hand.  You can see the official opinion here as pdf.  The case is the

INSTITUTE OF CETACEAN RESEARCH, a Japanese research foundation; KYODO SENPAKU KAISHA, LTD., a Japanese corporation; TOMOYUKI OGAWA, an individual; TOSHIYUKI MIURA, an individual, Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY, an Oregon nonprofit corporation; PAUL WATSON, an individual, Defendants – Appellees.

As the judge notes “The United States, Japan and many other nations are signatories to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling art. VIII, Dec. 2, 1946, 62 Stat. 1716, 161 U.N.T.S. 74, which authorizes whale hunting when conducted in compliance with a research permit issued by a signatory. [The plaintiffs have] such a permit from Japan.”  So where the activities of the Institute of Cetacean Research are thinly guised as “research” and the killing of whales in this case is atrocious, these activities are not illegal as concerning the International Convention. The  Institute of Cetacean Research is suing SS in the U.S. (even though SS ships are not allowed to fly U.S. flags the organization is still Oregon based) because “Sea Shepherd’s acts amount to piracy and violate international agreements regulating conduct on the high seas.”

As spelled out by UNCLOS, as well as the High Seas Convention, “piracy” is “illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship . . . and directed . . . on the high seas, against another ship . . . or against persons or property on board such ship.”  Judge Kozinski spells out several reasons why the acts of Sea Shepherd are considered “violent” as interpreted by UNCLOS.  He argues that the lower court took to narrow of definition and was opposed to those definitions set by UNCLOS.  For example, violence can be directed toward people and/or ships and equipment. But of course even using the narrower definition of violence only against people still makes SS culpable.

Regardless, Sea Shepherd’s acts fit even the district court’s constricted definition. The projectiles directly endanger Cetacean’s crew, as the district court itself recognized. And damaging Cetacean’s ships could cause them to sink or become stranded in glacier-filled, Antarctic waters, jeopardizing the safety of the crew.

For this reason the Ninth Circuit US court of Appeals as put the injunction back in place, i.e. SS will refrain from doing harassing Institute of Cetacean Research ship.s

The post Sea Shepherd, Without A Doubt, Pirates first appeared on Deep Sea News.

A report that the Japanese government will scrap all research whaling has been dismissed as a hoax. The report, tracked back to a US fake news website, coincided with Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s trip to Tokyo – her first since the Japanese whaling fleet was forced to pull out of the Southern Ocean early.

source via Southern Fried Science

“Effective immediately, Japan will no longer conduct scientific research on whale populations which require capture and dissection,” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Makoto Inoue, speaking at a press conference in Tokyo. “The Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries has revoked all permits for whaling research.”

Asked about the motivation behind the sudden announcement, Inoue said, “It cannot be denied that that whaling severely and unnecessarily damages the image of Japan in the international community, due to the strong sentiment against whaling in many countries,” speaking through an interpreter. “There is no longer any economic need for Japan to obtain protein from the whales, so it would be irrational and pointless to continue catching whales.”

source via Southern Fried Science

The post The end of whaling in Japan? first appeared on Deep Sea News.

via Did Outsider Pressure Speed The End Of Japan’s Antarctic Whaling—Or Prolong It? | Carl Safina.

The post Did Outsider Pressure Speed The End Of Japan’s Antarctic Whaling—Or Prolong It? | Carl Safina first appeared on Deep Sea News.

An Appeal to the Public to Not Visit Iceland Until Icelandic Whaling Stops

Online environmental activist and CEO of FISH4TRAVEL, INC., Robert Bennett, is asking thousands of people every day not to visit Iceland until the country stops killing whales. A website named rescuethewhales.org was created to raise awareness of Icelandic whaling and the fact that endangered whales are being killed and the meat is being sold to Japan, in defiance of the International Whaling Commission’s moratorium on commercial whaling.

The website is partnered with more than 100 travel websites that display thousands of advertisements to thousands of people every day stating “Iceland Kills Whales – I Will Not Visit Iceland”.

Resuethewhales.org [sic] finds irony in Iceland’s intractable actions which lie in their widespread attempts to attract tourism to their country for the purpo

se of whale sightings. The supporters of this campaign would like Iceland to understand that the public will not support Iceland’s whale sighting tourism while the country slaughters whales. With the support of well-known travel websites, such as pickatrail.com, the campaign aims to put an end to this cavalier attitude.

The public is encouraged to visit recuethewhales.org [sic] for more information regarding the killing of whales, and how the public can put a stop to these policies.

Two arguments against whaling exist. 1. Ethical–killing of any animal or more specifically a marine mammal is morally wrong. I won’t address this argument other than I find it hypocritical to protect whales for ethical reasons while simultaneously eating beef or pork. 2. Scientific–whales are endangered and takes of individuals are not only unsustainable but increase the risk of extinction.

From 1986-2007, Iceland took 562 whales (292 Fin, 70 Sei, and 200 Minke). Since 2003, Icelandic whale catches diminished considerably switching from Fin and Sei to Minke. For perspective, compare this to the reported 2,984 from the North Pacific and 9,409 from the Southern Hemisphere taken by Japanese from 1988-2009. Clearly, Japan and Iceland should be not be considered equals when it comes to whaling.

Of these three whales, Fin and Sei are endangered, occurring on the IUCN Red List. Minke are actually considered to separate species, Balaenoptera bonaerensis occurring in the Antarctic and Balaenoptera acutorostrata occurring globally. The Antarctic Minke are listed by the IUCN as Data Deficient, i.e. we do not have enough information on how many there are to make a statement about whether they are at risk. The other species, the ones taken by Iceland, are listed by the IUCN as least concern, i.e. not threatened. From IUCN…

There is no estimate of total global population size, but estimates from parts of the range in the Northern Hemisphere (totaling in excess of 100,000 individuals) show that it is well above the thresholds for a threatened category. While declines have been detected or inferred in some areas, there is no indication that the global population has declined to an extent that would qualify for a threatened category… The IWC recognizes four stocks of minke whales in the North Atlantic: Northeast Atlantic, Central North Atlantic, West Greenland, and Canadian East Coast. The last includes the US east coast. Population estimates were last reviewed by the IWC SC in 2003 (IWC 2004a), but a new estimate for West Greenland was accepted in 2006 (IWC 2007a). The best/most recent available estimates are listed in Table 1 in the linked PDF document (which constitutes an integral part of this assessment). These total about 182,000.

But here is key statement…

About 4,000 minke whales were taken off Iceland during 1941-85, but recent abundance estimates imply that this would have had no discernible effect on the population.

Nor would the current take of 20-50 per year. To summarize again, the North Atlantic stocks are well over 100,000 and a catch rate of one-two orders of magnitude higher than the current would be sustainable. Contrast this with the statement from above by RescueTheWhales

the fact that endangered whales are being killed

The problem here resides in the idea of passing an ethical argument off as a scientific one. I am for marine conservation but based on sound science not on morality. Conservation based on the later is weak and easily altered by our whims. Another issue also rises by confusing the two justifications for conservation. When people find out the actual truth, in this case that Minkes are not endangered, they target science as the culprit. The public starts to assume that science is inaccurate, capricious, or worse untruthful. When in actuality sound science was present throughout but ignored. You can see the danger in this first hand by looking at the post and comments section in Miriam’s recent piece.

Whether you choose to harvest or eat Fin or Sei is a scientific choice. We should not as both are endangered.

Whether you choose to harvest or eat Minke is an ethical question based on whether you choose to eat any animal, not just whales. And like I made the decision to eat domesticated cows or pigs or hunted animals like deer and rabbit, I so decided to eat Minke Whale on a recent trip to Iceland. Science says its ok.

The post From The Editor’s Desk: Is Icelandic Whaling Bad? first appeared on Deep Sea News.

No, this isn’t the Knight Rider of the harbor. This batmobile of conservation is now the newest member of the  Sea Shepherd team, also known as Team Sink-A-Boat-For-Whales. From Sea Shepherd’s press office:

Due to its speed capabilities, up to 50 knots, Captain Paul Watson (Sea Shepherd President and Founder) intends to use the Ady Gil to intercept and physically block the harpoon ships from illegally slaughtering whales.

Says Captain Watson, “We’re very excited that the Ady Gil will be joining the Steve Irwin in Antarctica this campaign. With these two ships, we will mount the most ambitious and aggressive effort to date to obstruct the slaughter of the whales in the Southern Ocean.”

Says Chuck Swift, Deputy CEO in charge of ship’s operations, “The Ady Gil gives us the speed necessary to catch and stay with the Japanese whaling fleet. We are very optimistic that with these two ships, and some other surprises, we will shut down whaling in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary.”

Thats your hard earned donor’s dollars work. Saving whales and stuff man. But let us take a moment to reflect on the manner in which Sea Shepherd operates the “normal” ship they already mismanage.

(Below the fold)

Now, it is easy to hate on Sea Shepherd but it is important to constantly remind the philanthropic public how bad an organization this is. They are systematically removing valuable conservation dollars from organizations that might actually make a difference. Their incompetence knows no bounds, yet they continue to receive donations.

Take for example the above video. There are certain rules that one must abide when working at sea, especially in the Southern Ocean with water temperatures not quite in the summer Jamaican vacation range. Anyone with a captain’s license would know that. Oh wait, Paul Watson is not actually a commissioned captain, but is instead a liar, bullies critics with bogus legal action, mismanages donors funds, hinders real progress in conservation, exploits whale deaths for fame and fortune, has little to no respect in the conservation community, and seriously endangers the lives of other people in one of the most dangerous working environments!

So for any novice wannabe self-commissioned ship captains out there, we here at Deep Sea News would like to offer a little guidance. This is DSN’s 7 Simple Rules for Marine Conservation Expedition Safety

1. 1) NEVER launch a zodiac when the ship is moving, i.e there should be NO WAKE off the bow
2. 2) NEVER let go of a steady rope and best to hold that sucker taught
3. 3) NEVER board a zodiac until the zodiac has reached a stationary position on the sea surface, secured in place with a taught steady rope
4. 4) NEVER climb over the safety rail of a moving ship onto a zodiac that has not reached a state described in (3)
5. 5) NEVER release the steady rope until the side crane’s hook has been released and the boat and  its passengers are safely situated in a state as described in (3)
6. 6) NEVER put you hand between the safety rail of the ship and that of any heavy object being hoisted over the side
7. 7) NEVER look on dumbly as the crew under your command do something obviously stupid and moronic

We hope you all will have a fun, safe marine conservation expedition this Antarctic summer season! And remember, if you follow our 7 Simple Rules, you might actually save a whale!

(Disclaimer: Saving whales does not stop actually the practice of whaling, it only makes you feel good about yourself and look heroic in front of a camera. To save whales you have to actually interact with government and industry officials to enact rules and legislature, change hearts and minds, have a decent enough argument that sways people, etc. It is not easy, that is why hundreds of marine scientists around the world work hard on this problem EVERY DAY.)

The post DSN’s 7 Simple Rules for Marine Conservation Expedition Safety first appeared on Deep Sea News.

And if for some strange reason you are not reading Southern Fried Science, read their recent posts Sea Sheppard FAIL and What a Good Conservation Organization Looks Like. Then watch this amazing creation. Open thread for discussing the utter uselessness and waste that is Sea Sheppard.

Also, see Shark Divers’ blog.

The post Southpark Hates On Sea Shepherd first appeared on Deep Sea News.

I am standing in the back of a large lorry, my feet submerged in a pool of blood, water and oil. The truck’s container is open to a grey Welsh sky, but with high-sided walls to keep the blood and us hidden from view. I shout instructions to Nick, my PhD student, over the wind and rain: “Just climb on to its back and start cutting!” He looks doubtful. Our task lies stinking before us – a nine-metre whale corpse freshly pulled from the Bristol Channel.

Adrian Glover writes an excellent essay covering the awe and joy of deep-sea science and cutting up dead whales at the New Statesmen

The post Chopping Up Whales For Science! first appeared on Deep Sea News.

[sic]

To whom it may concern,
After reviewing your comments concerning the Sea Shepard, it is quite apparent that you do not appose the killing of whales by the Japanese!! It is also apparent that you support such actions by these savages!! The efforts that the crew of the Sea Shepard have put into such a mission, I’m sure is more then any of you have accomplished in a lifetime. It’s to bad there are poeple like you who only bring negativity through the media. Their couragous fight will continue!!!!

With Much regret,
D.L. [full name removed]
[location removed]
Animal and Marine Advocate

We always appreciate our readers emailing us and expressing their opinions. Ad hominem attacks not so much.  There is no doubt that our Sea Shepherd post has energized a certain contingent.  What continues to bother me is that people believe certain that topics or institutions are above critical examination.  You cannot critique religion or church, United States government, conservation organizations, nonprofits, and many others.  To do such is to be labeled antireligious, unamerican, a commie pinko bastard or, as purported by D.L., a person supporting whaling  by the Japanese.  But a firm commitment to any cause, including conservation, is a consistent reexamination to ensure that goals are being met.  T0 proceed in an ineffective manner that wastes time and funds, or is even detrimental to the cause, does a disservice to stakeholders, donors, and those dedicated to the particular mission at hand.

To not regularly reexamine an organization’s actions means you deteriorate the very cause you are working for. Sea Shepherd consistently dodges criticisms and point to anecdotes that favor its positions without providing evidence that can be corroborated by an uninvolved party.  Currently, there is more support for whale conservation than ever among the public.  You would be hard pressed to find someone who says “Let’s kill the whales!” A thoughtful and strategic plan that capitalizes on this growing public support is likely to make great advancements.  Yet Sea Shepherd has adopted an ecoterrorism approach instead of environmentalism, polarizing the public much the same way PETA and the Animal Liberation Front do.  A peer-reviewed, academic paper written by experts on global terrorism trends and Sea Shepherd  found it difficult to classify the organization

“… we also note that on the one hand, it may be possible to argue that in some respects the Sea Shepherds may constitute either a “blind spot” in the literature on terrorism and political violence, because its actions could in some circumstances be considered activism, militant direct action, piracy, vigilantism, terrorism, or eco-defense, which makes it very difficult to classify. On the other hand, that both the Sea Shepherds and the whalers may both engage in illegal activities, but are not prosecuted, may indicate that states and the international community may have neither the will nor the means to enforce laws against them. Therefore, they may be turning a blind eye to their actions.”

The authors concluded that

“Despite the ambiguity surrounding their legal status and academic interpretations of their actions, the results of nearly three decades of the organization’s activities, including its 2007 campaign to disrupt Japanese Antarctic Whaling, suggest that the Sea Shepherds may be best categorized as a vigilante group, because they claim they are seeking to enforce a legal status quo because of states’ and the international community’s inabilities or unwillingness to do so.”

If we look at the United Nations Convention on the High Seas (Article 101) and the Convention on the Law of the Sea the definition of piracy is

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of the ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft.

Sea Shepherd are pirates (and characterize themselves as such), and many countries (Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Belize, United States) now have revoked registry for the group.  Sea Shepherd cannot fly several countries’ flags in disregard of maritime law.

GreenPeace has even criticized Sea Shepard:

Paul Watson became active with Greenpeace in 1971 as a member of our second expedition against nuclear weapons testing in Amchitka, and went on to participate in actions against whaling and the killing of harp seals.  He was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder. He was expelled from the leadership of Greenpeace in 1977 by a vote of 11 to one (only Watson himself voted against it). Bob Hunter (one of Greenpeace’s early leaders, after whom a Sea Shepherd vessel was named) described the event in his book, the Greenpeace Chronicles:

‘No one doubted his [Watson’s] courage for a moment. He was a great warrior brother. Yet in terms of the Greenpeace gestalt, he seemed possessed by too powerful a drive, too unrelenting a desire to push himself front and center, shouldering everyone else aside… He had consistently gone around to other offices, acting out the role of mutineer. Everywhere he went, he created divisiveness… We all felt we’d got trapped in a web no one wanted to see develop, yet now that it had, there was nothing to do but bring down the axe, even if it meant bringing it down on the neck of our brother.”

Watson founded his own group, Sea Shepherd, in 1977.

• in 1986, Sea Shepherd carried out an action against the Icelandic whaling station in Hvalfjoerdur and sank two Icelandic whaling vessels in Reykjavik harbor by opening their sea valves;[1]
• in December 1992, Sea Shepherd sank the vessel Nybroena in port;[2]
• Sea Shepherd claimed to have sank the Taiwanese drift net ship Jiang Hai in port in Taiwan and to have rammed and disabled four other Asian drift net ships;[3]
• a Canadian court ordered Watson and his former ship, the Cleveland Armory, to pay a total of $35,000 for ramming a Cuban fishing vessel off the coast of Newfoundland in June 1993;[4]
• in January 1994 the group severely damaged the whaling ship Senet in the Norwegian port of Gressvik.[5]

Each of the whaling ships noted above was refloated and refitted for continued whaling…Although Paul Watson is a vehement anti-whaling activist, he regularly lends his support to attacks on Greenpeace — some of them organized by the whalers themselves. [8]…We passionately want to stop whaling, and will do so peacefully. That’s why we won’t help Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace is committed to non-violence and we’ll never, ever, change that; not for anything. If we helped Sea Shepherd to find the whaling fleet we’d be responsible for anything they did having got that information, and history shows that they’ve used violence in the past, in the most dangerous seas on Earth. For us, non-violence is a non-negotiable, precious principle. Greenpeace will continue to act to defend the whales, but will never attack or endanger the whalers.We differ with Paul Watson on what constitutes violence. He states that nobody has ever been harmed by a Sea Shepherd action.  But the test of non-violence is the nature of your action, not whether harm results or not.  There are many acts of violence — for example, holding a gun to someone’s head — which result in no harm.  That doesn’t change their nature. We believe that throwing butryic acid at the whalers, dropping cables to foul their props, and threatening to ram them in the freezing waters of the Antarctic constitutes violence because of the potential consequences. The fact that the consequences have not been realized is irrelevant. In addition to being morally wrong, we believe the use of violence in protection of whales to be a tactical error. If there’s one way to harden Japanese public opinion and ensure whaling continues, it’s to use violent tactics against their fleet. It’s wrong because it puts human lives at risk, and it’s wrong because it makes the whalers stronger in Japan…Disabling a ship at sea in the Antarctic, regardless of how much one may object to its activities, is not only a callous act of disregard for human life — it’s courting an environmental disaster in one of the most fragile environments in the world. (see article at GreenPeace for information on footnotes, especially [8])

From a New York Times article

In “Earthforce!,” Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, “as Ronald Reagan did.” Several years after ramming the Sierra, Watson gave himself the title of captain, though he does not have a captain’s license. “He loves to dress up in uniform, as ‘Captain Paul Watson,’ and suddenly there’s enough gold braid on his shoulders to skipper the Queen Mary,” David Sellers, an old friend and former Sea Shepherd crew member, told me. In the eighties, Sellers and Watson fought so bitterly over the seaworthiness of Watson’s ship that they did not speak for fifteen years. (Sellers, a licensed captain, had insisted that it was not safe for ocean travel.) Many of Watson’s colleagues from the seventies and eighties no longer work with him; they have grown tired either of the campaigns or of Watson’s style of leadership—“anarchy run by God,” a longtime volunteer called it. “He doesn’t like people who disagree with him.”

Watson’s brand of truthiness is often criticized by other conservation organizations and conservationists. Even among organizations who have similar end goals, they are deemed as destructive to the overall cause of conservation. Yet those opposing Watson’s acts, people often very committed to the ultimate cause, are demonized by the organization’s supporters.  The general public is often turned off by the extremism.  Reducing your support, dividing your base, making enemies of your compatriots, and relying on blind faith is not effective conservation.

Whether we here at DSN have accomplished anything for marine conservation through our writings, research, volunteering, support of effective organizations like MCBI, Oceana, or CORAL, is for our readers to decide. We may not be experts in how to accomplish conservation, but we are certainly knowledgeable enough to understand how to not achieve said goals.

Nagtzaam, G., & Lentini, P. (2008). Vigilantes on the High Seas?: The Sea Shepherds and Political Violence Terrorism and Political Violence, 20 (1), 110-133 DOI: 10.1080/09546550701723658

-Signed Dr. M and Kevin Z

The post We Get Mail – Sea Shepherd Shenanigans Edition first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The New York Times carries an interesting OpEd that seeks to provide a reality check on the International Whaling Commission:

At this point in its troubled history, it appears that the main function of the International Whaling Commission, which met last week on the Portuguese island of Madeira, is to ensure its own survival — and with it, the survival of a 40-year-old loophole-ridden “ban” on commercial whaling that is not really a ban at all.

The Op-Ed article highlights issues of non-compliance, and lack of enforcement (outside of renegades). One particular aspect is likely to raise your eyebrows, the high price of whale meat:

the monetary value of whales — as much as $100,000 for a single minke whale — almost guarantees that they will be sold commercially, whether they’re killed for “research” or subsistence. Meanwhile, the appetite to resume open, aboveboard commercial whaling grows stronger, especially as whale numbers — though they remain far below historic levels — recover.

If the intention of the Editorial was to sow doubt, I think it worked. Is fisheries politics a never ending downward spiral? There must be some way out of here…

The post Reality Check on Whaling, and Its Opposition first appeared on Deep Sea News.

From the BBC:

Protesters had escalated their attacks on Japanese ships, the agency said… 16 days of hunting were lost due to bad weather and confrontations at sea between activists and the six-ship whaling fleet… The Fisheries Agency added that several hunting ships were damaged in collisions or by chemicals thrown by the protesters.

The post Whaling protests bad for business first appeared on Deep Sea News.