Sea Shepherds sank Ady Gil

Sea Shepherd doing a publicity stunt and risking their safety in the process? Nooooo. Can't imagine them ever doing that. Say what you will about their tactics, but you're still giving the story legs. I'd say they accomplished their goal, and success is it's own validation.

I sem to recall the last ad of theirs for volunteers I saw had that right up front. Don't think they want to hear 'Not my job' out there.

Japan ends Antarctic whaling season early

Japan ends Antarctic whaling season early.
Government cites harasment from Sea Shepherd activists
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41656257/ns/world_news-world_environment/

Sea Shepherd prepares for new campaign

Steve Irwin heads for Libya. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43081076/ns/world_news-world_environment/

Here we go again

Sea Shepherd :: Sea Shepherd Ship Severely Damaged by Rogue Wave

The biggest aid to stability for multi-hull vessels is also their weak point, that they react to different waves at the same time. That's a nasty looking crack. Glad all crew are alright, although that must have been one heck of a ride trying to get that sponson secured.
The Sea Shepherd org is now operating with (2) drones. I'd expect that to make them much harder to evade now.

Sadam had a habit of filling large holes with the bodies of those who protested, but (at the risk of another thread going political) right or wrong NATO forces took care of the burning oil wells. Iran, the same thing. You don't protest there. You die. Sea Shepherd's raming the Japanese whallers was just a publicity stunt to focus the world's attention on the flagrant killing of a protected species to keep it from joining the list of extinct creatures that will never again inhabit the earth, and it was a pretty good one based on the amount of discussion and media attention it generated. The messege is very simple: we don't need to kill whales, so why do it. If you have a need to see protesters die just go to Syria. I believe the number is up to about 4,000 there now. There is a line between protests and war. One often preceeds the other and both unfortunately have their place. But of course there will be two sides to both and both think they're right.

You'll have to carry this one without me. Have a happy new year.

As far as I know Japan is hunting Minke Whales that are not even at the verge of extingtion, they are not even mentioned at the Cites list.
As to "we don't need to kill whales", there are millions who believe that we don't need to kill animals at all.
I would prefer to see SS going after the systematic cleaning of the oceans by commercial fishing and floating fish processing plants

X2 Commercial fishing is killing much of our industry and our ocean worse than whaling.

Does 'He's doing a much worse thing' really fly as an argument for doing wrong? Is it a reason not to protest a wrong just because there are worse wrongs? Does 'We've killed most of the whales, but there's still a bunch of this sub-species' justify what most of the civilized world has decreed as wrong? These are rhetorical questions. Just about every argument for and against Sea Shepherd's work has already been hashed out in the S.S. threads. Just giving something to think about.

I have done my homework on this and can back up my statements.

We haven't killed most whales. In fact in the early 80's there was a collective temporarily ban on whaling to give the populations the chance to recuperate. Japan was not hunting during this ban.

Nowadays -when whale hunting has become sustainable again- the IWC is hijacked by the environmental organizations who use false information to manipulate the general public’s opinion. Out of fear of the public opinion most countries will never agree with catch quotas for whales anymore.

The Japanese have respected the ban but now that whaling has become sustainable have picked up where they left although with smaller quota. The only mistake they make in my opinion is that they hunt through a loophole that is called "scientific" whale research. They simply should have stepped out of the IWC and continued to hunt commercially for whales like Canada, The Faroe Islands, Norway and Iceland do.

SS is a business and whales appeal to the donors. It would be devastating for Paul Watson personally and SS as a business when the Japanese would in fact stop whaling.

As Bamboo rightfully added: "Commercial fishing is killing much of our industry and our ocean worse than whaling." However SS can only raise these amounts in donations when 'protecting' a species that appeals to our imagination as whales.

It's whales, elephants and panda's that receive all attention. You never hear of the orange-knee-tarantula or the brown mantella who are in fact on the verge of extingtion.

This part is perfect, yes.

I know a great many young and enthusiastic people, or at least ones that were at some point like that, who did some volunteer for "the green cause".
Just a personal observation: all of them came out of it severely... disenchanted.

Guess "doing urgent things instead of important things" is just the way human psychology works. Ramming whale boats with fancy-looking yachts does just about as much for whales as spraying graffiti over women in fur coats does for fur-bearing animals, but at least it's obvious, it's loud and it's in a way popular.

P.S. NYCAP, if you have a limited "resource of protest", protesting about lesser evil is wrong. For the cost of one of Sea Shepherds boat you can feed a good half of Africa. But pardon me, clearly glorious whales are more important then the bunch of them malnourished uneducated negro ex-slaves. "Just giving something to think about."(c)

Don't work for them. Never even said I support their tactics. Just able to see both sides of an issue and support in principle whatever I see as doing the least harm to those least able to protect themselves. My personal service and donations tend to be more local and seldom to top-loaded "charities" or to places where it won't reach those in need. As for your "them malnourished uneducated negro ex-slaves", A) maybe they need a Sea Shepherd working for their cause and B) you might want to think about how inappropriate that phrase is, even if used for effect. You see how easy it is to offend when you're passionate about your cause?

Seeing both sides can easily cause really awkward opinion split, trust me, it's kind of professional deformity in consulting In the end, they either need "another Sea Shepherd" working for their case, or something less "top-loaded". Not both, at least as long as donations/volunteer time are not infinite.
***here me stiffed up and totally avoided invoking Sturgeon's Law on the matter of "supporting the principle, just not agreeing on tactics"*** Tactics is principle, what else is there but things actually being done, anyways?

What I personally think on this, tho, is that it's indeed a matter of public. Which needs to wise up to differences between the circus so many *charities* have become nowadays and real helping out. As soon as we do that, people who prefer form over function in "doing good" will simply find themselves out of business.
And to this end, there is no need to scramble for excuses, on the contrary.

P.S. And again it's either "for effect" or "inappropriate". One who understands it as irony cannot then take it as offense.

Definitely not. The principle, keeping what doesn't need to be killed from being killed, is good. Interfering with the Japanese whalers (tactic) can be acceptable, not acceptable or varying degrees within. For me the ramming of ships for the purpose of drawing attention to their cause and to disable the ships is marginal and isn't personally acceptable to me, however I can understand and not totally condemn the tactic. Ramming with the intention of taking human life would not have been at all acceptable to me. Ramming a smaller vessel like the Addy Gil where there was a great chance of killing people was certainly not acceptable to me. The whalers would of course have a different view and state that the Addy Gil put itself into harms way. That brings me to a picture that I'm sure we all remember of a girl standing before a tank in Tiananmen Square. What a different picture and level of outrage there would have been if it had rolled over her, and I'm sure the Chinese government didn't agree with her principle nor tactic but most of the free world did. Guess it all comes down to "Which side are you on" as Pete Seger sang.

Mate, you have real bad manners: just as I managed to defile Sturgeon's Law, you bring up Tiananmen Square with just as much grace.

So guess shouldn't be bound myself: know a bunch of dudes with good intentions? We call them "bloody dictators" now.

As I said, you can't do this. The only known man who pulled this kind of stuff well was Socrate, and look up how that ended for him.
At least don't make a "position" out of fence sitting.
And if you do, avoid using determinators like "which side you're on" in the same post.

The problem is, it's very difficult down to impossible to feign tactics. I cannot break into your house, use your women, kill your child, and afterwards convince you we just had a nice party - not without use of Force anyways.
Heck, guess I can't even slap you on the face and make you think I just offered you a sip of fine wine.

It is however perfectly possible, and it is indeed done much, to twist, bend and in any other manner brutalize "principle". I did it for the love of God. With the intention to have a nice party.
Too many people delude even themselves, least to speak of others.

Therefore if you separate "principle" from tactics, you open those roadblocks on the highway to hell. To quote a good actor from fun movie, "i fail to see how you cherish the memory of the dead by killing another million".

Therefore, I never deal in principles. Someone who's intentionally, as in technically intentionally and not by obvious occasion such as loss of control, provoking dangerous situations at sea is a "bad guy". Tiananmen Square has nothing to do with it. People who are on the side of people who would intentionally provoke dangerous situations at sea - are not on my side.
Are you?

Guess you haven't dealt with many defense lawyers or political spin-masters. I believe very strongly in principles, but alas we are venturing way off topic. So I'll end my participation here.