Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Whaling Group Using Drones To Find Whalers

Comments Filter:
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Monday December 26, 2011 @06:13AM (#38492902) Homepage Journal
    I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered whales. The whales being hunted(mostly minke whales), are nowhere near endangered, so why is there just so much opposition to the whaling? Do these people really have nothing better to do with their time and money than harassing fishing boats? Maybe they should just get into Magic the Gathering instead, eats time and money like nothing else....

    Also have these people actually tried whale meat? It's delicious.
  • by InterestingFella (2537066) on Monday December 26, 2011 @06:14AM (#38492906)
    Disappointment? Things work both ways. But since the whalers are in international waters, they should just shoot down those drones. It's not like the anti-whalers have tons of cash to spend on them.
  • by Issarlk (1429361) on Monday December 26, 2011 @06:27AM (#38492942)
    By fishermen you mean scientists, right ?
  • by axx (1000412) on Monday December 26, 2011 @06:34AM (#38492970) Homepage

    I'm trying to figure out if you're trolling, or just have never considered the ethics of hunting and killing other sentient species for pleasure.

    You may not realise this, but whaling is actually against international regulations. Sea Shepherd simply enforce the ban in International waters, given no one else does. They also protect and defend many other marine species.

    It's called conservation.

    Overfishing and fucked up fishing practices are incredibly common place, it's good we have some people trying to prevent it.

  • by bky1701 (979071) on Monday December 26, 2011 @06:38AM (#38492984) Homepage
    "the least polluting energy we have is solar wind and hydro"

    If you ignore how the actual plants are produced. Hint: solar isn't very clean to build on the scale it has to be to work. Hydro is likely the most dangerous and destroys environments. Wind is extremely expensive and makes large tracts of land unusable. And finally, none of them are actually answers. Solar and wind are not reliable enough and never will be with out level of technology, and that is unlikely to change soon. Hydro can only be built in some places and usually is not for the aforementioned reasons. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and cheapest option we have. We need to stop listening to fearmongers and figure out how to make it work right. Coal and oil are power until that happens. Solar and wind are pipedreams.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26, 2011 @06:42AM (#38492996)

    I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered whales. The whales being hunted(mostly minke whales), are nowhere near endangered, so why is there just so much opposition to the whaling? Do these people really have nothing better to do with their time and money than harassing fishing boats? Maybe they should just get into Magic the Gathering instead, eats time and money like nothing else....

    Also have these people actually tried whale meat? It's delicious.

    Because the Japanese have proven time and time again they don't just go after the 'non-endangered' species.
    How many times do people have to be shown the truth?

    Most of last years catch of whale meat ROTTED at the Institue behind this sham.

    At this point they are killing whales out of tradition and the small minority that eat the meat still.

    And do you really think harpooning and electrocuting the largest mammals on earth whose brain power and emotional states are generally compared to say YOU , don't you think thats a little...off?

  • by unity100 (970058) on Monday December 26, 2011 @07:00AM (#38493048) Homepage Journal
    whaling is illegal in majority of countries which actually could engage in whaling. case in point below.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7188674.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    that means, the majority of the countries which have a stake in this, are against whaling. but, japan, engages in whaling on its own accord.

    then lets reflect on this - where does the 'individual freedom' stop ? see, majority of the countries in the world find something unethical and ban something, like slavery. and then is it ok if i broke accord and go against majority, and engage in slaving within my own country or international waters/zones - based on my own 'freedom' ?

    it is a simple case of individual freedom's limits. there is no unlimited individual freedom, and there cant be unlimited individual freedom. you cant just go shit in your neighbor's backyard, or your neighbor cant just shit on the streets in common space. there are all encompassing rules that everyone needs to obey for society to EXIST (note how i didnt say 'work', but, even to exist), and these rules are determined by the overall level of ethics and morals understanding of the entire society. (planet in this case).
  • by Ardeaem (625311) on Monday December 26, 2011 @07:07AM (#38493080)
    "I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered humans. The people I'd like to hunt (mostly developmentally-disabled people), are nowhere near endangered, so why is there just so much opposition to the people hunting? Do these anti-human hunting people really have nothing better to do with their time and money than harassing human-hunting parties? Maybe they should just get into Magic the Gathering instead, eats time and money like nothing else...."

    Seriously, if you think the amount of a particular species is the only thing relevant to the ethics of killing it, you aren't thinking about ethics very hard. The fact that your post was modded up is baffling. We can disagree on whether whales are intelligent enough to make killing them unethical (I think the evidence shows they probably are, and it is better to err on the side of not killing intelligent animals unnecessarily).

    And then you belittle Sea Shepherd for acting in a principled manner and putting their lives and money on the line to fight something that a strong argument can be made (whether you agree with it or not) is like murder. While you might like playing Magic, at least they're out there fighting for something that has the potential to make the world a better place not just for future people, but other intelligent species as well.
  • by Discopete (316823) on Monday December 26, 2011 @07:14AM (#38493108) Homepage

    I'd be willing to bet that the minute the Japanese whaling fleet took a missile shot at the drone, the Australian navy would be all over them. The Japanese don't need that kind of bad PR at this point in time.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26, 2011 @07:55AM (#38493206)

    I'm trying to figure out if you're trolling, or just have never considered the ethics of hunting and killing other sentient species for pleasure.

    I don't think they're doing it for fun.

  • by tenco (773732) on Monday December 26, 2011 @08:16AM (#38493268)

    Here in southern Germany you still have to test mushrooms and wild boar for radioactivity because of the Chernobyl accident 1986. It's mostly due to Cs137 which has a half life of ~ 30 years. I remember having to stay indoors for days as a child (i was 5 at that time) because of that accident. The linear distance to Chernobyl is about 1400 km.

    I would call that very much polluting.

  • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday December 26, 2011 @08:21AM (#38493280) Homepage Journal

    Won't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure that our guns could reach higher than a drone could fly. Of course, those were navy main deck guns, and whalers don't have anything as big, or as powerful available to them.

    What whalers MIGHT get hold of, are some missiles. Shoulder launched SAM missiles, if they can acquire a lock on the drone. Drones are rather stealthy, lacking a lot of the heat, radio, and/or magnetism associated with older and/or ancient aircraft. So - you rely on sight? Fly-by-wire?

    But, when you get down to it, I think the Iranians have the best idea. Just use some radio equipment to jam communications, the GPS spoof it into landing on the water, recover the blasted thing yourself, and the Greenies are out one drone.

    All that said - I do wish the Japanese would quit hunting whales. It's not like they are going to starve without them. Back in the day when there were tens of thousands of any given species, and mankind only captured a few dozen whales per year, things were cool. Today, the population is just to damned low, and we've become to damned efficient. Extinction threatens, and that just sucks.

  • by msobkow (48369) on Monday December 26, 2011 @09:15AM (#38493444) Homepage Journal

    Isn't there an international standard of a 200 mile influence from a nation's shores, subject to negotiation of overlapping districts?

    Regardless, the Japanese claims of "scientific research" seem like a flimsy excuse for the slaughter. Whales are intelligent, emotional creatures like dolphins. They communicate over vast distances. Just because they're not human doesn't mean we should be slaughtering them any more than we should primates.

    They're too far up the evolutionary chain to be treated as common food animals.

  • by impaledsunset (1337701) on Monday December 26, 2011 @09:42AM (#38493554)

    Comparing anti-whalers to nuclear power opponents is disingenuous. The opponents of nuclear power are crying against the dangers and pollution it can cause, ignoring the fact that compared to other energy sources it's relatively safe and clean. Their campaign is self-contradictory.

    The anti-whalers are against the killing of these and other species, because they consider this an immoral act the seriousness of which trumps the matters past that. Even if you don't agree with them, you can't say it's not wise. And they do have a point. Whales are species with recognized cognitive abilities. You know what's NOT wise? Hunting them. Do you also realise that whaling is banned by many countries, and part of what the Sea Shepherds are doing is enforcing laws that nobody else is?

  • by axx (1000412) on Monday December 26, 2011 @10:37AM (#38493840) Homepage

    I fail to see how anything in your comment is related or answers my previous comment.
    Also, I think your grossly exaggerating, but maybe you're simply not used to the concept of “civil society” and activism.

    Lastly, saying SSCS are cowards is amusing, given they engage in direct action and walk the talk, contrary to many environmentalist NGOs.

  • by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday December 26, 2011 @11:05AM (#38493972) Journal

    The opponents of nuclear power are crying against the dangers and pollution it can cause, ignoring the fact that compared to other energy sources it's relatively safe and clean.

    Nuclear is safe and clean as long as you ignore the risk of an accident.
    We can pretend that the operators won't cut corners and regulators won't ignore violations, but that isn't realistic.
    I can sell you some really cheap land in Japan if you ever want to live on the end result of "relatively safe and clean."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26, 2011 @11:15AM (#38494024)

    Actually much of the whaling has been happening illegally in australian waters, and believe me, firearms would absolutely be the last straw in our governments very thin patience with these poachers.

    So are the Oz folks willing to keep the activists under control as well? If they're not, then they're not doing their goddamned job. I'm no fan of poachers, but this vigilante mentality that it's somehow okay for the Sea Shepherd nutters to run amok when they're doing something politically correct yet illegal is a crock of crap.

    Ripped from Wikipedia:

    According to its mission statement, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society "uses innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas". Those actions have included scuttling and disabling commercial whaling vessels at harbor, ramming other vessels, throwing glass bottles of butyric acid on the decks of vessels at sea, boarding of whaling vessels while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea. As of 2009, Paul Watson has said that the organization has sunk ten whaling ships while also destroying millions of dollars worth of equipment. Their practice of attacking and sinking other ships has led to reports of injuries to other sailors as well as the Sea Shepherd crew, including concussions and complications from chemical attacks.

    --snip-

    Ramming? Really? I'm no fan of the poachers, but I will say that it wouldn't be a stretch to get a hold of some surplus RPGs and explain it to a couple of Sea Shepherd vessels. Would I stand down to the Australian Navy or whatever their coast guard is called? Sure. Some independent ban of loons ramming my ship? Not likely. These fuckers are no different than the ELF [wikipedia.org] or ALF [wikipedia.org].

    Leave the policing of bad guys to nation-states and their organizations... otherwise don't cry when the poachers get annoyed and start to escalate. With two major wars winding down there are going to be plenty of surplus mercs on the market willing to do bad things to people.

  • Re:Kudos (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RazorSharp (1418697) on Monday December 26, 2011 @11:25AM (#38494080)

    Yeah! Terrorism is awesome when it's motivated by tree-hugging!

    If I was a Japanese whaler Sea Shepherd wouldn't exist, their asses would be getting eaten by the fishes they love oh-so-much at the bottom of international waters.

    I'm not necessarily a big fan of the fact that the Japanese partake in whaling, but I think they have more of a right to do that than Sea Shepherd does to terrorize the whalers. The whalers would be completely justified in protecting their property with deadly force.

    If Japanese activists came over and did this sort of thing to American ships the U.S. Navy wouldn't think twice before torpedoing their asses.

  • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) on Monday December 26, 2011 @11:58AM (#38494284) Homepage Journal

    So they are both self-righteous assholes and cowards in my book.

    Consider them self-righteous assholes all you want, but calling them (or the Occupiers, for that matter) "cowards" is patently absurd. I suspect you have no conception of what real courage looks like, but feel all tough and brave because you slapped a "Support our Troops" sticker on your SUV.

  • by gtall (79522) on Monday December 26, 2011 @03:41PM (#38496160)

    Really? Ever own a cat. They have brains the size of a walnut yet each has their own personality. Mine would pout if they wanted to be close and I pushed them away. They'd play tricks on me. They knew when I didn't feel well, their behavior changed.

    It used to be that people owning slaves in the South thought of them as farm animals as well, devoid of intelligent thought. If you have it drilled into you that other creatures are nothing more than automatons, then you will treat them like that regardless.

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.

Working...