Andrew is a post-doctoral researcher in North Carolina focused on population and conservation genetics in hydrothermal vent communities.
As promised, this week’s ethical debate deals with one of the most hotly debated issues in the marine conservation community- the tactics of “Sea Shepherd”.
Though “Sea Shepherd” is most famous (or infamous) for their work with the Japanese whaling fleet, which is featured in “Whale Wars”, they are also heavily involved with the shark finning industry.
Before we get started, I want to say something about the tone of this debate. I know from our own comments sections, even ones that don’t deal directly with Sea Shepherd, that there are strong opinions on both sides of this issue. See last week’s Deep Sea News, particularly the comments section, for an example of this. Here at Southern Fried Science, we recently came up with a new comments policy, which we will be enforcing strictly with this post. DO NOT personally attack anyone, DO NOT try to change the subject to something totally irrelevant, and DO NOT post under multiple names to create the false appearance of a majority (“sock puppetry”). Since the Deep Sea News post covered whale stuff pretty solidly, we will only be talking about shark finning here. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHALING IN THIS POST.
Ok, now on to the debate.
If anyone isn’t familiar with Sea Shepherd’s methods or the controversy surrounding them, you will likely be confused by the caution with which I introduced this ethical debate. Hopefully that will soon be made clear.
While groups like Oceana and WildAid focus on public education, Sea Shepherd focuses on action. As an example, in the movie “Sharkwater”, which I really liked except for the parts that involved Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson and his crew find a ship actively engaged in longlining for sharks to fin. Using a high-powered water cannon, the Sea Shepherd folks attempt to flood the engines of the shark finning vessel. They also attempt to destroy fishing gear in the water. There are many reported incidents where Sea Shepherd vessels actually ram fishing vessels.
They also do things like this - a woman in London suspended herself by hooks in her skin to protest the sale of shark products at a department store.
Let me be perfectly clear on my background with shark conservation before I state my opinions on Sea Shepherd. I believe that sharks play a critical role in the ecosystem. I believe that due in no small part to the shark finning industry, populations of many sharks species have declines by as much as 90% in the last few decades. I believe that shark finning is a brutal, wasteful, and completely unsustainable practice and I would be quite happy if it stopped.
That said, Sea Shepherd and their tactics are bad for the conservation movement, bad for sharks, bad for science, and morally wrong in their own right.
Dr. M at Deep Sea News summarizes nicely why ramming ships is so completely unacceptable.
- The ramming of another vessel is against every maritime code and just general sense of decency I can think of.
- For a captain to put both his own vessel and crew at risk and another as well, intentionally, is beyond forgiveness.
- To conduct such an act that serves absolutely no function other than showboating or putting on a good show for television crews is cheap.
I’ll add little to this, other than to point out that the ship being attacked by Sea Shepherd in Sharkwater was crewed by poor South American fisherman who haven’t been able to find other work. And yes, “attacked” is the right word when one vessel attempts to damage or destroy another vessel. Disregarding the bad PR of well-off Americans violently telling poor people that they can’t earn a living, YOU JUST CAN’T DO THAT. People’s lives were put in danger! The shark finners are made to look like victims- in fact, they ARE victims- which makes others sympathetic to them.
Yes, the individual sharks freed from the longlines by Sea Shepherd are probably better off. However, sharks as a whole are FAR WORSE OFF as a result of Sea Shepherd’s insane and criminal actions. I speak to the general public about sharks and shark conservation whenever I get the chance. It is HARD to get people to care about sharks. I have had some success through reasoned and respectful argument. All that Sea Shepherd does is to make regular people associate caring about sharks with being insane and violent- and they DO make the association. I have not yet had any success convincing anyone who has seen Sea Shepherd endanger the lives of poor people for the sake of sharks that sharks are worth saving, and I know many other sane shark activists who have had the same problem.
While Sea Shepherd is superbly skilled at making headlines, the news stories usually focus on the criminal actions taken by Sea Shephard and almost never focus on the actual scientific reasons why sharks are important- largely because many Sea Shepherd members are ignorant of science. Simply “generating awareness” is not helpful, particularly when it’s done in this way.
I appreciate the enthusiasm, but it would be nice if it were directed towards actually helping sharks instead of becoming famous and demonizing people who don’t have another way to earn money.
We will NEVER get sharks the legal protection they need without getting large groups of people to care about sharks. Sea Shepherd DOES NOT get regular people to care about sharks, they get regular people to associate caring about sharks with being insane and endangering the lives of poor people. Sharks and the shark conservation movement are FAR WORSE OFF as a result of Sea Shepherd.
Thoughts? Please keep it relevant, respectful, and sock-puppet free.
~WhySharksMatter
I agree whole heartedly on the points against aggressive actions like ramming boats. They cross the line between protector and pirate, and it doesn’t do anyone any good.
I hope this isn’t too off topic, but I wanted to talk about the other methods you mentioned. Specifically, what about that woman hung by hooks? You seem to be just as offended by that as the sea warfare.
I actually think that was a brilliant protest. Does it grab your attention? Definitely. Does it make you cringe? Absolutely. Will it make you talk and think about what’s going on? Yes.
Let’s put it this way. It didn’t harm anyone (the woman, I’d argue, isn’t “harmed” since she clearly agreed to do it and is likely someone who enjoys that sort of thing… however painful it is to look at). This means it doesn’t go against any of the other reasons you have for disapproving. It’s newsworthy. It got in headlines and it made a statement. And not, as we just established, by breaking any laws. While it wouldn’t be my personal way of showing protest, it’s unique, eye-catching resistance art. How is it any different than the “truth” ads against smoking? Or any other ad campaign that shows horrific images to get your attention, like ones that show beat up animals or starving children?
Like I said, I agree that they should stop the ridiculous and dangerous activities that they do on the high seas. But, if anything, I’d like to see more stunts like the shark-woman. Ad campaigns use graphic images for a reason. If pictures of dead sharks aren’t cutting it (no pun intended), why not use something that gets under the public’s skin a bit more (pun intended)?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Stuff like that isn’t as bad because, as you say, it doesn’t endanger anyone else. However, shocking people to get their attention isn’t as effective as respectful, reasoned argument.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I would like to believe that were true. But reason only works once someone decides to care, or at least think, about something. You can rationally explain to someone why smoking is bad for them, but let’s be honest – showing them images of their lungs on and off smoking has an immediate and lasting impact. Those anti-marijuana ads with the deflated people stick in your mind whether you want them to or not. Do I think reason, science and education are important in changing our world for the better? Absolutely. But I wouldn’t condemn a little shock and awe every once in awhile to get people’s attention.
I’d like to see protestors surrounding the japanese boats like Angels did to Phelps. I think simply following them closely, taking video and photos of what they do, and preferably scaring off any whales they come near would be enough – no violence needed. Make their job difficult. I watched the first season of whale wars, and the most memorable part, to me, was the image of a freshly-killed whale being hauled onto the japanese boat. It made me tear up with anger and sadness every time I saw it. Those images should be put where everyone sees what is being done.
It’s hard, though, when it comes to sharks, because people don’t see a great white and think “yeah, I want to see that when I go to the beach.” I mean, we do, but most people are just as happy if they never see a shark in their natural habitat. How do you convince those people that they are important? Especially when years like this one, with high shark attack numbers, just scare people into thinking there are too many sharks out there to begin with.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I’m with Christie on this. There’s a place for calm reasoned debates, and a place for immediate and emotional impact. But once you add violence to the mix, the story stops being about the issues and becomes consumed by the actors. When people are only discussing the tactics, and not the issues, the tactics have failed.
And big dramatic displays work. When Greenpeace volunteers sailed into a nuclear testing range and refused to leave, people noticed. When the nation whose testing program was being disrupted responded by blowing up the Greenpeace flagship, people really noticed. Sympathy is rarely wasted on the aggressor, and those who resort to violence to prove their point throw themselves upon their own swords.
Sea Shepherd is a failed experiment, that some people have refused to abandon.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Hmm…I’m with David on this one. I think that hanging yourself by skin hooks, while inducing an emotional impact, does nothing more than associate caring about sharks with crazy people.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it – just a bit insane. I personally doubt that anyone came away from seeing hook-strung lady thinking “you know, sharks are important to the environment. I’m gonna pay more attention to them and support that cause.” More than likely, what she caused was “Look at the crazy lady mommy.”
MAYBE she made a few people hear about shark-finning that were previously ignorant. But I seriously doubt any of those people took any further steps to help the shark’s plight.
I freely admit that I could be COMPLETELY wrong on this. Maybe she was much more effective than my cynical mind thinks. But I personally doubt it. I would certainly be open to the idea if some data supported it as a useful method.
I also think hook-lady is a distinctly different tactic from the greenpeace protest, which sounded effective from Andrew’s description.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Well, agreed that hook-lady is different than the Greenpeace protest. But who can say how effective she was? Shock advertising has been studied (sparingly, from what I could find), and has been found to be more effective when it comes to memory and behavior, though there does seem to be some debate about it. Even still, that doesn’t mean all shock campaigns are equal. The point is that at least hook-lady did something to get attention to the cause in a non-violent way that got people talking. That, in my book, is a success, even if only a slight one – and infinitely better than violent and criminal protests.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Hanging yourself by your skin doesn’t seem all that different than going on a hunger strike to me.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
perhaps you’re right…
They seem very different to me. But I guess that’s only a guttural response with no real rational reason for it. Hunger: I think Ghandi. Hooks: I think David Blaine.
I will concede that it probably raises awareness. I guess my point is that I’m not just not sure how much awareness in and of itself really matters without an emotional and intellectual reason to really care.
I’ll leave it at that for hook-lady. It’s clear that I don’t really know…
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I think how successful “hook lady” was largely depends on your definition of success. I agree that she didn’t hurt anyone and therefore her actions don’t bother me as much as the other tactics we’ve been talking about.
However, I agree with Irradiatus… I seriously doubt that many people came away from their encounter with hook lady with a sincere desire to learn more about sharks. More than likely, they either ignored it completely (there are lots of weird people in London), or were annoyed that their trip to the store was interrupted by a crazy person (making them less likely to be receptive to rational and respectful discussions about shark conservation in the future) .
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Hook Lady did nothing for me, and though it’s been awhile since it originally made the news, if I recall correctly, it did cause some discussion of the issue but the majority of people did come away with only the message that she was “nutters”. As for Sea Shepherd, for me – no dice. They are reckless and operate outside the law. They also make it harder to communicate conservation to people who identify them with conservation, especially of creatures that people don’t already empathize with or for. In my opinion only education and familiarization will effect lasting positive results.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I think everyone here has incredibly valid points, but the fact of the matter is that humans as a species have an innate protective response for animals (including young children) that we perceive as “cute”. We can’t help it, as I said it’s innate, built-in and second nature. This means that somehow we have to associate these animals with something other than violence especially because people perceive them as vicious man-eaters anyway. So The Sea Shepherd is not doing us any favours by showing this incredible lack of care for the laws that are put in place to prevent acts of violence. I think that as one person, we can make a difference and as a front they show incredible strength and courage but their lack of consideration for human lives is their downfall, in a way it’s almost as if they are putting the lives of sharks above those of humans which as far as I am concerned is just as bad as the other way around. We cannot, however do nothing and I too believe that the key is education, people don’t have to care about sharks like we cuddle our teddy bears but I think movies like Jaws did so much damage to the human perception of sharks it’s going to take quite a bit to re-educate and change the minds of people.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Apologies for re-posting, but since the DSN conversation was shut down by the Sea Sheep, I think this point still needs to be said:
Paul Watson is a pirate. He doesn’t care about conservation, he doesn’t care about [sharks]. He just wants to sail around in his brigantine drunk with rum and power causing havoc.
Any captain that would willfully ram his vessel into another, endangering the lives of his crews, the other crew, and any rescuers who would have to respond to such a disaster, should be stripped of rank and hung from the yardarm. Any crew that would follow said captain are either suicidal or brainwashed.
He’s hijacked a cause and used it to support his own absurd lifestyle. Imagine an environmentalist and you will see everything Paul Watson is not.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“Paul Watson is a pirate. He doesn’t care about conservation, he doesn’t care about [sharks]. He just wants to sail around in his brigantine drunk with rum and power causing havoc.”
While I don’t agree with all of Paul Watson’s actions, especially in light of endangering human lives, I strongly disagree with the sentiment above. I have met Paul in person and have spoken to him about these issues. He is a very passionate individual and believes that conservation has to be on the top of our list of challenges, rather than just on the sidelines. To say that he doesn’t care about conservation is entirely wrong. To say that he does this only because he is power-hungry and wants to see himself in the media is rubbish. Before “Whale Wars” only a handful of people who had been exposed to Greenpeace and Paul’s subsequent split to form Sea Shepherds had heard of his organization. Unless you were already into ocean conservation you probably didn’t know who Paul Watson was.
Drunk on rum and power? Hardly. No rum caskets on the Steve Irwin. He has a powerful personality, that much is true. He never minces words – that might rub some people the wrong way. I believe that the screening of “Whale Wars” is partially responsible for the unflattering picture that is being painted of Paul. And he is the CAPTAIN of his ship, which gives him a certain amount of power over his crew (face it, running a ship is never a democracy – most landlubbers don’t know that). While endangering human lives is certainly not a good thing, none of the people on board have been forced to join his crew. They are all VOLUNTEERS, and none of them are totally unaware of Paul’s history. If you don’t agree with his methods, I suggest you don’t even think of joining his crew…
Paul puts into action what he believes in and he has the guts to do it. So many of us just want to believe that we are “conservationists”, but do we really act on it? Admit it, there are only a handful of people who are really INVOLVED and ultimately EFFECTIVE, the rest of us are just “armchair conservationists”. Over the course of my involvement in a number of environmental orgs I have met people like Paul, who felt that they had to go a step further than signing petitions, writing blogs, having parties with like-minded people or making presentations at environmental fairs. These people went out into world and started not only a dialogue, but WORKED with e.g. the fisheries, the tourism industry, energy companies, etc. to not only draw attention to the current situation but to find solutions to slow down the deterioration of our environment. Paul Watson may use methods that are not entirely acceptable, but he is drawing attention to the plight of whales, sharks, and other ocean dwellers. I know people who are completely anti-Sea Shepherd, but thanks to being exposed to what has been happening they became interested in finding out more about the oceans – or even ocean conservation. They might have been “turned off” Sea Shepherd, but they are now looking for more information and possibly alternate organizations they can get involved in. So in a way, Sea Shepherd is more about exposing the underlying problem and creating awareness. I will stress it again, I do not agree with all the methods of Sea Shepherds, but I do believe in the need to do more than just DISCUSS these issues to death. Paul and his crew might not be angels of conservation, but they are fanning the fires of awareness. Just the fact that there is a spirited discussion going on about this is already a positive result.
The fact remains – raising awareness is never a bad thing. Too many people do not have any idea what is happening to our most important resource. Why not turn all that energy spent blogging about Paul and Sea Shepherds into some real action? Go out and start talking to people, find a local (okay – maybe kinder, gentler) conservation organization to support (believe me there are plenty), get your kids involved, follow simple conservation rules like saving water and energy, reducing the use of contaminants, recycling, keeping plastic bags and balloons out of our bodies of water, take part in beach clean-ups, etc. – I could go on for pages, but you all know what I am talking about or you wouldn’t be on this blog.
Just get out of that armchair and become an ACTIVE conservationist.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Ah, I’m glad someone took the bait. Sea Shepherd loves to sensationalize their efforts and vastly exaggerate their claims while, in some case, simply making stuff up, and then phrasing it in an intentionally inflammatory way. My comment above is simply borrowing from their playbook.
If that pissed you off, perhaps you can understand why Sea Shepherd pisses us off.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
i wanted to say this on Kevin’s Blog but very relevant here too
For many of the same reasons that the ALF/PETA’s direct actions turned me into a vegetarian, the Sea Sheperd crew has me aware of the plight of sharks (and whales but we are not talking about them
). I really would not have thought about it much then researched further into the issues if not for them “making headlines”. It puts those of us, who are not so deeply tied into environmental issues from our life work, into the position where we must think about it.
Why are these people so passionate about it? What benefits does this have for society (on both sides)? What else is being done to defend or non-human animal friends that have no voice of their own? What am I doing to help?
Important questions that we, myself included, that are distanced from biology do not get to address enough in daily life. The actions of the Sea Sheperd bring the discussions to the living room and newspapers where mainstream society can judge. Maybe 10% of these people (ok I am an optimist) may see this as an issue and something else get done.
I know I am considering what I can do now.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Slightly tangential, but I have to say this:
I’m sorry, but for every 1 person turned on by PETA (since you brought it up, but the same could be said for SS), an untold number are turned off.
We see this all the time in academia. And the fact that the ridicule of PETA is heavily correlated with education level (the more educated – the more ridiculous PETA looks), I think tells you something…
I say this as an avid animal lover, conservationist, naturalist, and scientist.
I mean, c’mon – renaming fish “sea kittens”? Bloody ridiculous.
The point is, PETA and similar organizations are run by pure irrational emotion – taking up causes that have REAL RATIONAL reasons to take up. And by throwing so much inanity into the argument, the whole cause gets derailed. I know SO many people in the rural south who would otherwise be all for basic animal rights and pragmatic conservation, but instead they laugh at the entire animal rights and conservation movements because of their association with “crazy hippies.”
Fish are dumb, wet, scaly organic robots. But they are unfathomably beautiful, and critically important to life and ecosystems the world over. They are fascinating creatures. But they’re not conscious people “without voices.” They are not “friends” – they don’t have the cognitive capacity for that (I don’t mean you can’t use the word friend figuratively – but there is a difference between the way PETA calls animals our “friends” and the way most animal lovers do).
I’m happy that PETA turned you on to vegetarianism and/or animal rights (I could never be vegetarian though I understand the many good reasons to be one). But there are lines drawn within the very philosophy of animal rights (granted their are different philosophies of it). The lines are blurry, but it’s pretty clear when one has gone way past them. The ASPCA is a great example of staying within the rational and logical. PETA and sea kittens? Not so much.
I realize that taking this into animal rights seems a bit off topic, but it’s not – the analogy is clear and it goes to the heart of all the lunatic fringe aspects of the conservation movement.
I hope what I am trying to say at least makes sense.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Direct action” is just a fancy word for violence.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I wonder if it has to be though? I suppose this is off topic a bit but it’s a great idea and if it could be done in a non-violent way it could be a great asset to actually saving the ocean instead of just talking about it. Thoughts?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I have come to the conclusion that SSCS is a media machine posing as a direct action group. It’s good for attracting donors but let’s face it, they parachute into high profile events, ramp up the noise, and then pass the hat around.
You see the same thing on side streets in New Orleans, or with the street performers in New York blowing flames out of their mouth. What Sea Shepherd is about is making noise so people will give them money so they can continue to make more noise.
Is it effective? No. But in this hyper media age it is “wanted and desired” by the media machine and that is the crux of this discussion. Media output vs real and lasting action.
As for Sharkwater, as a film it opened the eyes to many budding filmmakers that yes, you can do a doco on sharks and people will watch it. This is a good thing. Unfortunately many of the quotes in the film were pure SSCS eco hysteria and that is why it failed on a commercial level, none of the major distributors touched it.
Are they doing good things for sharks? Ask the whales or the seals that question. If I was a shark in today’s ocean I would be swimming a bit faster knowing SSCS was going to spend the next 31 years raising awareness and Wagging the Conservation Dog on my behalf.
Kudos to the Hook Lady, while the world poured another $100,000,000 into the accounts of LUSH Cosmetics another 100,000,000 people sat down to sharks fin soup for the Chinese New Year this year…and the beat-goes-on.
We can do better. We have to do better.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I’ve been waiting for this post, so hopefully I can meaningfully contribute to the discussion.
I’m going to lay it out there plain and simple– Sea Shepherd is what originally drew me to marine conservation.
Not their arguments, for sure. Their “scientific data” is completely without merit. They’ve never cited a study for their statistics. I’d be more likely to believe that shark populations are down 90% from what they were 30 years ago if someone would cite a reputable study. I’ve heard figures from 35% to 90%, so I don’t know who to believe. Sea Shepherd is wonderfully bad at proving their statistics. The fact that they base their actions on these statistics is unscientific and yes, harms marine conservation.
That being said, I completely disagree with you about their methods. Maybe it’s different for people who’ve grown up around ships– I didn’t. Closest I came to that was my grandparents lake boats. But anyways, there are many examples of “direct action” activist groups and individual. For example– Jose Bove was a local farmer who was being put out of business by corporate farming, globalization and genetic modification of crops in the 70s and 80s. So when the local McDonalds started using beef that was all of the above, he rented a bulldozer and leveled the building when no one was in it at night. It accomplished what he wanted; it raised awareness and created a rallying point for local businesses. His movement has been fairly successful.
Another example is Fr. Karl Cabat. Fr. Cabat was an anti-nuke activist that would go in groups of up to eight people and infiltrate nuclear silos. From there, they’d scatter files and pour animal blood on them, and then sabotage the mechanics of the missiles. He’s been jailed numerous times for sabotage and trespassing on federal lands, but every time he gets out of prison, he’s back destroying stuff.
Anyways, my point is– this isn’t a new thing, and has been fairly successful. In terms of morals…well, as long as no one gets killed, I can’t see what’s wrong with it. Sure, it’s against maritime law, but no one’s died. So I do support their methods.
As for Paul Watson…oh dear. I like what he has to say about human nature– we’re just upright, naked apes with an identity crisis. And future generations aren’t going to appreciate us if we don’t protect the ocean. HOWEVER. That’s where it stops. He rants like a fundamentalist Christian. He doesn’t listen to reason. He’s a conspiracy theorist. The list never ends. I personally think that Paul Watson can, most of the time, be worse for marine conservation than his organization can.
Sea Shepherd always says that they’re filling a void, because there’s no international marine policing body. I agree that there needs to be one. Just not one by an NGO. Especially not one led by someone as unstable as Paul Watson. His intentions appear to be in the right place, but he’s just too unstable.
It really comes down to Sea Shepherd’s motives. After their stunt with the “hostage situation,” I really think it’s just for attention.
So, it really does feel odd to say this, but I think that Sea Shepherd is bad for the conservation movement, especially for the sharks.
Wanna be a successful “Direct Action” organization? Work on cleaning up the Pacific trash heap (I forget what they’re calling it now) or cleaning up severed long lines or beaches, and educating the public with facts. Not stunts that reek of cinematics.
That means you, too, Hook Lady.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
A few points:
Last I checked McDonald’s was doing fine, while small local farms continue to fail, especially in my county. And, faced with the threat of his business being destroyed, he went out and destroyed someone else’s business? That seems right?
As for the trashing the nukes, dear god, what if he’d triggered a missile while sabotaging it? I’m also fairly positive Fr. Cabat was not a signatory on the NAPT, nor did we really need to be made aware of the threat nukes pose anytime in the last 50 years. Truman made that threat abundantly clear.
As for the Shepherds, your right, this isn’t a new thing, and in 31 years they’ve accomplished exactly 0 of their goals. Sharks are still being finned in the Galapagos, seals are being clubbed in Canada, and the whalers will be back just in time for the next season of whale wars. All they’ve really accomplished is drawing money away from organizations like Greenpeace and WWF who have made real, measurable differences in the world.
And ship collisions on the high seas, especially the Southern Ocean, have the potential to kill everyone on board.
This is the high cost of a collision at sea. This is what keeps me up at night every time the engines go quiet
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I probably should have mentioned that I don’t subscribe to the idea of right and wrong because it’s just so impossible to tell which is which in the long run.
Like you said, McDonald’s is doing fine. He didn’t destroy McDonalds. He destroyed the building. Buildings aren’t people. They’re human fabrications, and to equate destroying one with taking a life is like saying that economics is a natural science– it’s just human masturbation in the extreme. Things we create are not us, are not alive and do not occur naturally.
I should have been more clear– Fr. Cabat destroyed the navigational systems in the nose cones, mostly ones in production. Since rendering the nav systems is useless for an ICBM, the missiles themselves become useless until the government decides to waste the hundreds of thousands of dollars to have them replaced.
I do have to disagree with you that Greenpeace makes real, measurable differences in the world. They’re just as bad as Sea Shepherd with their publicity stunts, and don’t even make them half as prominent. The biggest Greenpeace stunt in my memory is their climbing the fence to the Heathrow tarmacs and climbing on top of planes to protest the expansion of the airport. They have just as much scientific backing to their protests as Sea Shepherd does, and since they’re directed at all conservation, they’re more spread out. The WWF, though, I agree with. Although I’d like them or the wrestling organization to change the acronym– it can get confusing when you forget about one or the other, haha.
Yes, ship collisions are dangerous. The Sea Shepherd crew signs up for that, whether or not they see it as a reality. That’s their own fault. They claim to have sunk 13 ships without casualty before, so maybe they have a trick up their sleeve? I don’t know, but yeah, it is crazy.
The action they do that I support most is their use of butyric acid. It’s mostly harmless, but it’s smelly. If someone gets it in their eyes, they’d be worse off if it had been beer. And I did fact check that– numerous government sites confirm the same thing.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
While poking around the web-o-blags last night, I found this gem in a Sea Shepherd press release. They’re discussing their opposition to Planktos (which is a bondoggle in itself, but that’s beside the point):
So Sea Shepard acts solely on the merits of law without regard to science (and by extension conservation) merits? Planktos may have tried to seed the ocean with iron, but the Shepherds have succeeded in seeding it with irony.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Yeahhh. Stuff like that is what I was talking about. That and “dolphin safe tuna” (see that entry, haha).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
You mean there is no such thing as dolphin safe tuna!
*HORRORS and SHOCK*
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
As I have posted on other lists many times. Sharks lose BECAUSE of the people involved in shark conservation.
Most are interested in generating publicity and not protection. They do not understand the difference between a real accomplishment and generating media coverage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Rudy, Thanks for your comment. I think most people working in shark conservation are more concerned with protection. It just happens that the ones going after publicity are the ones that get all the media coverage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I may be all alone here, and I admit, you all are probably more educated than I on the specifics of what does and does not further the movement towards shark conservation, however I personally would like to see MORE direct action taken against shark butchery.
I think that the “hook lady” and tactics such as public shock factor do raise awareness, as does the show about the Sea Shepherd. I think that in order to push for change, the publicity of the plight of sharks worldwide needs to be drastically increased.
I personally (and understand other opinions, of course) do not think that human life is more important than the ongoing wellfare of other species. Someone mentioned that “human life was put in peril” by the tactics of the Sea Shepherd.
I say, “It’s about effing time.” To endanger the lives of a group of humans is worse than the slaughter of millions of sharks, over time? Really? What hubris.
Humans take for granted that the world and its animals are their to plunder and abuse, without raising public awareness of the consequences of our actions, even NEGATIVE publicity, the complacent will continue and the slaughter of our valuable apex predator will continue.
Raised awareness leads to public outcry, which leads to people demanding change from their government, leading to altered policies and pressure on the countries engaged in the shark (and whale, and dolphin) slaughter.
The captain of the Sea Shepherd was quoted as saying “Since I have been on the Sea Shepherd, I have not seen a single whale killed.” What a powerful statement. This indicates that whatever the tactics, the Sea Shepherd is doing what other organizations fail to do, they are actually MAKING a difference, rather than standing by watching as slaughter occurs.
Enough of the silent protest which can be seen as little more than complacency. The greater the press, the more visible the issue becomes.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I agree– it is about time that people put their lives on the line for conservation.
However, Sea Shepherd does little more than try to make the news. They don’t persuade public opinion, they become visible. Their tactics are most likely to turn people off to the movement. Most people don’t think that people in NGOs should be willing to die for a cause, which, of course, is such a narrow world view that I don’t understand how it survives at all.
However, most people see conservation as a secondary movement to the importance of things like human rights and economics. Conservation organizations need to overcome this obstacle first before a radical organization like Sea Shepherd can have any positive influence on the general public at all. Until then, they do nothing but turn people off to conservation, particularly marine conservation.
This makes them contrary to everything that every other conservation group is trying to do. It divides the movement and weakens it, and Sea Shepherd needs to realize this. Their publicity is nothing but negative for conservation as a whole.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I personally (and understand other opinions, of course) do not think that human life is more important than the ongoing wellfare of other species. Someone mentioned that “human life was put in peril” by the tactics of the Sea Shepherd.
I say, “It’s about effing time.” To endanger the lives of a group of humans is worse than the slaughter of millions of sharks, over time? Really? What hubris.”
I completely agree! Besides, if all the great sharks are gone and we see a collapse of one of our most vital resources for life, aren’t we done anyway? The possibility is there in any case and I don’t think it’s something that is worth “waiting and seeing” what happens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What organizations do you recommend supporting?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a great question.
Organizations like the Ocean Conservancy and Coral Reef Alliance have done great work, but my personal favorite is WIDECAST, the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Network. They work across the Caribbean Sea protecting turtle nesting beaches, and working with the local communities to create an environment where sea turtles are more valuable alive than dead. Some of their big successes have been in Matura Beach, Trinidad, where the local villages have protected some of the largest leatherback nesting sites in the world. Keep in mind these were communities who less than three decades ago, were consuming sea turtle and selling turtle parts. Through education and outreach, they effected change, rather than just wagging the conservation dog (to steal Shark Divers line). It’s their focus on local communities, instead of just rich white yankees, that really seals the deal for me.
Another great success story has been Ducks Unlimited. While they are an organization founded on duck hunting, they have preserved more wetlands (by purchasing them) in the USA than any other single organization. It’s an often overlooked phenomenon, but hunters do protect wilderness more than any other group.
Of course, you don’t need to look much further than my fellow co-blogger, WhySharksMatter, who’s been working tirelessly this last year to get THIS to happen.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
On the Sea Shepherd I wish I knew the answer.
On the one hand, I am against violence in support of one’s viewpoint. On the other hand, what do you do when another is committing violence? Call the police? There is no police on the high seas. There are conventions of behaviors, but there is no equivalent to the police force.
As a sailor I abhor the danger that the Sea Shepherd creates by its actions. There is a tradition of saving lives at sea, not of putting ships and men in harm’s way.
If the funds used for all the Sea Sheperd were spent instead on an advertising campaign in one Japanese city — as a demonstration project — we might be able to show how to *really* make a difference.
Thanks for reading….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting discussion. Lots of opinions. Quite a few ignorant opinions. None of which are relevant. Here’s a few facts. Since 1977 when I established Sea Shepherd we have not caused a single injury to anyone. We have never been convicted of a felony crime. We have a contractual relationship with the Ecuadorian National Police and the Galapagos Park rangers to stop poaching. Since 2000 we have intercepted and captured 60 poaching vessels turning them over to the courts for prosecution. Last year we raided and seized 75,000 shark fins and 100,000 sea cucumbers in Ecuador and exposed the shark fin mafia. We supplied the generators, rifles and hardware for the Costa Rican rangers on Cocos Island. We provided equipment to the rangers on Malpelo Island off Colombia. We have confiscated some 2000 miles of illegal longlines. We have helped produce a major award winning documentary on sharks called Sharkwater. We have our own television series called Whale Wars. We have helped to establish Shark Angels. We have released hundreds of sharks from longline hooks. We were the first organization to directly confront poachers. We are in partnership with LUSH and last year had educational window displays in 550 LUSH stores around the world about shark fins.
We have no apologies for what we do and we need not defend what we do because our clients are sharks, not people. I think the sharks whose lives we directly saved would approve of our actions. I expect BS from people, after all people cause the problems and please, spare me the poor frigging fishermen. I was raised in a poor fishing family on the East coast of Canada and thus I am not burdened by the guilt of some white middle class people who believe poverty is an excuse for destroying life in the oceans.
We act in acordance with the U.N. World Charter for Nature that allows for us to intervene to uphold international conservation law. Since I have received awards from the President of Ecuador, the President of the United States, Prince Albert of Monaco, the President of Senegal, from the United Nations and from his Holiness the Dalai Lama, why would I be deterred by the opinions of a few people on the internet?
However as futile as it may be, it’s always worth while to reach out to educate the ignorant and the arrogant and I certainly did see much of both vices in the comments above.
But the simply truth is that I really don’t give a damn. I have been doing what I have been doing effectively for forty years and I intend to do it for another forty years.
Should I put off saving sharks from longlines this summer because a few opinionated hominids don’t like what I do or how I do it? I don’t think so.
Captain Paul Watson
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Impersonation is a crime, dear sir. I really don’t think you’re who you claim to be– you were a little fact-heavy for that. A little eager to prove yourself.
And if you really cared about marine conservation, you’d realize that public opinion can do more for the movement in the long run than a poorly funded group like Sea Shepherd can, running around and turning people off to it.
Like I said before– capture public opinion (NOT just the public eye) and then you might have something going. Until then, you’re nothing but detrimental to global marine conservation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
IP address matches with the Sea Shepherd International Headquarters in Friday Harbor. I’m willing to call good faith and confirm the above poster is at very least a representative from Sea Shepherd.
I’ll have a real response when I get off work, but let me just say thank you for entering the debate, it’s been fairly one sided out here and every voice deserves a chance to be heard.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
If that’s the case, I apologize. I thought it unlikely that a representative of the organization would enter into the debate and I, not being a fan of impersonation, having had issues like that in the past, flew off the handle a bit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, my heartrate soared at the thought of having Captain Watson read my words, I’ll say that.
Incidentally, I watched *most* of the film “Sharkwater” last night, and think it’s an excellent example of reaching a mass audience with the right message. (I had to turn it off, however, when sea turtle slaughter was depicted, I was crying too hard and I am not unaware of the issues in the film otherwise.)
My response, while useless, illustrates the power that images and the medium of film can have, if reaching the ignorant masses. Sadly, it is the people who ARE ignorant who are those that need to be reached, inflamed, and inspired to help the creatures of the oceans.
I spent a lot of time yesterday thinking about this page and the posts on it, being bothered by several different points.
1.) Everyone is working/yearning for a common goal here, right? To abolish illegal (and legal!) shark slaughter (and other oceanic poaching), and to raise awareness of conservation of our oceans, right? With that in mind, how can people criticize the Sea Shepard for going out and taking action, while those criticizing them sit in cushy offices waxing philosophic about the Bigger Picture on the internet?
How easy it is to go about our lives, increasing our own knowledge, and thinking from time to time about how we WISH things would change. Some take it a step further, attempting to publish articles or books to raise awareness.
My perhaps jaded view is this: Who is the target audience for these books? Will the book be sold by and large to the common American, a midwesterner whose knowledge of sharks is what they’ve seen in movies like Deep Blue Sea and Jaws?
THESE are the people who need to be educated, whose children need to be educated that sharks are not monsters, but a vital part of the sustainable oceanic food chain.
People who will read and buy new books about sharks (I theorize) are those who already have an interest in sharks. By and large, these are NOT the ignorant voters across America, complacent in their lifestyles and blissfully unaware of the peril facing 2/3 of the world’s surface.
What does reach those people is television. What’s documented by the Sea Shepard’s show REACHES those reality-tv-viewing masses. That’s what needs to be done to raise public awareness.
And like Captain Watson said, please continue your paths through accepted avenues towards conservation. For the love of the planet, urge forward the laws and treaties. While doing so, while taking that time, however, how can you condemn the man who is out there, personally putting his life and livelihood on the line taking direct action to save lives?
His actions and selflessness (and make no mistake, it is selfless, he’s not sitting pretty making profits from book sales) and that of his VOLUNTEER CREW inspire people.
I regret DAILY that my financial obligations prevent me from applying to an unpaid position on his crew, because I know I would be a skilled and passionate asset in his cause.
I guess in short, I’d make the outcry for more action, less theory, and to walk the talk so many can spout forth without leaving the comfort of their day to day lives. ANY action is better than no action, and Captain Watson’s actions are more effective than most. I applaud him and his efforts.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Wow, it seems like we’ve got a great discussion going on there! Thanks to everyone, particularly the Sea Shepherd representative who may or may not actually be Paul Watson- as Andrew said, we really do appreciate dissenting voices. If you only speak to those who agree with you, you might as well be alone.
Others have covered much of what I wanted to say, but as the author of this post, I can’t help but comment if there’s any chance that Paul Watson is actually reading this.
I wonder if “Captain Paul Watson” actually read my original post, or if this is a genetic comment he leaves on all websites critical of Sea Shepherd… because many of the arguments in his reply were addressed in my original post.
Yes, you have freed a few hundred sharks from longlines. With all due respect, whoop de freakin’ do- by some estimates, over 100 million sharks a year are killed by the shark fin soup fishery. You won’t save sharks freeing a few hundred of them a decade from longline gear. You will save sharks by winning the hearts and minds of the world, which is harder for legitimate conservation organizations to do because of your shenanigans. You are not helping the overall movement, you are seriously harming it.
Nowhere in UN Environmental Law does it say that it’s ok to endanger the lives of poor fisherman in order to save animals. You are interpreting some laws to benefit your own agenda, and completely ignoring all the laws you are breaking by ramming and destroying other people’s boats and equipment.
Winning awards for some of what you do does not justify all of what you do. Your educational-materials-in-store-windows campaign is admirable. Ramming ships full of poor fisherman is deplorable.
I loved most of “Sharkwater”, but the notion that it reached a “mass audience” is false- it simply wasn’t aired in most U.S. markets, primarily BECAUSE Sea Shepherd was involved. I tried to take friends to go see it, but it wasn’t playing within 1,000 miles of me. The parts about the shark finning market were excellent, among the best I’ve seen. The parts with environmental “activists” from Sea Shepherd trying to sink a boat full of poor people do not win the hearts and minds of the world.
As I commented last week, having a popular TV show about your antics does not mean you are morally right- this is as ridiculous as Ann Coulter’s claim that 24′s high ratings mean Americans support torture. Being entertained by watching crazy people doesn’t mean we support what they are doing.
The notion that “at least they are doing something” is also terrible- there are MANY cases where doing something BAD is worse than doing nothing. And, while my education efforts aren’t as picked up by the media as ramming a fishing vessel full of poor people, I have changed some people’s minds through honest and respectful discussion.
I am not naive enough to think that someone as egotistical and arrogant as Paul Watson cares about what I think, and I do appreciate you being honest and saying that you don’t. However, as a scientist and conservationist trying to educate the public, I can honestly tell you that YOU ARE NOT HELPING. YOU ARE MAKING THINGS WORSE. BY ACTING IN THIS INSANE AND CRIMINAL FASHION, YOU DO NOT GET PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE. YOU ARE MAKING THE SHARK FINNERS LOOK LIKE VICTIMS. YOU ARE MAKING IT HARDER FOR LEGITIMATE CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS TO GET THROUGH TO PEOPLE. IF YOU ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT SHARKS AND NOT JUST PUBLICITY, WHICH I SERIOUSLY DOUBT, STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING. PLEASE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you Captain Watson for coming onto this blog and expressing these facts and opinions.
We hear far too much of the “poverty made me do it” line, from shark finners in Ecuador to deforesting Palm Oil plantation workers/owners in Indonesia. Poverty makes people sell coke and heroin too, so should we allow that? Screw them, I say. They know what they’re doing is wrong and they have a choice. They simply don’t care enough.
I’m sick of the non-results of the “send them email or e-petition” crowd. It achieves nothing. Look at Saemangeum in South Korea. The whole world took massive action online and nothing was done on the ground. Nobody got in their faces. The result is the loss of a major wetland on the Yellow Sea, for no reason – as the claimed land is useless, and 20% (90,000) of the World’s Great Knots have been killed off (so far) and one other shorebird species pending extinction helped along by the land claim. Many other species took a hit from that too.
I’m convinced that we have to fight on the ground and in the faces of people who would destroy this planet. There’s precious little left of it and it wont be saved by chatting in a forum or writing a blog. These thing help muster troops (I’m a nature blogger and educator), but in the end, when all else has failed (and it has in the case of shark finning) we need people who will physically stand between the wreckers and the environment or organisms under threat. So there is a place for education, dissemination of information, and protest. But when that fails, direct action must take place.
You cannot stop poaching on the seas or illegally logging forests, etc., by making laws and chatting over tea and cookies, any more than you can stop the sale of heroin or ice by chatting to the mafia. The world is full of politicians grinning and shaking hands as they sign the Ramsar Convention, Bonn Convention on Biodiversity, etc., etc. All of which have no teeth when these same politicians act in contravention of the agreements. In a world where governments are corrupt or politically lazy on the environment it’s even more difficult to do anything about individual outlaws. You’ve got to act against them directly. Governments wont do it so Sea Shepherd is filling the void.
I support Sea Shepherd 100% because they put this understanding into action.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice to see that the Sea Shepherds are listening…frankly, we are spending a lot of time here and on other blogs debating the issue…let them keep doing what they do. You as an individual have the choice to support them or another organization – just do your research and look beyond blog debates – make an educated choice.
I personally am not informed well enough to comment on their alleged lies or media manipulation – I will say this – there are just as many media hogs in the shark industry (ironically some are associated with SSCS, but may others are not)…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with the matters at hand about sharks. More people in the world need to open their eyes and see them for the majestic animals they are not some peice of meat for the taking. SAVE THE SHARKS
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here’s the thing about Mr.Paul Watson and his org – beware of fabricated eco facts. He runs with some impressive stats, but what are the real facts?
As we uncovered this week his org makes up eco story lines ad hoc, whenever they like, or stretch the truth when it suits them:
Sea Shepherd Fabricates Whale Media News for MSN NZ?
link to sharkdivers.blogspot.com
Sea Shepherd to MSN – Liars!
link to sharkdivers.blogspot.com
One point about this alleged “award” from his Holiness the Dalai Lama that Watson keeps slinging about like an eco talisman. It’s bogus. In the late 70′s Watson was in the same room with his Holiness and managed to get an image of him together with the Dalai Lama. In that image his Holiness is not even looking at Watson. This image is followed up with a letter circa 1978 from his holiness stating how he does “not agree with whaling”, and who does?
Watson has taken those two long ago events from the 70′s and transposed them into “an award” from his Holiness. This is classic SSCS. Outright lies, fabrications and stretched truths.
Watson claims he does not care what anyone thinks, while seeming to post rebuttals here, yada yada yada. My brain hurts.
Watson is a 1970′s, museum quality, eco “warrior”. As I have long said and it still makes for a great visual today:
“If Paul Watson was not doing this Save-The-Whales-Gig he would be one of those creepy guys at some local bar wearing the 70′s shirt collars and swinging his corpulent hips to ABBA’s “Take a Chance on Me”.
As an eco movement we can do better. We have to do better. The first step is calling out “Wagging of the Conservation Dog” when we see it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All I really have to add tot his is outside of violence I like what the Sea Shepherds are doing. If there were a lot more “doers” instead of armchair ecologists out there, I think more conservation would get done. Radical actions (crazy or not) get noticed. Thing of all the progress that has been made via radical action like the civil rights movement in America or Ghandi’s hunger strike or even letting women vote. In their time those people were looked at as crazies disrupting the status quo but when the status quo is harmful to the greater good of existence I must be brought into the light in whatever means possible provided they are not violent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
wow lots of typos…I’m not used to this keyboard yet
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that many of the posts from those purporting to be hard nosed scientists and activists sticking to the truth of matters are as egregious, misleading and emotive as they accuse SS of being. I mean the guff about Cpn Watson lolling about drinking rum and having fun is so far out of line. As far as i know SS runs dry ships when working so there is none of that piratical behaviour that is being touted out there.
Its all fine and well sitting behind a keyboard and chirping about how things should be done and how violence is not the way and how YOU think everything should be done, but question is, what are you doing?
Violence is being visited on our planet by various activities, many of which involve the oceans. Fish stocks are threatend globally by greedy violence and wasteful fishing practices. Whales have long been the call d’jour but so have active and good campaigns been run around turtle excluding devices and other programmes (which has not stopped turtles from heading futher up the red data list in a big way), in working on albatross and long liners etc. But most interstingly the governments of the world are not out there doing what they should be doing and stopping piratical, violent action being taken against global ecosytems.
Point being, this is why many people support SS. I think they put thier money where thier mouth is and that if nobody else is willing to stand up and be counted, then let them just get on with it. I think the emotive wadda-wadda coming from supposed scientists and armchair critics is way off the mark. The time is past when we should all be taking action and not just chirping. So let those who want to do things do them as they see fit and others can do things thier way.
All routes eventually get to heaven.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
If you actually read any of this blog, particularly the “about” section, you will see that the two primary authors of this blog are indeed real scientists. Many of our regular commenters are also real scientists. The Southern Fried Scientist’s field isn’t shark conservation, so he doesn’t do as much as I do for sharks, but I educate people whenever I can. In addition to groups like Lion’s Clubs, people at libraries, high school science classes and people at the South Carolina aquarium, I can tell you that my barber, my auto mechanic, and everyone I’ve ever sat next to on an airplane are now confirmed shark conservationists. Talking to people respectfully helps. Trying to kill boats full of poor people is not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Amen to that. I’ve been reading these comments and discussion with much interest, and kept waiting for a place in which to confirm that we are not armchair ecologists. We are in fact scientists and researchers.
And THAT is what will make the difference in the long run. The science has to be there, be good, be communicated well, and be useful for agencies and NGO’s. And then we will be able to change hearts and minds about topics like shark finning. (And to be truthful, nothing boils my blood as much as that topic.) The IUCN made a promotional film for a new book they released, and it is a beautiful and heart-rendering film showing what we actually do to the organisms in our oceans. That’s how we’ll be able to effectively communicate with the public. (I’ll post it on my blog this weekend for those of you who are interested.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Many of the comments here seem to center on the idea that those here and at DSN criticizing Sea Shepard are somehow “armchair ecologists” just sitting around posting on the internet. Regardless of whether the internet is an effective medium to communicate conservation messages to the public (it is) or we do this regularly because we are passionate about the oceans (we are), we are all practicing scientists. Most of us also have strong conservation component to our research and have been active in the field for awhile. Please refrain from insulting our credentials, backgrounds, motivations, and commitment.
What we are saying as active members of the conservation community is that these actions by Sea Shepard are detrimental to the conservation movement, hypocritical (enforcing laws by breaking them), ineffectual, and short sided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First things first, the argument (more of a complaint really) that “Hey at least they’re doing something, you guys are just sitting around commenting on blogs!” is a strawman. It’s completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is whether Sea Shepherd’s tactics are effective. Some think they are, some think they aren’t, but to say that disagreeing with Sea Shepherds tactics is tantamount to doing nothing is an absurd irrationalization.
Actions do have consequences and, in the case of Sea Shepherd, in many ways the consequences have been bad for conservation.
This weekend I had the opportunity to talk with a colleague of mine who is both a Japanese national and a brilliant marine scientist (though not working in marine mammals). He, like many Japanese citizens, don’t like whaling. However, thanks largely to the effects of Sea Shepherd’s show Whale Wars, which villainizes the Japanese people and government, whaling has become an issue of nationailsm, not conservation. The end result is that Japanese citizens are more supportive of governmental whaling now than before Whale Wars aired. This means, thanks to Sea Shepherd, it will now be more difficult to bring a permanent end to Japanese Whaling.
Has Sea Shepherd prevented a few (or many, I’ll even say many) whales from being murdered this years: yes
Will the Japanese whaling continue next year: yes
Will it be harder in for us to bring about a permanent end to Japanese whaling thanks to Sea Shepherd: yes
Is Sea Shepherd an effective conservation organization: no
Not “all routes eventually get to heaven.”
In fact, very few do. That’s why conservationist need to be constantly re-evaluating our methods, assessing the effectiveness of our tactics, and eliminating plans that just don’t work. If a strategy isn’t working, change it. I want whaling to end, I want shark finning to end. I want pristine protected wetlands and a network of MPA’s that circle the globe. Sea Shepherd will not produce any of those.
The problem is, Sea Shepherd refuses to adapt. They’re stuck in a 70′s mentality that has been incredibly ineffective over the last 30 years.
Here’s the rub. Sea Shepherd goes out of its way to trash other conservation organizations. Now, if you ultimate goal truly is conservation, you’d want every ally you can. If your goal is glory-whoring, you want to eliminate competition.
I will invest my time (and money) in conservation organizations that work. I will also do my damnedest to convince other people their time and money is better spent on someone other than Sea Shepherd.
I’d like to thank Shark Diver for some excellent coverage of Sea Shepherds tactics. Everyone should give these posts a read.
And thank you Captain Watson (or the Sea Shepherd PR rep who speaks for him). I really, really do appreciate dissenting voices commenting here. I hope you will hang around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I apologize to David for bringing whales into this. It is intended as an example of the most visible and recent failed conservation tactic, not as a launching point to discuss whaling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a pretty good discussion going on here. Everyone on this blog sounds very rational and articulate. I’m an animal welfare advocate, and a conservationist studying biology (with an emphasis in ecology) at CSU Fresno; and I disagree with what Paul Watson was saying about people here being ignorant and arrogant.
I have mixed feelings about sea shepherd. On the positive side, I think they draw attention to worthy causes, and in some cases, make governments get involved when they normally wouldn’t. On the other hand, they do not try to reach out to moderates and they make remarks just as Paul Watson did which alienate people.
Like I said before, everyone here sounds pretty rational, which is hard to find in online discussions.
Out of pure curiosity, what do people here think of other, more mainstream animal protection organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and the passage of farm animal protection statutes, like proposition 2 in California?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think I made it through a single episode of Whale Wars-the heavy handed, holier than thou tactics were just too much for me. To create lasting change, and not just a media sensation, people from all sides of the issue must come together and become involved. Otherwise, it’s just another crusade or holy war that will go on forever or at least until the crusaders get bored, tired, or die. Then, back to the status quo.
Rather than ram a boatload of people trying to feed their families, why not use those same resources to employ the men in an alternate, sustainable, eco friendly endeavor? Teaching someone a new craft is not nearly as riveting as ramming a boat, but it makes more sense.
I do get it-we need to save our oceans the ocean’s predators. But, I’d rather find a way to save them for generations to come instead of just one or two for a good photo op. The Sea Shepherd appears to be yet another sad example of a few (0r a lot) of egos over riding a legitimate cause. This is evident in the tone taken towards academia and science in general-how DARE you argue with someone who clearly is on a mission from God? Paul Watson and Elwood Blues-what a pair.
Sadly, Paul Watson and crew are masquerading as legitimate upholders of the laws of both man and morality. Sadder still, is they are the only ones who don’t realize they ARE the joke. No, I’m not sad for them. I’m sad for the animals they claim they are protecting. The animals, the environment, the fishermen caught in the crossfire-the only one who seems to be having any form of success is Watson. What a waste.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am one of the “arm chair” activists, I live in an idyllic little costal town that is also a marine reserve and adore anything to do with the ocean, and top of my list is sharks.
I do not know enough about Sea-Sheppard to be critical about them, but would like to say that I agree action for the sharks is better than action for the humans, like he says it is the sharks that are his clients, not people.
But on the other hand there are precious few of us out there that actually know what is happening on the high seas (even here we have had to “buzz” long liners to try and get them away from our reefs, and that was with diving rubber ducks!) and I agree that we need to show the sharks as victims, and not the people.
The change needs to start with the big corporate companies that actually own the ships, and send them out to mass murder either the sharks or the whales or anything else.
The “big dogs” in government and the corporate fat cats have to educated about our oceans; maybe tie them up in front of a big screen and force then to watch Whale Wars till they cry and beg for mercy!
(Joking)
Whether we agree with the practices of organizations out there or not, we should still be grateful that there are people out there that are trying, and doing their best, to not only put an end to the brutality but also to educate the masses about what is going on and the long term consequences of their actions.
Like I said, I’m only an “arm chair” activist, not that I don’t want to get more involved, so this is just a personal insight. Thank you for a wonderful blog, Keep doing what you are doing, it also helps in the long run!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
justa quick note.
I completely subscribe the view of david and the other against such stunt.
I firmly believe that people acting in such way simply take the enviromental causes as shelter for their social disfunctioning behavior.
No matter why you hang yourself by a hook, if you do it it means you have problem, it means you have issues that make you unable to debate someting in a civil way so maybe instead of finding something that allow you to act in a disfuncional way you should seek help. Same thing if you ram another ship or endengar other people lives.
frankly when it comes to SS or the such i simply turn off the tv is not wort it.
I’m a shark and environment conservationist but i find outrageus to endanger a human life to protect a shark is extremely stupid!
Congratulation David your blog is amazing!!!
cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Capt. Keep”
-It’s posts like this one, perhaps not entirely uniformed, but willfully closing the eyes to various examples of the situation at hand that drive me absolutely (pardon the phrase) batsh*t crazy.
You are letting your personal bias and social bigotry undermine the way people are drawing attention to the matter at hand. You think visual performance art means someone is by definition unable to communicate with words?
Do you have any idea how offensive your post is? Suspension art is used in various cultures, and some religions as a form of meditation. While the example used here was ALSO visual art intended to shock and bring awareness, to belittle the person putting forth that effort is judgemental and counterproductive to the entire cause.
Again, I know that I will never see eye to eye with people who value human safety over the existence of endangered innocent animals. I won’t go further on that subject as it incenses me to a level uncivil, but I will say this: if you’re going to be throwing stones about, like the word “stupid”, you might wish to bolster your glass house of typos and misspellings with something stronger than bigotry and ignorance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0