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
ram the fuk out of them as they won’t listen to reason and no government is taking any reasonable action! Angry from Skirmet!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
There is so much opinion here, so many accusations, and so few facts. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) has only rammed-to-sink boats that were illegal whalers, flying the flag of no country so they would not have to obey the laws of any country. These pirate whalers were accountable to nobody, and nobody would stop them, except Paul Watson. In some cases, the countries whose waters they were whaling asked the SSCS to come and get rid of them. No person was harmed in any of the sinkings, but a lot of whales were saved.
The initially post is filled with emotional phrases, and very little history or substantiated facts about the SSCS to support an intelligent debate. The shark fishing incident you are referring to (with very little information given, I might add) was a boat that was fishing ILLEGALLY. Do we just let people who break the law get away with it? How will you ever stop illegal shark fishing if you disaprove of stopping illegal shark fishing? And if you won’t, who will?
Sharks are, right now, being hunted into oblivion in a most vile and merciless way, and this discussion is not helping that simple fact in the least. Support who you want to support, and attack who you want to attack, we will all do what we have to do. If you can’t see the good that the SSCS is doing, then I will never convince you of it. But I have been actively supporting ocean conservation issues since 1970, and from what I have seen, the SSCS has done more than the vast majority of ocean conservation organizations in all that time to draw attention to the issues and inspire people to get involved, and, most importantly, to actually stop illegal activity.
If I went out into the open oceans and captured boats of humans and tortured and killed them (to eat, or for profit, tocut off their arms and legs and throw them back into the ocean, or for whatever the reason – a true, nasty pirate), the “law” (probably the US Navy) would come at me with everything they had. But people can go out into the open ocean and “fish” a species into extinction, torture ceatures, kill them for no reason, and no one does a thing. This has been done countless times. The difference is that we humans think that we are more important than all the other creatures on the earth, and that any one of us has the “right” to do anything we want to the creatures of the open ocean (due partly to a human legalistic loophole). This attitude is both morally and scientifically baseless – I repeat, THIS ATTITUDE IS MORALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY BASELESS, and we are doing nothing here, so far, to even discuss this basic issue.
The United Nations has recently issued a report that ALL commercially exploited ocean fisheries will, at current take levels, be commercially extinct by 2050. If you don’t think that that is going to cause a lot of human suffering, then you really need to wake up. The time for wringing your hands, arguing without a factual base, and complaining about what you don’t support is over. It is time to plan and take meaningful action.
I have been following Paul Watson’s career since he co-founded GreenPeace. I have read through the entire SSCS web site. I have read all the Wikipedia entries on Paul Watson. I have watched the excellent Discovery Channel documentary “Whale Wars,” warts and all, and they did leave in all the warts. It is excellent – it is actually reality television at its best, and I hate reality television – as a matter of fact, I don’t even own a television! The above letter sounds like the Paul Watson I have heard, and it is very much in character for him to be actively responding to the global debate. Andrew and/or David could check the e-mail address and get a better idea. We don’t need baseless accusations there, either.
And if Paul Watson actually did respond to this discussion, then it certainly got more serious attention than many of these glib comments deserve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Thank you for putting into organized form the words that are garbled by emotion in my head. Your post was awesome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
YES!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Craig, I’m so glad you joined in on this debate. You’ve consistently been outspoken, passionate, and clear on these issues. I think a lot of the issues you’ve raised have been discussed, but are getting buried in the shear volume of comments this post has generated.
Because of that, I’d like to propose something radical. Would you be willing to write a guest post rebuttal on Southern Fried Science addressing primarily points raised here in the comments (not so much the initial post) about critiques regarding Sea Shepherd? You, of course, know where me and my co-blogger stand, but it would be a shame for the dissenting opinion to be lost in the comments.
And for the record, We’ve confirmed that the Watson comment came from the Sea Shepherd Headquarters in Friday Harbor. I doubt it was the man himself, but it isn’t unusual for large organizations to have PR people who speak for the director.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am very, very interested in this debate – overall, not just here – so thank you for making the time and space. I will be spending more time, as it becomes available, to read and consider all the positions presented.
I feel compelled (in all selfishness, perhaps) to make a a couple quick observations now however:
“The shark finners are made to look like victims- in fact, they ARE victims- which makes others sympathetic to them.”
Not for many of us. The finners are the criminals here, flouting standing laws protecting the area(s) in which they were found. There are many of us that do not care what happens to them or their boat. Calling the poachers “victims” reeks of anthropocentrism – a detestable trait of humans.
“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.”
Again – SS is the one helping enforce existing laws, and the poachers are the criminals.
“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.”
First off, understand that moral systems are entirely relative. One look at the difference in cultural mores around the world throughout history will give you evidence of this. Please don’t presume your adopted morals upon others.
Second, SS is only bad for conservation if you’re mired in anthropocentrism – something I cannot stand, and many others like me are trying to overcome in our efforts to protect the world from human destruction. (Imperfectly, of course, since we’re humans too, unfortunately.)
While there is valid debate over SS’s methods, and I’m trying to analyze this for myself to decide where I’ll ultimately stand, there are few organizations (if any) who are actually willing to take to the water and confront the murderers on the open sea; illegal poaching is a vicious business, and these people do not care how many morally-righteous post-hippies wring their hands and hold street vigils over their activities – the activities continue, unabated. SOMEONE must go out there and SINK THESE BOATS. PERIOD.
The argument over this somehow being people’s “livelihood” is actually a much longer, more drawn out discussion for which I don’t have time or space now, but again it centers on anthropocentrism – in that lack of viable resources for the human populations comes down to one simple point: too many humans there.
I know people will cal me out and decry “how dare you try to minimize the peoples’ needs”, to which I can only reply: how dare humans simply presume they can breed like rats and take, take, take, purely out of short-term human needs without a sense of sustainability or balance.
But again – I will continue to follow all of this, and thanks for putting it out there!
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This discussion really got me thinking. First of all, I am no scientist, my interest and knowledge of this topic comes from private studies and experiences.
To make it clear: I think both sides have their point.
On one hand, it´s very important going to the root of this problem through education and awareness. And it´s true, people usually are more accesible through reasonable arguments backed up with proper facts than shouting extreme paroles at them. As a matter of fact, I think we really need conservationists like the hosts of this site to go out to schools maybe even to implement marine ecology awareness classes in each and every school worldwide on a regularly basis, so that the next generation coming up will care more and will be willing to handle things different.
But the problem right now is: do we really have the time? People think in many different ways, and getting everyone on the same route will be impossible.
And the Gro of the people out there, sorry to say that, still don´t know a thing about sharks, ecological danger and conservation issues. Even if they know, they don´t really care, they think “the scientists will somehow handle it, what can I do”. Before I got into diving, I thought the same way and I knew nothing about the existence of this problem. The same goes for my friends, my parents, just everyone I know. This topic is still limited mostly to the people who are related to it through their work.
You know what turned me around? Working as a Divemaster and watching the movie sharkwater.
I´ve had someone interested in preserving nature talking reasonable to me before, and my only thought was: ” yeah yeah poor world why is this eco-hippie boring me with this crap, soon I guess his nose will turn green and every bear will hug him thankfully when passing by”. I just had no connection to it!
But when I watched sharkwaters, I started crying, and working underwater I realized how much of the beauty I came to love was destroyed in an alarmingly short time.
And here´s the problem as I see it: It´s good to have laws and going out there to inform people, but the world is full of violence and hunger for profit and if nobody enforces the laws, it´s going down and it´s going fast.
In egypt for example our reefs where a marine park protected by hepca, but in reality nobody cared about the laws. There was a lot of fishing and destroying going on and I had to watch it from our diveboat, once I even got thrown a net on my head during a wreck dive!” When I concerned that matter on a hepca meeting, I got to hear big flaming speeches but nothing happened.
Let´s look at nature conservation on land which has been going on a little bit longer than in the water.
In order to safe lions, giraffs and elephants, they have national parks and they have rangers who hunt down poachers with jeeps and rifles! Nobody complains about that, and I´m sure most of the poachers are poor african villagers, paid a nothing by big profit greedy organistions!
So good argumentation is honorable and does a big part surely, but we need to take some action as well right now, because if not there won´t be anything to argue about in a couple of years! And as a fact, there´s really nobody out there on the oceans to protect them, even if there are laws! So what Sea Sheppard does is important, and maybe we should start a discussion on how to improve the questioned methods and the way they present themselves in the media, than about stopping them. If someone wants to perform a criminal act, he usually doesn´t listen to reason, only to money or a gun pointed at his head by an police officer. Which is sad, but unfortunately reality.
Sorry about my english, but I´m from spain. And great website!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the Sea Shepherd is a hero. He risks his own life almost every day, and everyone on his vessel agrees to do so if they are to sail with him. Of course the tactics are questionable, but we are living in desperate times. The only reason so many people are even interested in the sharks, is because of movies like “Sharkwater”, which demonstrate the desperation of people in trying to stop the horrendous plundering of our oceans. How is the Sea Shepherd any different than warriors of all the ages? Is any violent action towards another human or creature ever REALLY justifiable? We NEED ocean warriors! We need them to protect what is vital to our planet and our own existence—-our water. We get 70% of our oxygen from the ocean! The survival of sharks is integral to our own survival, and to pick on The Sea Shepherd is just ridiculous at this point. We need people to patrol the oceans, and quite frankly, if humans weren’t so damn negligent and violent and ignorant to begin with, I would say a peaceful but firm fleet would be the way to go. The atrocities we have committed on this earth, against its creatures are just reprehensible. And some of you are worried about a little ramming?? These countries are ravaging and raping our oceans, savaging its creatures in unspeakable ways, and some of us are worried about one man—who started fighting peacefully don’t forget—hosing down another boat? He has been SHOT at for God’s sake! Shot. This man is not on TV for glory, he’s on there bring as much attention as possible to what he has been doing all his life. Don’t forget there are very few if any patrols in the ocean that are actually effective. Let’s face it, Captain Watson is charismatic and interesting and controversial, and that is why we pay attention. Say what you like, but it is time someone fights back. It’s not like there is no reason to fight—sharks populations are down 90%, and some species are damn near extinction. My question to you that have such objection to the Sea Shepherd is: What are you doing to change things? Are you sailing the oceans, risking your lives? Or are you just blogging and commenting on the internet? Awareness is good, but personally, I would rather GO out there and sail with Oceana, or the Sea Shepherd, and see what it’s really about, instead of criticizing from the comfort of my own home in front of “Whale Wars” on the telly. I want to know for myself. It’s is absolutely horrendous that we humans have caused this much damage and suffering on the earth. We have overpopulated the planet to such a degree that its breakdown is happening at landslide proportions. We slice the fins off of sharks, we tear the skin off of animals for fashion, we slaughter billions of animals so we can gorge ourselves on meat 3 times a day—it is just unreal. Unreal. I for one, feel better that there are warriors out there, far braver than I, that, however misguided sometimes, who are fighting….just fighting to save the planet. I have always been for peace, but I am more for peaceful ACTION. The Sea Shepherd is not murdering people or animals, he is trying to change things as peacefully as possible, really. If you tell someone to stop murdering, and they don’t, on land you would be grabbed and arrested. How do you do that at sea? We need fleets on our oceans, and as most countries seem intent on plundering and not protecting, I vote for fleets of heroes like Captain Watson. I think the key is, all things are connected, and humans are no better than any other life form. It is all valuable, and to look too closely at maritime rules made by fallible humans is not the answer at this point. At this point, we have got to save the planet, period.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“He has been SHOT at for God’s sake! Shot!”
Actually he has not. That event (staged shooting) has been pretty much laughed at by everyone in the NGO community and beyond. Even Discovery Networks who are heavily invested in Whale Wars have steered away from this absolutely classic and costly, Paul Watson media fabrication.
If you are going to slavishly worship at the false Golden Eco Idol of SSCS and it’s anointed Fish Speaker Paul Watson at least know who you are genuflecting to.
The rest of the world has.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You have no factual basis on which to say “No he has not.” That is just your opinion. The alleged action happened in international waters, and no police department that has jurisdiction to investigate is willing to take the international heat from a finding one way or the other. The Australians have turned him down – why? Because if they found out he was telling the truth, the political fallout could force the Australian government to take a stand against Japan, and that gets complicated real fast. If they say he was lying, then all his supporters get mad, which he has a lot of in Australia. The evidence presented might not be conclusive, anyway.
In this case, either you believe him or you don’t. This doesn’t make a very interesting point to argue, but you sure didn’t pass up the chance for a little name-calling!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I remain really surprised by the angle of discussion taken by the self described scientists who continue to use rhetoric to back up thier ‘facts’, when they are devoid of truth.
Nobody has been killed by Sea Shepherd. Sea shepherd does not target poor fishermen, it targets fishermen who operate outside the boundaries of national or international law. So lets try to stick to facts, not polemic.
Let the activists use the polemic – if scientists want to be taken seriously then be objective, or at least try to.
Of course in an ideal world it is best to try to discuss your way out of a problem, like we are doing here. But when the rapers and pillagers of the world crap all over the rights of everyone else by carrying on in ways that run counter not only to international law but more importantly, to ethical and sustainable behaviour, then its time to stop talking softly and to weild the big stick.
Watson has not and does not undermine conservation at all. This point is so bogus. Its not like its all his way or nothing. While he puts pressure on his side, others, like the hopefully rational scientific establishment, pressure groups, non violient activists, etc push on the other side. Its not either or, its both.
The arguments that are made painting Watson as out of line would be exactly the same kind of argument taht would led to the slaughter of all when the Vikings came ashore if thier targets were led as pacifists. Yes, you will say that killing raping and pillaging people is different, but folks, it is not. What the pillagers of the natural environment is doing is breaking links in teh chain that tie us all, every single living organism, together. The time has come to get them to stop, by whatever means nescessary. I subscribe to the ethos of pacifists but also to those of in your face activists. They all work.
Academics have thier place but so do those of us who get in the face of authority, of law breakers and who question everything. Because my fellow hominid apes, some of our simian relations are stuffing up the planet and its time to put a halt to it.
Viva action and viva Sea Shepherd and Cpn. Watson.
And here i speak as someone who is not only an activist but who has spent most of my life at sea and have seen the pillaging taht goes on. We need more Watsons, not less.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
>RE your comment:
“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”
05 March 2009
SADLY, there seem no avenues left which actually raise as much controversy and attention as the actions currently pursued by the Sea Shepherd team. Clearly evident is the continuing disregard for the rapidly depreciating fish and shark populations- Research and scientific facts have been shoved under the noses of those who matter in government and law makers, to what avail?
WORKING daily with sharks and the environment around me, has given me the ability to outspokenly ‘educate’ the locals and otherwise misinformed people who regard sharks as the ‘enemy down under’, or food. Scientific facts may open SOME ears when it comes to convincing the guy in the street, but this alone is too slow to save the shark population on this planet. Let’s not forget that we destructive humans are not tolerant of an apex predator, so physically saving them is on who’s agenda besides the diving industry and various conservation organizations?
PEOPLE like Sea Shepherd and their strong arm tactics inspire action, in whatever form it migrates to the average Joe in- On seeing [on tv] that someone is actually tackling these issues with force [as SS is brave enough to do] they are re-awakening our urge to fight for what we believe in, without wasting each day consumed by committee meetings. Tell me you would prefer NO tv coverage to that of Sea Shepherd’s.
THE balance between the activist and the passive protester is only measured by a difference of opinion about HOW they get the message across, so let’s not forget while we are all arguing about HOW… more sharks die every day and that we are ALL on the same side. Sea Shepherd may be too much for some, but HEY, this planet we are massacring has no way of making a comeback without people like them fighting for what the human race destroys. Good for Sea Shepherd.
ON an active ending – We are lobbying the port authority here [Bahamas] for a Shark Free Marina, no landed sharks or shark fishing, with the help of friends at the Bimini Shark Lab. Along with the shark dives we do, our divers and tourists are getting the message.
eddyunderwater – Bahamas March 2009
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve been thinking a lot about how to respond to this post and the following comments. While I feel strongly that we don’t have a lot of time to turn things around and save some of these species, and while I do feel that doing anything is better than doing nothing, I find it hard to condone all of the Sea Shepherd’s actions.
Here’s the crux of the matter for me. Are some of the people (if not all) who the Shepherd targets disobeying the law? Yes. Sure. But how does that justify doing the same?
This is not to say that I disagree with shark conservation – I am a strong conservationist. And I don’t disagree with all that the Shepherds do – most of what I saw on Whale Wars, for example, didn’t cross the line, though some did. My point is that if we stoop to the level of dodging the laws we are no better than those we seek to stop. In the end, all are criminals.
Ultimately, I don’t think being a vigilante will work. Do you think islamic radical terrorism is ever going to convince the rest of the world to convert?
It’s like the civil rights movement in the US. Gains were made by sacrifice and fighting without violence – by sitting in diners and refusing to move on busses, not by going around and burning them down.
What I would like to know, and perhaps someone can explain, is why we can’t do almost as much (if not more) without crossing the line. If you surrounded every Japanese whaler with 3-4 boats and didn’t touch them, not once, but physically surrounded them, constantly, wouldn’t we reach the same ends? They can’t shoot harpoons with boats around, and if they did, and hit us instead of a whale, they’d have hell to pay. And won’t it be more effective to work with the poor fishermen to find better sources of sustenance than shark finning instead of freeing a few of their catch and confiscating the rest of their labors, which just makes them need to go fish for more to survive? Getting our hands dirty, helping them find other resources to work – it’s like teaching a man to fish instead of just giving him some.
If you really want to claim that those sharks are worth saving, then act like it, and not by being a vigilante. What about convincing people to donate funds to pay those fishermen not to fish, like farm subsidies or carbon credits? Setting up schools and farms in those areas to give the people options for other careers?
If you expect to truly keep a resource sustainable you have to convince the people who rely on that resource. They are the ones who will ultimately protect or destroy what they have. You can’t conserve Elephants in Africa that locals see as dangerous pests, and you can’t conserve sharks in Asia that people see as their only means of survival. Great successes have come in Africa by hiring and training the locals to be rangers on preserves or anti-poaching teams who protect instead of harvest. The same could be done in Asia, but not if you’re out there attacking the very people we need on our side.
In America, we look at events like the Boston Tea Party as rallying successes against an unjust dictator. But the bottom line is that it was an act of terrorism – just one we happen to agree with. And here, the line isn’t even that clear. Do we have the right to act out against Koreans for eating dogs? Should we find their farms and release the dogs into the wild or bring them back to the US? Do Hindus have the right to act out against the US for eating beef? Should they raid our cattle fields, busting down fences and burning barns? Even if no one gets hurt?
We all agree that something needs to be done. We just disagree about how. Perhaps you’re right – but I find it hard to believe that violence ever begets anything other than violence. And eventually, Captain Watson, someone will die from what you’re doing. The whalers will get fed up, or your people will cause an accident. Maybe that’s something that doesn’t bother you, but it does bother me. I value animal life equally to our own, not more. And, though misguided and wrong in my eyes, they are people, too.
Maybe I’m just an optimist, but I think that we can make a difference without making enemies. In the end, we can’t dismantle every boat they send out to fin or whale. We can’t patrol every inch of the ocean to protect these species. We need, instead, to find a way to change the people, or the animals don’t have a shot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christie,
You hit just about every point that I wanted to. I’m going to pretend that I don’t know how to write this in goofy pre-teen AIM slang, and will instead just tell you in words that I’m applauding. Thank you.
I just wanted to add one thing- Sea Shepherd and some of the others who have commented are arguing that sharks are more important than people- that it is ok to endanger the lives of people because they’re hurting sharks. Sharks are not more important than people. That is borderline sociopathic. I believe that we should be making the argument that HUMANS ARE BETTER OFF WITH SHARKS THAN WE ARE WITHOUT SHARKS, and you cannot possibly make that argument while attacking endangering the lives of poor people.
Sorry, but “they’re breaking the law” is not an excuse for trying to kill poor people, particularly when the law in question is a fishing quota. People who believe otherwise are the reason why regular people don’t take real conservationists seriously.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Outdated psychological terms are not only misapplied here, but really serve to show where a logical discussion turns to name calling (mistaken name calling at that) as opposed to reasoned facts and arguments based in reality. Please do your homework before applying psychological terms to groups of people with dissenting opinions.
Here’s a start: link to medterms.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t object to you having dissenting opinions. I object to your notion that it’s ok to kill or injure human beings in the name of helping animals. Other than the immorality of this claim, which should be obvious, having this view is counterproductive to helping animals.
Ignoring the borderline-psychotic immorality of your claim that it’s ok to kill people to help sharks, having this view harms sharks in the long run. From a practical standpoint, you simply won’t be able to kill ALL of the people who are shark finning. The only way to stop it is to get large groups of regular people- the kind who think it’s not ok to kill people to protect animals- to care about sharks.
We will never succeed in getting large groups of regular people to care about sharks as long as there are people like you and Paul Watson out there claiming that it’s ok to kill people to protect animals.
Because of that, no, I am not happy that Sea Shepherd is “at least doing something”, they are not my ally, our goals are not the same, and they are not helping me achieve my goals of helping sharks. They are making things immeasurably worse.
I am glad to have dissenting opinions- a debate is pretty boring without them.
However, the opinion that it is ok to kill people in the name of helping animals is completely unacceptable, and it is ultimately harmful to the cause of conservation because it makes people not listen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am not advising nor advocating killing humans, and neither has the Sea Shepherd. You are continuing to ignore the facts that they have never killed a human being. I agree that it would be counterproductive to the cause, that is clear and obvious.
I also agree that it is vital to produce evidence and information that draws as large an audience as possible to understand and care that (even for as selfish a reason as the ongoing survival of HUMANS on this planet) conservation of the apex predators of the ocean is needed.
Psychologically speaking, on a survival-level of awareness, humans act in their own self-interest. To express an opinion that puts anything above the survival/betterment of our own species is frowned upon on a very visceral and basic level, even if it may technically be termed “altruistic”.
All that aside, throwing your AGAIN completely inaccurate and potentially offensive psychological terms at people you don’t agree with detracts not only from your argument, but from how you are perceived as a scholar and a person. I understand my words are not always what people want to hear, but name calling and abuse of psychological babble does little to strengthen your point of view. It’s offensive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
While David may not be being entirely eloquent in what he’s trying to say, his main point is that what the Sea Shepherds do is dangerous, and although they haven’t yet, eventually someone will get hurt. Just watch the last season of whale wars – the Japanese almost threw a Shepherd off the boat, and Capt. Watson got shot at. While the shepherds might be willing to give their lives for sharks, I think all of us would rather find solutions that don’t run the risk of someone getting killed. And if, by chance, someone on the other side dies due to what the Shepherds do – they’re slick bombs hit someone in the head, or a rammed boat causes fatalities or something – the result will be far worse for conservation. It will serve to rally those against the Shepherds into even more flagrant actions and insistence that their way is right. As it has already been said, the Shepherds already are a cause for solidarity in Japan to support their country’s decisions. That’s the last thing the sharks need.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Eyes 2 the ocean, you can’t seem to make up your mind.
“I know that I will never see eye to eye with people who value human safety over the existence of endangered innocent animals.”
“I am not advising nor advocating killing humans”
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I have been working with Paul Watson and Oceana and shark savers. I design pins and jewelry and which I donate to help raise money. I believe there is a larger picture at stake. Whether it’s whales, sharks, turtles, or seals somethings need to be brought into the spotlight and soon. Time is running out for many species. Look at the critically endangered leatherback turtle. Many believe it will exist in another decade. Most people in general have never heard of a leatherback. Paul’s tactics are crude but they do get the media’s attention. In return gets peoples attention to help pass laws. Oceana works with government policies and laws which is also important. Which will work faster? I personally think we need both. I think if these boats were killing people no one would think twice about ramming the ship to stop it. I guess it comes down to is ones perspective on how valuable an animals life is. If the japanese would follow the IWC. The show would not exist. I think Paul would be happy if they cancelled the show which is the purpose to begin with. I am glad no one had been seriously hurt and hope some of these attrocities in nature will end as well. In the meantime I support every organization who is watching out for our oceans and planet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I think if these boats were killing people no one would think twice about ramming the ship to stop it. ”
Right… because killing people and killing animals ARE NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL.
“I personally think we need both.”
Except that one- Sea Shepherd- makes it harder for legitimate organizations like Oceana, WildAid, and people like me to convince regular people that sharks need to be protected.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Please define “regular people.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I’d like to bring up two points. I tend to be long winded, but I’ll try and keep it concise.
I’ve been watching the debate since I commented a while ago and, while I feel strongly about some of the issues being discussed, I haven’t felt like I’ve had much to contribute to the discussion, particularly after I tried to call out the Sea Shepherd representative for being a fake.
The first issue I’d like to address is the word “terrorism.” It’s a word that’s been so overused in America since George W. Bush took office that only recently, during the last election, was there a word more overused– “maverick.” But all joking aside, the Bush administration used the word ad nauseum, until every little thing was terrorism. So what is terrorism? Well, the UN doesn’t have a definition of the word yet, so on an international scale, we’re on our own, (link to un.org).
To be frank, terrorism literally means “the ideology of terror.” So no, the Boston Tea Party wasn’t a terrorist act– it was an act of vandalism. No one was injured. Terror was not instilled.
The definition of terrorism under United States law is thus– “the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents,” (link to terrorism.about.com).
Under that definition, Sea Shepherd is not a terrorist organization (barely). They do not premeditate their ramming as far as I know, and those they have attacked have fought back. Therefore, calling Sea Shepherd a terrorist organization is, by definition, false, even if you strongly disagree with their actions.
The other issue I’d like to address is the rampant ad hominem attacks that have been distracting from the debate, which David explicitly forbade in his introduction.
I shouldn’t even feel like I have to say this– ad hominem attacks are not the same thing as debating. They distract from your point. They show that you feel (and therefore are) defeated. They make people reading (like myself) annoyed with your petty behavior. Sorry if I stepped on any toes.
And David, by the way, I have a career-related question for you that wouldn’t fit at all into this. I figured you’d know, but I’ll ask at a later date.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, to be fair, the Shepherds do premeditate many of their strikes like prop fouling… and only sometimes have the actual ships fought back. Often they just try to run away. So the Shepherds, by that definition, might be terrorist… slightly. Technically.
You’re right, though – the Tea Party was vandalism, not terrorism. Though there were definitely some ‘terrorist’-like actions committed by the revolutionaries to free themselves from British rule. My point, however, was that the Tea Party and other acts of vandalism or terrorism (if committed) are breaking the law – which again goes to my point about us being no better than them if we resort to such acts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I hate to go there but our industry has been tiptoeing around this question for a year now. So here we go:
Let’s talk about The Shark Savers.
They are the de facto alter ego of SSCS and have set themselves up as, well…The Shark Savers. That was one full year ago. Aside from an online website film pitch for another reality television show called The Shark Angels – the film and television side of The Shark Savers, the question begs, has anything really been done?
They are asking for donations from the public and are a non profit. SSCS is deeply involved with them as is Rob Stewart from the film Sharkwater. Did I mention that they have been accepting money from the public for a full year?
Here’s a quote from the reality television show website – The Shark Angels they have been shopping this concept around the major networks for over a year now, it is a Whale Wars clone:
Simply put, we aim to save sharks.
We are leading a guerrilla movement to protect sharks in the last vestiges where sharks remain. Tired of politics and wasted, duplicated efforts, the Shark Angels have come together to prove that regardless of style, we can all work with one another – and that there are many ways to make a difference.
Three very different conservation organizations have partnered together in an unprecedented way, realizing Intervention, outreach, education, technology, science, grassroots activism, enforcement and even legislation are all necessary to wage the war, stopping poachers, apathetic bystanders, corrupt politicians, ruthless Mafioso, and ultimately those creating a demand for shark fins.
Wowza!
Who are these guys, really? In one year with a huge mandate and a big splash in the media pond, what have they accomplished? What have they even started?
I submit these orgs are basic clones of SSCS. They trade up on huge forward media pushes, with little actual boots on the ground effort. I could be wrong, they could be on a massive actual shark saving program that no one knows about, even now. Complete with “Intervention, outreach, education, technology, science, grassroots activism, enforcement and even legislation”.
I do know they had nothing to do with the recent Maldives decision to ban all shark fishing in territorial waters, nor did they have anything to do with recent EU shark fishing legislation, or even the recent US House shark legislation. The big shark eco wins that NGO groups like Oceana have been working on for a while now.
I would like to be proved wrong on the assumption that this group is really just another media arm of SSCS. So wrong that I would have to apologize to this list, over and over. That would be a good thing for sharks – actual conservation metrics not just frantic and useless media or “awareness” which is code for give us money and we’ll put up a website or hold up a sign.
If both of the Shark Savers and Shark Angels websites are any indication, with sporadic blog posts and updates, my feeling is, this is one more semi failed, good intentioned, SSCS Wag and Conservation Dog shark efforts.
Anyone care to comment in a reasonable tone about this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve been following this debate since I came across it, and I’m impressed with the general eloquence and passion I’m seeing on this topic.
First off, I love sharks. I’ve been a shark nut since I was a child. They’re the reason I pursued an education in Marine Biology, and they’re why I’m helping to co-found a shark conservation group here in Canada. I’m fully aware of the difficulties in raising awareness towards sharks, and the frustrations involved in seeing little progress made protecting a rapidly disappearing group of animals.
Ok, on to the good stuff.
I’ll admit, from what I’ve seen concerning the SSCS, the temptation is certainly there. They are very good at appealing to the die-hard conservationist in a person, to the idea that you could actually be there, hands on, directly affecting change. And yes, I’ll conceed that the group has actually done something by directly interfering with these operations. To what degree I’ll leave to debate.
However, I believe that any objective obtained through militant means will always have adversaries, not matter how much public support is gained. For every person who jumps on the SSCS bandwagon, you’ll find someone who just thinks they’re “crazy treehuggers”. I think that if any real change is going to occur, it needs to happen by rational means, supported by accurate, verifiable scientific data. And it’s not like the data isn’t there, we just need to find a way to get it heard. Ignorance will not be an excuse here. We are decimating an entire
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry, wrong button. I’ll continue.
I was saying that this (the slaughter or world-wide shark populations) is not a secret. Its ongoing, and it isn’t slowing down. We need to end it, not soon, now. Its appalling how far its come so far, and if allowed to continue, future generations will look back on us with nothing but contempt.
So what’s the answer? We all know people are generally biased in what they consider “worthy” of protection. If it has cute babies, will jump through hoops or sing a song, it’s worth protecting. If it’s an instinct driven predator that’s been perfected for millions of years to “swim, eat, and make little baby sharks”, then please, kill ‘em all.
Sorry, ranting a bit. My point is, while the actions of the SSCS will most definetly grab the most attention, the majority of the work still falls on the shoulders of those of us willing to sanely, rationally, and passionately defend these animals to everyone, even those who won’t listen. This is the only way we’ll achieve the big changes that need to happen.
So in conclusion, is the SSCS right or wrong? I don’t care. I don’t have time to care. All I can do is focus on reaching the people around me, on spreading the message, and on gathering the information needed to stop this atrocity once and for all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I too work in shark conservation, and am also a qualified game ranger so i have a good conservation background. I must say that I truly believe that SEA SHEPHERD are WITHOUT A DOUBT the most effective conservation group on the planet.
They are one of the only organisations who dont have time for beurocracy, and who actually save marine life.
They are the opposite to 99% of other organisations dealing with marine conservation who are mostly just ‘big talk and no action’
Sea Shepherds actions are 100% legal, and their tactics are frankly brilliant, the bottom line is they actually save the lives of many animals!
And they have NEVER injured any human in their defense of the defensless.
Anyone who is allienated by these tactics should stop pretending to care about our oceans and rather become a politician!
Talking does not save lives!
FOREVER LIVE SEA SHEPHERD!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Something that hasn’t been addressed is that the market for shark fins is (predominantly) China, and that any positive media generated by SSCS is likely to play to American/EU/Australian audiances. Even if tomorrow the countries who are likely to have seen/heard/understood what SSCS are campaigning for halt shark finning in their waters and by their fleets due to popular pressure, there are many developing countries who won’t, for various reasons. In fact, particularly thinking of the scene in Sharkwater where they “arrest” the shark finning boat, SSCS’s actions come off as another example of the rich west lording it over poorer countries, trying to tell the poor developing world what to do and does not help address the issues (perception does not equal reality I know, but it does affect effectiveness of SSCS as an organisation). Far more effective would be to address the cultural basis of shark finning (traditional Chinese medicine – declining now as more and more young Chinese turn to conventional medicine (by which I mean, medicine) and the status symbol that shark fin soup is. Otherwise we’re just shifting the problem around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another point, SSCS claims to be stopping illegal shark finning vessels, often because the countries involved either don’t have the will to enforce laws, or don’t have the money. There was a great scene in Sharkwater when people in the city (I forget which) were marching against the illegal shark finning. Demanding that governments front up and effectively enforce fisheries regulations and laws is a battle throughout the world. In some places (the Galapagos?) where SSCS is invited in to do the enforcement, great. This is something they should shout about – real collaboration and effective conservation in the Galapagos. How much more they could do elsewhere? Unfortunately I think the high-handed and sometimes deceitful tactics reported from their other campaigns hinder this undoubtedly useful work from being seen as attractive to countries which struggle with funding or the will to enforce their fisheries laws in which they could do some good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apologies for the re post but I didn’t realise I had posted it half way through the forum.
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:
0 
0
As a general rule, I support Sea Shepherd and admire them for their passion and unflinching devotion to what they think is right. They are the only group I am aware of (please enlighten me to others if you know of them!) that is out there in the ocean actually saving lives. I support Oceana and other organizations like that who rely on public awareness and lawmaking but no matter how many great laws you pass, if people can get away with not following them, they mean nothing. Public awareness and sympathy is really the only long term solution and should continue to be in the frontlines, but it takes too long and we just don’t have the time to rely on it. Of course, I don’t think demonizing destitute fisherman is the way to go but I definitely understand the impulse. What else can we really do? Have as many rational, calm discussions as you want as the last of our sharks are slaughtered and our oceans collapse. They going to be gone in, what, ten years? We don’t have time to discuss and debate. I wish we did but does anyone even want to think about what will happen not only to the ocean but to us and to the planet if we continue to let our sharks die? I know there are alot of people working really hard on this issue, this is mostly my own frustration at this point. Maybe that makes me a little more lenient towards Paul Watson’s sometimes Michael Moore-ish attitudes. I often wish I could hop on a boat, go to the Galapagos and actually cut those sharks free of the longlines. It seems like the only thing that would feel like I was making a difference. Though I suppose that is a different topic altogether (perhaps that could be a discussion sometime? What can we all do to truly make a difference). All in all, I think we need groups like Sea Shepherd and Oceana. We need people to make the public aware to what is happening and make conservation laws, and we need people to enforce those laws. I don’t think we should be ramming boats, of course, but I do think we need people out on the ocean. And naturally, we need to work with these poor countries and give them alternatives to poaching. And we need to do it now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes it is important to change public opinions through awareness and education. Yes it is important to preserve the “good image” of the conservation movement. But without organizations like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who are physically cutting sharks (and other creatures) free and confiscating longlines, there may be no more of these creatures to save by the time public opinion comes to their rescue.
I consider longlines and shark finning two of the most abhorrent acts of violence against the natural world and the notion of humanity. Destroying such property (including the boats that deploy them) I believe is necessary and just.
When you see a man beating a dog to death in front of you, would you call and wait for the police, or stop him yourself? I know my answer and I support the SSCS 100 percent.
The moral “purity” of the conservation movement will be useless and pointless if there is nothing left to conserve.
Less talk, more action.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, Jaki! Thanks for your thoughts- they are, in my opinion, the most reasoned and rhetoric free of any of the pro-SSCS people.
You say that “without organizations like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who are physically cutting sharks (and other creatures) free and confiscating longlines, there may be no more of these creatures to save by the time public opinion comes to their rescue.”
An interesting point. However, let’s consider what “Captain Paul Watson” wrote in this post- he bragged that they have freed “hundreds of sharks” from longlines.
Let’s assume that he meant “hundreds of sharks per year” and not “hundreds of sharks in the 3 decades SSCS has been around”. Let’s assume that he meant the maximum possible number that “hundreds” could signify, 900. If Sea Shepherd is saving 900 sharks per year, and 100 million sharks per year are being killed for their fins, Sea Shepherd is saving .0009% of sharks caught for finning. This is hardly enough to help the population of sharks as a whole, and this .0009% number is based on two very generous interpretations of Captain Watson’s bragging.
You also said “The moral “purity” of the conservation movement will be useless and pointless if there is nothing left to conserve.”
So you can do whatever you want as long as you think it’s for a good cause? That sort of reasoning has gotten humanity into lots of trouble in the past. We have codes of conduct for a reason, if we abandon them the first time we face a challenge, then why should anybody take us seriously?
“When you see a man beating a dog to death in front of you, would you call and wait for the police, or stop him yourself?” This is a poor analogy because fisherman aren’t killing sharks to be cruel, they are killing sharks for food. When you see a farmer killing a pig, do you intervene?
The fact is, physically freeing “hundreds of sharks” from longlines and intimidating boats full of desperately poor fisherman isn’t going to stop finning. What will stop finning is the support of the public, which grows when they are exposed to reasoned and respectful arguments, and shrinks when they are exposed to criminal and dangerous stunts like those perpetuated by Sea Shepherd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Again, our comments do not reflect the reality of the situation. The SSCS is not a criminal organization, and if you are going to make this charge, for the sake of a valid argument I would ask that you specifically site an example where the SSCS was acting unabiguously outside the law. The shark-finning example you bring up was an action taken against people who were knowingly violating the law in the Galapagos Islands. The SSCS was acting at the request of the Ecudorian Government. The Shark-finners were working for a company that was exporting shark fins to the orient for profit, and arguably being underpaid for their labor at that. Poor fishermen do not fin sharks – they eat them, or sell the meat locally. There is just too much good meat to throw it away. Only exporting companies “fin” sharks in the Galapagos Islands.
Your logic is great, but I would maintain that your conclusions are invalid because they are not based on accurate data. This data is all available on the web.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Post should have just been called Foe of SSCS. Just to be clear, the fishermen in Galapagos and Cocos know they are fishing in illegal park waters…do not compare them to farmers, it is a crime, which makes them criminals, not “poor fishermen”. I do agree the problem will not be solved by making a scene, working with governments and providing sustainable economic programs can make a difference. In the end, it is the demand that needs to be attacked head on…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] (though the discussion ends in foul sockpuppetery) and WhySharksMatter at Southern Fried Scientist tackles the sharks, with possible cameo by Paul Watson. Also see Shark Divers’s excellent [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s a key point:
“I would ask that you specifically site an example where the SSCS was acting unabiguously outside the law.”
Right now the SSCS vessel Farley Mowat is going to auction for the lack of payment of 3.1 million dollars in fines and fees. The fines for being in violation of a CDN Gov law stating how close you can get to CDN sealers doing their work. Regardless of how horrific anyone thinks that “work” is. The law is unabiguous in this case and SSCS donors are out close to one million dollars for the vessel, fines and current legal bills for the crew.
SSCS does a great job of “working the gray area” in other cases. In fact one might submit they are masters of that game. The media spin from SSCS regarding the Farley Mowat case runs the gamut from sealer collusion to insane gov members working outside the law. Yet the vessel is still being sold and no one is steeping forward to claim her, not SSCS, no one.
IF the law was even close to the on the side of SSCS in this case I am sure some lawyer working pro bono might have stepped up. No one has.
A great percent of what you read from SSCS and it’s many clone sites is incorrect. From legal opinions to actual events as they transpire these events are bogus or seriously massaged to give false impressions. The cases are too many to list here.
We were once full supporters of SSCS until we began to see the working of this org. It is all too easy to cause controversy and radicalize people.
Real conservation is goals and results based. I say 31 years of direct protest anti whaling efforts have failed. My concern is this same playbook, applied to shark conservation, will net the same results.
Sharks do not have another 31 years to play the SSCS eco game. Not when 80 million a year being taken.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Farley Mowat was illegally boarded and confiscated in INTERNATIONAL waters. The law that it was confiscated under makes it illegal for anyone to WATCH the killing of a seal. This is like making it illegal to watch an immoral act – the mere fact that you even SAW it makes you guilty. This is something you support? You could never get away with such a law in the USA.
The SSCS claims that the ship has been siezed illegally. Canada knows that their siezure will not stand up in international court, so charges have never been brought against the ship or the SSCS. There is nothing to “file” against. The SSCS has demanded that the ship be released immediately with repairs and with financial compensation for the days it has been rendered unavailable to the SSCS. The problem here is that the ship is registered in the Netherlands, and unless the Netherlands wants to go to the expense of contesting this in international court, no one else has the standing (or money) to do this. Instead, the Netherlands has awarded the SSCS with more than the ship is worth from the Dutch postcode lottery. In the meanwhile, this ship is costing the Canadian government lots of money just to dock it, and if they sell it, the quater million dollars of liens against it go with the ship, so no one is likely to buy it.
The Farley Mowat is too old and too slow any more to be useful to the SSCS. They have gotten money for a new ship, and they have made the old ship a thorn in the side of the Canadian government, which should have known better, anyway. If I were a Canadian citizen, I would be complaining to my government for such stupidity in the first place.
But this is all on the SSCS web site, as you should know. Now I have two eyes and a good brain, and I can read and I can think. So far, you have given me no reason to just assume what you say is true concerning the SSCS – as a matter of fact, some of your own statements I feel are not factual.
The real issue: Do you really agree with the Canadian seal hunt? If not, what are you doing about it? We can argue all day about how effective these tactics have been, but Europe has recently inacted a boycot of all Canadian seal products. Now that’s effective, and I believe that the SSCS’s actions had something to do with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Craig Nazor? Has anyone checked this IP Address?
This is not the “real issue”. This thread should be about SSCS shark conservation efforts (which are lacking), not who supports what. This “real issue” of yours is a conversation redirect. You asked to specify a point and I gave it to you. Sadly now I wish I had not.
100% of your response are SSCS “Talking Points” which, as we have pointed out more than once, are bogus most of the time:
“But this is all on the SSCS web site, as you should know.
You sir, are a misguided camp follower or the Editor in Chief, me thinks the latter. I cannot help you if cannot see what is in front of you. I would also suggest you call Canada or at least email the local Gov there and do some homework outside of the SSCS website.
We have done that, and now more than ever, others are as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Craig Nazor is a frequent commentor and a welcome voice on our blog. Though me and Dave often disagree with his viewpoint, we do not think for a second he is anything but genuine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An ad hominim redirect will do you no good. You can do a web search using my name as listed and find out all about me. I am hiding nothing. And I have no interest to attempt to characterize you from your posts. I will simply judge you from your arguments on this blog.
I have checked Paul Watson on Wikipedia, and followed most of the links. I have also done a google search on Paul Watson, and followed many of those links, both pro and con. I did this all before I became a supporter of SSCS because I was aware of the controversy. What makes you think your research is superior to mine?
I have done this research because it is impossible to make an intelligent decision about who I will support (meaning who is most effective) if I trust opinion masked as fact. When facts are in dispute, I state my evidence as to why I believe one way or the other. For instance, if the Farley Mowat wasn’t in international waters when it was siezed, why have no charges been filed by the Canadian government?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for the update SFS, I defer to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] story, along with a recent tangential debate over at Southern Fried Science and PETA’s “sea kittens” campaign, sent my mind down a familiar path – one that [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0