Is Sea Shepherd really saving whales?

Sea Shepherd claims that their actions in the Southern Ocean opposing Japanese whaling fleets has effectively reduced the number of whales killed. What always rubbed me the wrong way about these claims is that they always compare their success against the Institute for Cetacean Research (the Japanese organization that oversees ‘scientific whaling’) Quotas. So at some point you have to ask the question, in absolute numbers, has Sea Shepherd really reduced the number of whales killed?

To answer that we need three pieces of information:

  1. When did Sea Shepherd begin it’s campaign against Japanese ‘scientific whaling’?
  2. What are the ICR quotas for that time frame?
  3. What are the absolute catches for that time frame?

Sea Shepherd provides a comprehensive timeline for their whaling campaigns that indicates serious opposition in the Southern Ocean began in December 2002. For the two other questions, we turn to Whale and Dolphin Conservation International, who have produced a truly exceptional interactive graph of the history of whaling since the inception of the International Whaling Convention by the numbers. The relevant figure is reproduced below:

courtesy WDCS

From this graph, we can see that Sea Shepherd began its campaign when whale catches were at their lowest, and catches have increased since then. Despite their claims of preventing whaling, we can see that more whales were killed per year after 2004 than any year before 2004. In other words, more whales are dying on Sea Shepherd’s watch.

So where do they get the claim that SSCS is reducing the numbers of whales caught? Remember they always report whales saved in relation to the Japanese quota, a reasonable value since the quota provides the absolute upper limit for how many whales will be killed each year. What they ignore is that, in 2005, the quota increased from ~350 to ~1000, and at no point since that increase has Japan ever reached quota.

All of this points towards the fact that Sea Shepherd’s claim that direct action is saving the whales is bunk. More whales have been killed per annum on Sea Shepherd’s watch than during the 16 years before Watson declared a Whale War. Of course there is no causal link in these data. The only conclusion that can be drawn from these data is that Sea Shepherd’s claim that they are preventing whales from being slaughtered is not supported. Results matter.

Still interested? Check out our analysis of the real issues with Sea Shepherd and why their brand of environmental activism is ultimately ineffective.

~Southern Fried Scientist

UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that the catch numbers reported from 2002 and 2003 are wrong. The Japanese caught 441 and 443 whales, respectively.

  1. I think you too biased to really look at this issue constructively. Look at the graph.. when their quotas were set low, they met them. They upped their quotas but they are unable to meet their quotas as well as they did before sea shepherd came along.
    As well this graph does not look(or say) that this looks only at JARPA II. Japan also participates in “research whaling” in the north. This graph doesn’t say if this is for the their whole whaling program or just the southern ocean part. some of the numbers do not match to what has been reported to the IWC as real catches.

    The truth is whether you like it or not, sea shepherd has prevented the Japanese whaling fleet from reaching their quota and this year more than ever.

    http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/table_objection.htm

    Japan would have increased the quota regardless of sscs as they have now said their true intentions are to bring back commercial whaling.

    Why don’t you pick on the Japanese whaling fleet who was discovered this year to be illegally trading the meat. (Sei whale from Japan was found in the US and in S Korea, ILLEGALLY!) You can’t honestly believe some of the numbers coming from this “research” organization based on information that we have about them.
    It was also news recently that a couple of crew came forward to say that there is an illegal smuggling ring on the vessel as well.

    • You bring up a good point that needs clarifying, JARPA (Japan’s Research Program in the Antarctic) ended in 2005, the same year that JARPA II began. The graph is a combination of both the JARPA and JARPA II programs, with the increase in quotas corresponding to the program change.

      What we do know is that the ICR estimates for Minke Whale populations is orders of magnitudes higher than independent estimates, so any quota set by the ICR is likely not to reflect real potential catches. In other words, the inability to meet quota may be reflective of the scarcity of Minke’s. Or maybe it is due to SSCS actions. Or maybe SSCS presence has caused ICR to beef up their whaling program, gain more support within their home country, and make it harder to end whaling forever.

      But that’s all speculation. What we do know is that the absolute number of whales being killed is increasing. If Japan raised their quota to 20,000 minkes, then only killed 10,000, would that count as SSCS’s most successful year?

    • LOL, the whaling fleet never smuggled whale meat to US or anywhere Cora, do try to keep your facts straight. Whether the restaurant owners in US or Korea decide to break the law by personally smuggling whale meat out of Japan, has nothing to do with the whaling fleet or ICR.

      “It was also news recently that a couple of crew came forward to say that there is an illegal smuggling ring on the vessel as well.”

      Proof please? Greenpeace brought up the so-called “whistleblower” a few years ago accusing the whalers of embezzling, but as they found out, the only people guilty of anything were Greenpeace themselves who stole whale meat from a whaler.

  2. I wonder what data Cora has access to that told her the whaling fleet (or members thereof…)Since the DNA data was obtained from a whale captured in 2007 and samples were PURCHASED on the open market for the DNA. If we use occams to simplify, it stands that Coras ex-boyfriend bought some at the local Japanese “Safeway” for his friend the chef back in CA. Shipping it FedEx overnight because it simply had to be there in the morning to be cooked. I’m quite sure that we will be told all about the illegal black market of whale meat where only the elite can get it at a cost 4X of what they sell it for in the fish shops and Safeway…

  3. Cora has a point but misses the mark. I think all parties involved would like to see an end to this. Barely impacting numbers of whales taken is not a solution, making up saved whale numbers even worse, which is SSCS raison d’être.

    Whales will be killed next year, the next and the next. SSCS is managing a self fulfilling, self propagating, money and media machine, skillfully.

    I ask “can we do better?”

    Japan has the ability to pick up a phone and call voting nations to have them vote for whaling. SSCS does not have that ability. Why?

    Japan builds airport, fishing ports, schools, you name it, and these countries vote to Japans will in gratitude.

    What if the conservation side played this game?

    Just a crazy thought, but if you want to really change a thing, get inside it, and play the game. Don’t sit on the outside and throw rotten butter…that’s so 1976.

  4. Why doesn’t anyone have the ability to pick up a phone, call whom they wish and ask them to vote “my way”?

    what or who is stopping them from doing so?

    “Japan builds airport, fishing ports, schools, you name it, and these countries vote to Japans will in gratitude.”

    Your point is ? Are we to assume that doing quid pro quo is only bad if it’s the opposition using it?

    “What if the conservation side played this game?”

    How do you think the 1982 moratorium came about? Anti Whaling Nations brought in several non whaling nations with the same tactics you accuse Japan of using today. If you look further you’ll find that they even supplied several nations with the dues and provided their delegate to the commission.

    You need to remember, the IWC was formed to CONSERVE, not PROHIBIT. Hijacking the purpose of the commission serves no one as the members seeking to uphold the original purpose and rules will simply withdraw.

  5. ’tis possible, tho, I have a problem with his statement of
    “Japan has the ability to pick up a phone and call voting nations to have them vote for whaling. SSCS does not have that ability. Why?”
    hence my response.
    Next he starts on the “quid pro quo” That Japan may be using, and asks what if the anti whaling use it, I merely pointed out it STARTED with the anti-whaling nations.

    The last part was to remind him of the purpose of the IWC. Conservation as a word has become twisted in its usage, It now seems to reflect the non-use of anything that is determined to be “conservation” worthy.

    • It’s pretty well established that Japan has both the resources and political leverage to influence nations who otherwise have no stake in whaling.

      An of course the 1986 moratorium came about by nations that opposed whaling using their political leverage and resources to influence nations who otherwise have no stake in whaling.

      I doubt anyone on this site is challenging either point.

      If conservationist want to continue to affect change, they need to play the political game. Vessel humping and stinky-butter shenanigans are not only not doing the job, they’re actually helping the whalers.

      The IWC was created to neither conserve nor prevent whaling but to manage whaling sustainably. The data are conclusively pointing to the reality that there is no potential for commercial whaling to ever be done sustainably. The economic reality is that the cost of maintaining a whaling fleet is significantly greater than the profit that can be made while maintaining a viable population.

      Which is part of the reason why SSCS’s claim that they will bankrupt Japanese whaling is laughable. If it were really about profit, it would have gone broke decades ago.

  6. and on this note…I can retire gracefully…
    agreeing TOTALLY with your assessment

    🙂

    Time to watch MORE Great White Expeditions….

  7. Did you even read JARPA II or the ICR website? They clearly state the increase in 2005 was a direct correlation between the transition from JARPA to JAPRA II and wanting a faster study by using larger numbers:

    “…in shorter time spans it is necessary to expand the scale of research. We have, therefore, designed JARPA II as a comprehensive long-term research program where an interim detailed review will be conducted following completion of the first … See More6 years of research. JARPA II research will focus on Antarctic minke whale and the larger species humpback and fin whales. The number of Antarctic minke whales to be sampled is 850 (± 10%). With the new research design, we will be able to obtain statistical results six years later. If you want to know more details, the plan for JARPA II research program is available for downloading at the ICR website here. ” Quote from http://www.icrwhale.org/FAQ.htm

  8. Another thing to look at is the actual voting history of the IWC. There are more landlocked nations (6) that vote against Japan than in favor (2). The Antis already do the vote buying game, and by the evidence, do it better. In fact, Japan is the only country that has ever requested the voting be done by secret ballot, eliminating the possibility (or greatly reducing it, at least) of vote buying.

    As for sustainability, IWC sponsored SOWER cruises, a joint Japan/New Zealand/Australia research mission has completed 4 population estimates for Antarctic Minke. 3 of the 4 put the population at around 650,000-700,000. The most recent being 670,000 in 2008. The one anomoly, 2004, resulted in a count of 339,000. In the 4 years following, the IWC did extensive review and determined that the drastic difference was due to the fact that the 2004 count didn’t account for whales that lived beyond the pack ice, which they believe to be roughly half the population, which would make an approx 668,000 total count.

    Independently, Dr Stephen Palumbi of Stanford University did a genetic diversity study and determined that the historic population level is around 650,000-700,000 with no appreciable booms or busts. He also estimated the ecological carrying capacity to be around 700,000, and the fertility rate and gestation period (approx. 50% of all females at any given time with a 16 month turnaround) leads to the conclusion that a hunt of around 2,000 a year would be sustainable with no major damage to the health of the population. This was the determination of the IWC Scientific Committee upon the first review of the 1986 Global Moratorium on whaling.

  9. WHY would the Japanese start hunting the whales more just because the Sea Shepard’s are on TV? I don’t get it

  10. This graph in conjunction with the statement “SSCS has caused a reduction in whales killed” reminds me a lot of those commercials for the home automatic soap dispensers. The commercials make a big fuss about how your soap pump is really disgusting and germy, but they miss the part where you’re going to be washing your hands anyways.

    SSCS is missing the part about the raised quotas. When you raise quotas, it’s going to be harder to fill them. Unless SSCS has caused the whalers to abandon a whale currently being hunted/harpooned/whatever, they really can’t say they had anything to do with a reduced quota. They seem to forget that they have one (or three…or something…I’m not up on my “Whale Wars”) where the whaling fleet is more of a fleet.

    To play devil’s advocate, though, you can’t really say that they aren’t reducing the percent of the quota caught. But we can go ’round and ’round with that.

  11. they want ppl to talk about them and the whaling, in order to sensibilize ppl. Done!

  12. “in 2005, the quota increased from ~350 to ~1000, and at no point since that increase has Japan ever reached quota.”

    Almost every year before 2005, Japan reached the quotas they set. After increasing this quota by almost three times, there is nothing to stop them from reaching the higher quotas that they set.

    Except for the actions of Sea Shepherd, whose hampering and direct action has delayed/slowed down the killing until the end of the season meaning they cannot fill the quota.

    Your statement that more whales have died since SSCS has taken the watch is true, as they came onboard when the Japanese increased the quota.Duh!

    If they didn’t go down and intervene I am sure your graph would be orange up to the 1000 whales mark for the previous 5 years.

  13. “After increasing this quota by almost three times, there is nothing to stop them from reaching the higher quotas that they set.”

    Actually, the natural abundance and distribution of Minke whales could stop them from reaching quota. The JARPAI quotas were based on historic catch rates, the JARPAII quotas are based on a desire to increase catches. We do know that the ICR uses population estimates for Minke whales that are higher than independent estimates, and their JARPAII quotas reflect that. There is no evidence to suggests that they would make those quotas in the absence of SSCS.

    Correlation != Causation

    “If they didn’t go down and intervene I am sure your graph would be orange up to the 1000 whales mark for the previous 5 years.”

    Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that that is true. Hunches and gut feelings don’t replace data. The most that can be concluded here is that there is no correlation between Sea Shepherd presence and a reduction in the number of whales being killed, thus Sea Shepherds claim that they are saving whales in the Southern Ocean is not supported by the data.

    When I support conservation organizations, I want to see results.

  14. Dear Southern fried, Your brilliant assessment that the Japanese whaling fleet is not about whaling for profit is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard. At a million bucks a whale, multiply by 1000….you can DAMN well bet it’s about profit. And to suggest that the direct action of the Sea Shepherds is not effective flys in the face of logic. How many people are thinking about the whale issue now as compared to say 5 years ago? How much press have they generated for the plight of the whales? Even if they only manage to save 5 whales a year…that’s five more whales that get to live out their natural existence. We treat pigs and cows in a slaughterhouse with more humane killing techniques then we do the whales.

    Will the actions of the Sea Shepherds ever bring whaling to a complete halt? Maybe…maybe not. But sitting around doing nothing…or “playing the game” as you put it is not a viable solution for some people. Besides….they are playing the game…just not the way most people would play it. The most important thing is their intentions are beyond reproach. Paul Watson has dedicated his entire life to saving marine life….what the hell have you done besides sit here and spew out your critical tripe from your armchair vantage point. I would like to see the look on your face and feel the pulse in your veins after watching a pregnant whale slosh around in the water screaming for 25 minutes while it suffocates on its own blood….then tell me we should just sit by and “play the game”. If you saw someone treating a dog or a cat in the street in a similar manner…you would run over and restrain the person….any decent human being would. Whales are not fish…they think, they have family structures, they care for their young, they communicate with language across the globe, they choose mates….they are SENTIENT creatures….and whaling is murder.

    • So how much money did the Japanese whaling fleet make last year? Oh, wait, they received $5 million in government subsidies to offset their operating costs? Perhaps you’re using a different definition of profit than I am?

      I would like to know where you get your numbers from though – $1 million per whale? 1000 whales? Let’s see the sources.

      But please, check out this post – http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=4424 and see why many conservationists disagree with SSCS tactics.

      Why is it in 1986 we could pass an international moratorium on whaling, yet in 2010 several nations are trying to return to commercial whaling. I thought more people than ever know about the plight of whales? Or maybe it’s just that more people than ever are cheering Sea Shepherd on without demanding results?

  15. Judging by the television show, “Whale Wars,” the Sea Shepherd campaign is costly, and completely ineffective and pointless. Am I missing something? If this is reality, I am not happy. Before watching the series, I had in my mind, an idea that these folks(The Sea Shepherd, Green Peace, etc) were out there risking their lives and saving whale lives. I felt a little better just knowing they were out there. Now, it seems as if there are a bunch of well intentioned children out goofing around on the high seas(children often goof around and get hurt) with expensive toys. Also, there is very little talk of actual whaling, or about the death of the whales, or why whaling should be wrong. I should think that any television program about whaling would be chalk full of this stuff, since the audience for AP is so young. I, for one, want kids to KNOW how long it takes a whale to die, and that whaling should be stopped.

    I hate being so negative about these guys, but I was really hoping to come away from the show feeling as if it would at least be a good educational tool. Sort of a consolation prize for not seeing any whales actually being saved.

  16. your data is too limited to be able to make a judgment either way, comparing catch numbers with a low quota in 2000 to catch numbers in 2008 with vastly higher quota under different research programs and objectives isn’t a valid comparison, only by directly comparing the same year, same quota, same population levels and territory could you really arrive at this answer through the data. With about 3-4 Japanese ships & 1-3 SSCS ships doing battle each year the variables are too great especially with a fluctuating quota and fluctuating presence of SSCS. This is basically a “one off” problem, it just might not be possible to use such a graph for such a determination

    Perhaps the only way to even approach the answer would be to have observers on both ship who take note of incidents where a whale is physically blocked from harpooning, how many pounds of meat contaminated(costs money but doesn’t save a whale), and how many hours or days the SSCS can force the ICR in watercannon battles or a chase (even then how productive those hour would have been spent whaling is still in question)

    • You’ve essentially rephrased my point, which is simply that SSCS claim that they are saving whales is not supported by the data.

      You may be interested in out follow up post – Whale Quotas and Sea Shepherd in which we show that all commercial whaling nations, regardless of SSCS involvement, are making roughly half their quota. In some years, Japan is actually doing better than average.

  17. “Perhaps the only way to even approach the answer would be to have observers on both ship who take note of incidents where a whale is physically blocked from harpooning”

  18. “Perhaps the only way to even approach the answer would be to have observers on both ship who take note of incidents where a whale is physically blocked from harpooning”

    Such an incident has never occurred.
    So by this standard, SS has never had any effect whatsoever on the quota.
    Is that your final answer?

    Regarding pop estimates, one could just as easily say that Australian estimates are motivated by politics like the author suggests Japanese estimates are.
    Nick Gales is not an objective scientist. He’s told many lies about ICR which show his bias. Such as the alleged claim that they are trying to interbreed cows and whales… an absurd claim to make. And an outright lie.
    It might be forgivable from a journalist, but from a scientist in his own field? That’s deliberate, nasty, and not objective at all.

    Palumbi similarly has a set bias. Take the paper he did, along with Endo, on Hg and PCB in meat. If you read the content of the paper it actually demonstrates that whale meat is perfectly healthy and extremely low in things like mercury.
    However, the conclusion goes way off the beaten track and declares all whale meat to be suspect because of some anecdotal political excuse.
    Similarly, he put up a video on youtube claiming that the population of whales has halved using the highly disputed and (practically thrown out) data from CPIII. It’s the only estimate he mentions, despite being the most scrutinized estimate.
    That’s just downright irresponsible and shows a specific bias.

    • Please provide sources if you’re going to attempt to pass off fiction as fact. Making wild accusations without any support is the tool of propaganda artists, not people actually trying to engage in discussion. That’s just downright irresponsible and shows a specific bias.

  19. Finally, could you at least correct your graph.
    How long has it been since it was pointed out that you used the wrong data in 2002 and 2003?
    This entire blog entry is kind of worthless when the graph is bogus.

    • The correct values can be found at the bottom of the post. This particular graphic is produced by Whale and Dolphin Conservation International and is not ours to change, only attribute. As the updated numbers (which are, again, in the post) do not alter my conclusions, I see no reason to produce a new graphic.

      The only change in interpretation is that in the two years that SSCS were in the Southern Ocean while Japan was whaling under the lower quotas, there was no corresponding decrease in whale kills.

      I’m curious as to how you think the conclusions would change with the updated numbers?

  20. Fair dos, so it came from an anti-whaling NGO. No wonder the numbers are wrong, I wouldn’t expect anything less from anti-whalers.

    • No, actually it was the ICR that originally misreported the Southern Ocean scientific catches for those years. Nice try though, but despite your desire to create a controversy where none exists, there’s nothing significant about the change in catch data in 2002 and 2003. Just an innocent case of some intern submitting the wrong file.

      Again, I’m curious as to how you think the conclusions change with the updated numbers?

    • “No, actually it was the ICR that originally misreported the Southern Ocean scientific catches for those years”

      Somehow I seriously doubt that.
      Despite your gripes with ICR, they’ve been very judicious and always tell it how it is.
      Now it just sounds like you’re trying to save face.

      “Nice try though, but despite your desire to create a controversy where none exists”

      Not my desire at all.
      Merely pointing out that a blog on science where an incorrect graph is prominently placed is a bit misleading.
      I realize it has no bearing on your hypothesis and conclusion, but it’s not very scientific.

      I never said I think the conclusion changes.
      I’m merely believe in a little thing called “Attention to Detail”. Something I find most anti-whalers aren’t interested in.

    • When I originally wrote this post, I double checked the WDCS graph against the ICR’s catch report, and both were in agreement. A few months later a reader e-mailed me to let me know that the numbers did not match. If I had thought that at some unidentified time in the future, someone would decide that this was some grand conspiracy against the ICR, I might have taken a screen capture, but as it is total insignificant it warrants no more than a simple correction, which is right there, clearly displayed in the body of the text.

      I honestly have no clue why you think the ICR is being ‘demonized’ because someone, somewhere made a typo and then fixed it, but it’s clear that you’re not actually interested in having a discussion.

  21. “someone would decide that this was some grand conspiracy against the ICR”

    This is what we call a false dichotomy.
    Some people might also call it a diversion to avoid discussing the subject material.
    Please provide stated catch data from ICR’s website, whether “corrected” now or not.

    “but as it is total insignificant ”

    Well it’s not totally insignificant.
    I’ve never argued, however, that it would require a rework of your thesis. Rather, the corrected data fits even better with your thesis.
    Regardless, you seem extremely defensive over a graph which you know is incorrect.
    I queried about this, you elucidated that it came from WDCS — I quipped that this explains it since they’re an anti-whaling NGO.
    And since then it’s just been defensive post after defensive post. Yawn.
    Would you like me to make a correct graph for you?
    I realize for some people, making graphs is extremely difficult.

    • This is what we call a false dichotomy.

      Not at all, actually. A false dichotomy is when you reduce the possible positions in a deep and nuanced debate into two contrasting positions, such as “you’re either pro-Sea Shepherd or pro-whaling” when, of course, there is a a whole spectrum of views on the issue of whaling. What you’re looking at is called argumentum ad absurdum – taking a single fact (in this case someone making a typo) and drawing it to an irrational conclusion (organizations that are opposed to whaling don’t care about details and I’m trying to demonize the ICR for some reason – For the record, I’ve consistently contended that the ICR’s scientific research is sound but that many of their studies could be done without lethal sampling, and that there are political reasons for Japan to maintain an active whaling fleet).

      I’ve never argued, however, that it would require a rework of your thesis.

      From above:

      This entire blog entry is kind of worthless when the graph is bogus.

      Details, man, details.

      Would you like me to make a correct graph for you?

      No thanks, for two reasons: 1. The correct numbers are provided in the post (and the link the the catch reports you want are up there, too) and 2. You clearly have an axe to grind, and are no more unbiased than WDCS.

      Yawn.

      I agree, this entire exchange has been tedious and boring. Do you have any actual content to contribute or just biased and unsupported libel and pedantry?

      edited for typo

  22. “I agree, this entire exchange has been tedious and boring. Do you have any actual content to contribute or just biased and unsupported libel and pendantary?” [sic]

    This coming from the person with the incorrect graph, and blaming ICR.
    There’s a reason I asked for a link to the figure you looked up on ICR. Because there is no such table.
    So where, praytell, on ICR did you look them up?
    Or are you lying because you don’t care to admit WDCS got it wrong?

    “You clearly have an axe to grind, and are no more unbiased than WDCS”

    So you don’t want a graph with the correct data, because you believe I’m just as biased as the organization you got the graph off of ?
    This is amusing. Of course, the data has no bias. Unless you’re now admitting that you want to keep this one because you realized it’s
    A. False; and
    B. Biased ?

    That appears to be what you are saying.

  23. “A false dichotomy is when you reduce the possible positions in a deep and nuanced debate into two contrasting positions”

    Which is exactly what you are attempting to do by reducing all my statements.
    Such as…
    – Your claim that I’ve critiqued your theory, when repeatedly I have not.
    – Attempting to reduce the fact that your supporting evidence is factually incorrect; into “your argument is flawed”
    – Attempting to paint everything I say as a conspiracy theorist, just because you’ve been caught in a lie.

  24. Depending on what software you’re using, you should be able to set the blog to turn off comments on posts more than a few weeks old. In most cases, anyone showing up to the discussion later than that is probably either a spammer or a troll, although I suppose it’s possible they were just out on a whaling cruise.

  25. The commenter Kujirkira is under moderation for violation of Comment Policy Rule #3 – Parroting

    If it’s your 8th post on a topic and you haven’t added anything new or responded to any critiques raised concerning your previous posts, we may get bored. Tedious repetition doesn’t further the discussion.

    New commenters are invited to read the comment policy before posting.

  26. I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. Last year SSCS managed to stay with the whalers for about a month. If SSCS was not there, the whalers would be actively whaling. And I doubt that the whalers would outfit their fleet with water cannons, nets, anti-boarding spikes, a security ship, and follow Sea Shepherd with a spy-plane to report their position if they had no impact on the if Sea Shepherd had no impact.

  27. Thanks for this information. It is now becoming more clear to me that the only lasting change will be to get governments to cooperate in implementing sustainability in communities throughout the world, including organic gardening programs in schools and greenhouses. Communities working together.

  28. sea shepperd are a joke, they should face facts and accept they cant change that whales will be killed in the artic, they hardly stop the whalers wth theirrstink bombs and theyre doing no good to our planet burning through gallons of fuel and puttingtheircrew at risk

  29. do u guys really think japan is logging every whale the kill… no at a million bucks a whale… the are said to only brake even at 65 to 75 million a year yet the RECORDED CATCHING well over 700 whales 700Xmillion bucks = 75 million?????????????????????????????????????????????????

  30. What this graph shows me is when Japans Quoter was low they exceeded their catch limits. Once they increased their own Quoter they were hit hard and got nowhere near their Quoter. So there either are a lot less Minki than Japan thinks there are or Sea Shepherd has impacted on their Quoter. After hearing the Japanese themselves complain that their catch numbers are way down because of Sea Shepherd and after the Japanese Fleet went home several months early 2010/2011 because of Sea Shepherd id say Sea Shepherd are having a huge impact on Japanese Whaling. Thanks for the graph