Earth Race meets it's end

Discussion in 'General Paddling Discussions' started by rider, Jan 11, 2010.

  1. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    I might also add that while I don't completely agree with all the methods used by Watson and Sea Shepherd, and Greenpeace (and others), I think they are fulfilling a necessary function. Their actions create a balance of the other end of the spectrum where there are equally (and possibly even moreso) dangerous fanatics who think nothing of stripping all that is on and of the planet for no other reason than to make a buck. The big part of the problem is that the fanatics on the other end of the spectrum are a lot more invisible (and powerful) than Watson and his ilk -- which puts all the attention on those like Watson -- and generally in a poor light. If the names of the invisible, and the motives of their calculated selfish actions were made clearly available to the public, do you think that we would even be having this discussion?

    *****
     
  2. JensG

    JensG New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Thank you all for a very interesting and educational discussion on this matter.
    Just out of curiosity, does this statement apply to all species and population of whales?
    Is it possible that it's not only the whales that may be "pushed over the edge"? Perhaps some other species that rely on the maritime ecosystem? Even some primitive cultures of the human species?
    My opinion is that we (the western world, IWC in particular) should classify some of the cultures (which I believe you call "First Nations"?) more as part of the "nature" (the suffering part) than a part of the "industry" (the problem). So these cultures could continue to live in peace and harmony with the rest of the nature with similar lifestyle as they have done until now. But the interference with the western world should be regulated (trading of whale and seal products for instance). In fact I do trust the methods of some of these cultures to harvest these resources in a sustainable manner (for the whole ecosystem) far better than I trust the scientific methods (combined with politics and activists) of the western world. While our best scientists can not even agree on the population of the various species of whales (minke whales for an example), we (the western world, IWC in particular) should give the nature the benefit of the doubt and not kill whales. But likewise other cultures should benefit from the same doubt and should not be banned from their most basic resources for survival.

    Absolutely! But we can not isolate the whales from the rest of the ecosystem. We should treat them as any other species. It's not only the whales that are struggling to exist.

    My take on this is that the anti-whaling movement is affected by greed and politics as well as the pro-whaling side. I wonder what the annual turn-over of the Sea Shepherds and Greenpeace is? I wonder how many votes in republic elections can be won by taking sides by popularity rather than hard scientific facts? This is why I don't approve any methods that disregard the laws of our justice systems. Whether these laws are regarding maritime safety, bribes, falsifying of research, or damages to property, which ever side the "criminals" are fighting for. I see this as a "gang war" where both sides should be held responsible for their actions. The hostile and unjust methods of activists and politics prohibit civilized discussions. Propaganda and falsified research findings suffocate the facts.

    The above describes my opinions and I don't expect all (or any?) of you to share them. But I hope however that this post does not offend you in any way, that is at least not my intention.
     
  3. Steve_Fairbairn

    Steve_Fairbairn Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    900
    Location:
    Richmond, BC, Canada
    This thread has actually motivated me to donate money to Paul Watson. I just went to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society webpage and donated $150 via Paypal.

    Thanks, KenB - it was your postings that encouraged me to do more research and make the donation!
     
  4. Ken B

    Ken B Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Campbell River, B.C.
    EXTREMELY well put JensG.

    As I stated in a different thread...I believe most 'activist' causes start honorably. Unfortunately, in my opinion, most turn into a 'Big Business' (of money).
    Listen...collecting donations ($$$) has become big business...raising money has gotten very competitive. There are more than enough 'Good' causes out there, all vying for your donation.
    Straight up...organizations like the Sea Shepherd Society hasn't got a chance against the Cancer Foundation, Children's Hospital's, et al...so they rely on Fear-Mongering, Hyperbole, 'Publicity Stunts' and breaking laws to gain attention...attention needed to raise money.

    There are times where I'm not really sure...is it the cause or is it the money?
     
  5. Ken B

    Ken B Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Campbell River, B.C.
    Good for you two fellas...you both must have been living in a bubble to have relied on this thread to motivate you.
    It's your choice, your opinion...I can respect that.

    Me?...I think my donation money is better spend on more worthy causes.
    Hmmmm....Paul Watson vs the Cancer Foundation...My local Hospital Foundation, Special Olympics organization, Salmon Enhancement Society, Kid Sport,...(too many to list).
    No contest.
     
  6. KayDubbya

    KayDubbya Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    338
    Let me attempt to re-state my original post for the comprehension impaired...

    [​IMG]

    What we have here (IMHO) is a classic "right wing, Fox News, fundamentalist, Rush Limbaugh" style attitude. It works like this: I don't agree with the poster so I'll take a tiny slice of his comment, use it completely out of context and attempt to discredit the WHOLE message. Furthermore, since the person making the comment doesn't respect my starting position and can't be convinced to accept my right wing views, I'll try to portray him as evil/stupid to the people that may POSSIBLY agree with his general premise.

    Nice try. But, not agreeing with YOU is not the same as "Attacking" you, KenB.

    Here's an attack; "John Smith is a dick and I don't like him! He's wrong!"

    Here's a different opinion; " I don't think everyone thinks Paul Watson is a criminal. The Japanese government does, but they break their own laws (allowable mercury content in food), and twist the IWC rules (don't kill whales) so that they can skirt along the edges of accepted behavior without risking severe international sanctions.

    Can you see the difference?

    And in answer to your first comment; Yes I do believe that our children are going to look back at what we've done to the planet for the last 50 years (and especially the last 20 years since the science became clear) with shock and disgust.

    (My Apologies to "John Smith" if he's a member of this forum)
     
  7. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    Seems to me that you don't have much respect here. If you want people to give your posts the respect that you think they deserve, then you should do the same to others. Your comments in this particular post seem condescending and at the very least antagonistic. Perhaps people won't "attack" you, if you don't attack them.

    Everyone else, good thought provoking posts -- I'm tied up for most of the day on a project and will reply as soon as I'm able.

    *****
     
  8. pmc

    pmc Paddler

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    10
    Just want to put this out there so there is no confusion, Paul Watson is not currently acting as an environmentalist, although he may call himself one, he is being a animal rights activist. Big difference, animal rights although connected to the environment has animal welfare as more important than environmental health.

    For example, the seal hunt in Newfoundland, witch Paul Watson opposes, is a well managed traditional harvest of animals that come from a population that is in explosion. That is a good source of food for us, great for the environment. The killing looks brutal but much less brutal than the conditions in chicken factory farms. And the impact of these seal being raised in comparison to chickens has one word, natural. Animal rights not environmental protection. We are still part of the environment and the thought that we are above its workings and can choose to participate is the reason that we have been killing the environment for so long.

    Back to whales, it is clear that we need to stop hunting them because they are not a healthy population, if they are healthy we need to question how can we harvest them sustainably to move to a more traditional form of living.

    In conclusion, Watson, in my mind is living in the past. A symbol of how we have destroyed the world. Making our decisions on how we interact with the environment emotional rather than rationally. He may be right with whales but I cannot support his ethics as they are what is killing the planet.
     
  9. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,631
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    Dubbya said: What we have here (IMHO) is a classic "right wing, Fox News, fundamentalist, Rush Limbaugh" style attitude. It works like this: I don't agree with the poster so I'll take a tiny slice of his comment, use it completely out of context and attempt to discredit the WHOLE message.

    I agree this is a tactic Limbaugh has honed to perfection. However, the same tactic as been used by some posters here from the "left" side to "argue" the case for Sea Shepherd. The tactic is not just a right-wing ploy.

    Yours is a reasoned and respectful post, Dubbya. Basically I agree with you, as well.

    However, there ought to be recognition that when one vessel confronts another on the high seas (or, places itself in such a position as to force the other vessel take precipitous evasive action), the first vessel, Sea Shepherd in this case, is _not_ making a nonviolent protest. Sea Shepherd's tactics with whalers are very different from those of a Ghandi or a Mandela.

    I agree with Ken B that their actions constitute dangerous offenses on the high seas. If someone were to be injured or die from those actions, Sea Shepherd would be liable and should stand for the legal consequences, just as nonviolent folks have done so.

    This has to be a two-way street, no matter how a person feels about the moral imperative Greenpeace has. If I force another driver off the road and he dies, it is an illegal act, even if the guy was a child molester and I did it to make life tough for him.
     
  10. Steve_Fairbairn

    Steve_Fairbairn Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    900
    Location:
    Richmond, BC, Canada
    No, you don't respect that otherwise you would not accuse me of "living in a bubble" when you know little to nothing about me. In fact, I don't live in a bubble. I've been aware of Paul Watson's activities for years. In fact, back in the very early 70's and prior to their sailing of the Phyllis Cormack to Amchitka to protest the American nuclear test, I was a member of Greenpeace when it was small enough that we used to meet in Bob Hunter's living room . I spoke with Paul a few times during the few years I was involved with Greenpeace. I didn't always agree with his extreme, take no prisoners approach but I certainly respected his passion and commitment. Obviously, a few years later, Greenpeace didn't agree with him either.

    I haven't been following his exploits in any great detail over the past several years, other than the mainstream news reports. Sometimes those news reports would spur me to dig deeper into the stories. Sometimes not.

    So no, it wasn't just this thread that motivated me. It was my anger over the news reports about the Ady Gil that drew me to this thread. It was your one-sided characterization of Paul Watson and the SSCS that further prompted me to ask myself what I could do that didn't involve getting off my ass. Donating money seemed like the easiest thing to do.

    I donate over a $1000 every year to what I believe are worthy charities. Actually, over $2000 because my employer matches all of my donations. My donations are generally to organizations like the West Coast Wilderness Committee, Wildlife Rescue, RAPS, etc. I do not donate to the local hospitals and especially not to the Cancer Foundation or the BC Cancer Agency. (That is a whole different topic that those who know me would understand) You may believe that organizations that support kid's sports, hospitals or "cancer research" are more worthy than environmental or conservation organizations, and I respect your opinion in that regard, but I personally do not share that belief. I'm willing to bet that in 50 years Paul Watson's efforts will have made more of a positive difference to the world than the Cancer Foundation or the Olympics ever will. But that's just my opinion and I would be extremely surprised if you agreed with it.
     
  11. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,515
    Location:
    Campbell River
    OT cancer

    IMHO, the goal of curing cancer is the wrong paradigm. It is much better to avoid cancer than to try to cure it. If you want to avoid cancer, you should reduce your exposure to carcinogens. Now doesn't that sound logical?

    Unfortunately, our society uses carcinogenic chemicals left right and center. So it is no easy task to reduce exposure, but it is indubitably a smarter approach than sticking your head in the sand.

    http://www.stopcancer.org/pdf/bgpaper.pdf
     
  12. Ken B

    Ken B Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Campbell River, B.C.
    Actually...a good post Steve.
    If you go back to your post...
    Exactly how am I suppose to know you had prior knowledge based on that post...?

    As far as charities go...I will not attempt to compare my activities/donations...this is not the time or place...some might be surprised.
    And yes I have some stories as well about some causes...I too will not go into them.
    We'll leave it there.

    Do I agree with your opinions...not all of them.
    Do I respect your opinion?...absolutely.
     
  13. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    Re: OT cancer

    Please, let's not get off track here. Although an indirect reference was made about this subject, this is not a discussion about cancer cures.


    You don't. That's the whole point Steve was making, Ken.

    *****
     
  14. KayDubbya

    KayDubbya Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    338
    Very true. We only need to be hit in the head with it so many times until we learn it may be used to return the volley.

    I am humbled by your superior logic and insight. (':lol:')

    No argument there, but my parallel referenced Malcolm X and the American Revolution, neither of which could be considered "non-violent". But also "morally justified" by many and have certainly created an enduring positive change in society as a whole.

    And lo and behold, here I also agree with KenB. (Actually, I do...(':shock:') ) While the SSCS can certainly cry "foul" for being run over by the Japanese Vessel, I find it more hypocritical that the Japanese are trying to paint the SSCS as environmental hypocrites for spilling (bio)diesel fuel into the ocean.

    :lol: :lol:

    But Dave, if the said child molester was on his way to my house, do you think I would try to prosecute you for the "crime"?
     
  15. JensG

    JensG New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    This is very impressing!

    Good for you, and kudos for your employer! I really value that you study the organizations you support.
    I'm tempted to take your bet (PW v.s. the Olympics i.e). At least if negative impact will be factored in as well (I would start with the history of the people of Greenland when arguing for my side).

    Again, does this apply to all whale species and population? Even if so, is it possible that protecting all whale species can have negative impacts on some of them (is it possible that the size of one whale population has negative relation to the size of another whale population)?

    I'm afraid that these questions will not be answered adequately while activists and politicians without ethics rule the discussions and hold the attention of the world. I'm quite sure that more people (voters) have heard about the tragic end of the Ady Gil than have even heard about the existence of NAMMCO, let alone have read the results of the scientific reports.
     
  16. Ken B

    Ken B Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Campbell River, B.C.
    Re: OT cancer

    Fair enough Dan...really!

    My apologies to Steve and wilder paddles.
    And for the record Steve, it is SPECIAL Olympics...not the Olympics I referred to.

    Also, my apologies to Kay...in my opinion, your use of comparisons was/is a huge stretch...I will admit I got my back up.
     
  17. Steve_Fairbairn

    Steve_Fairbairn Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    900
    Location:
    Richmond, BC, Canada
    Re: OT cancer

    Same thing, different participants. And totally off topic.... :cool
     
  18. KayDubbya

    KayDubbya Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    338
    Re: OT cancer

    Graciously accepted. BTW it's not "Kay" but "K. W." (KayDubbya) though I know no offense was intended. :hug
     
  19. Comoxpaddler

    Comoxpaddler Paddler

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    502
    Location:
    Comox, BC
    Excellent post from pmc. The difference between environmentalists and animal rights activists needs to be pointed out.
     
  20. VanIslePaddler

    VanIslePaddler Paddler

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    621
    Location:
    Tuff City
    Very interesting discussion. Just spent 10 minutes reading through all the posts.

    PW's actions are controversial. Sometimes controversial actions are warranted.

    Many people, whom our society holds in high regard, have been convicted, or called criminals, and only much later been vindicated by public opinion. I suppose, in the court of public opinion, how PW will be viewed by history is a matter of time.

    I think its great when people donate to whatever issue they feel passionate about. Left, centrist, or right wing. Does not matter. It is more a sign that an individual is willing to participate in society. It is important that we all participate, both by direct actions, through dialogue, and sometimes letting our dollars speak for us.

    Personally I donate to a range of organizations through the year, from Environmental NGO's to the hospice society. They all fill various roles in our socieity.