/ Wikipedia: Is Patagonia is corporate sponsor of Sea Shepherd?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
brothersoulshine - on 17 Jan 2008
Just thought that info might influence your next purchase...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd
John Wood - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

I'll drop them a line.

Anyone else?
hutchm on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

And I won't be buying that Paul Mitchell shampoo again either. Even though it makes my hair so shiny....

Isn't it fun when capitalism and anti-capitalism can live together so happily?
hutchm on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

And Lonely Planet too, in case you were planning a trip abroad.
brothersoulshine - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

Good idea.

(Dammit, I meant to put this in the Climbing Gear forum).
John Wood - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

There is a similar thread just about to appear in the gear forum...
galpinos - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

I've just e-mailed them. If they are a sponsor (you can never 100% believe wiki) I'll be very disappointed. I buy Patagonia stuff as much for the ethos as the products but this seems to go against what they stand for.
Michael Ryan - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

I've deleted it John.

It isn't good to have duplicate threads. This one will suffice for discussion of this matter, if there is any discussion as at the moment it is just a statement with no explanation.
hutchm on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

http://www.seashepherd.org/sponsors.html

Appears to confirm the Wiki
galpinos - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to hutchm:

They are listed as sponsers on the Sea Shepherd site:

"A lot of grass roots enviro groups owe their continued existence to this amazing company. Most of the cold weather gear worn by Sea Shepherd crew comes from Patagonia."

http://www.seashepherd.org/sponsors.html

but I looked on the Patagonia site and they're not mentioned (the link you F4S gave on the deleted thread).

Something doesn't seem to ring true.
biped - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:
> (In reply to hutchm)
>
> They are listed as sponsers on the Sea Shepherd site:
>
> "A lot of grass roots enviro groups owe their continued existence to this amazing company. Most of the cold weather gear worn by Sea Shepherd crew comes from Patagonia."
>
> http://www.seashepherd.org/sponsors.html
>
> but I looked on the Patagonia site and they're not mentioned (the link you F4S gave on the deleted thread).
>
> Something doesn't seem to ring true.

So maybe they buy their kit? It wouldn't surpise me if Patagonia did give them stuff; Yvon Choiunard was never one to sit on his arse pontificating, which is why I will continue to buy pretty much nothing but Patagucci.

Turn the other cheek...my arse.

SFM - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:

eh??? so you saying that you support whaling?
GrendeI on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine: Patagonia also make military clothing/equipment too. So much for the peace loving tree hugging mountaineering + hippie surfer brand.
John Wood - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to Gaz lord:

Not every military intervention is bad and to be blunt I can think of occasions in the recent past when the tragedy was that the western military did nothing.
galpinos - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to SFM:

Nope, I'm very much against whaling. I'm not really keen on people who mine boats in dry dock, ram boats in the southern ocean or partake in all the other rather dubious measures the Sea Shepard deems accaptable in it's quest either.

A just and right cause (in my opinion) does not justify any means.
GrendeI on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood: True, but I was still supprised when I found out.
biped - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> Just thought that info might influence your next purchase...
>

I wonder if it will influence anyone?

How many people here are or were ever influenced enough to either avoid buying or make a point of buying from Esso, BP, Shell, tesco, or companies dealing with regimes you may dissapprove of, or goods manufactured in countries you may have a beef with? Does anyone ask whether the clothes they buy have been made by kids living in slavery and/or under threat? Does anyone check their pension investments aren't getting fat off the arms trade?

If you tick all of these boxes and more, then allow me to help you up onto your high horse to rant about a boat shunting around the ocean which occasionally hassles illegal whalers. I will listen respectfully, even if I may disagree. Otherwise, STFU.
brothersoulshine - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to biped:
>
> If you tick all of these boxes and more, then allow me to help you up onto your high horse to rant about a boat shunting around the ocean which occasionally hassles illegal whalers. I will listen respectfully, even if I may disagree. Otherwise, STFU.

That's a rather strange attitude. A bit black and white if you ask me.
Michael Ryan - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> (In reply to biped)
> [...]
>
> That's a rather strange attitude. A bit black and white if you ask me.

Well come on then brothersoulshine spell it out.

Why should people not support Patagonia because they support Sea Shepherd?

brothersoulshine - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

I'm not sure I follow you. Isn't it blindingly obvious, or have I missed some nuance or trap that you want me to fall into?

When we buy a product we don't just buy some nice clothes, we buy into what that manufacturer stands for. Many people, I suspect, would rather not buy a brand that endorses the kind of action that Sea Shepherd is up to. Whilst I think Patagonia's environmental message is very important, I'd rather not give them money on my behalf to fund such behaviour.
Steve Climpson on 17 Jan 2008 - host217-44-20-104.range217-44.btcentralplus.com
In reply to biped:
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
> [...]
>
> I wonder if it will influence anyone?

Any company acting in a socially / environmentally responsible way would influence me to use their services, if I had a need to.

> How many people here are or were ever influenced enough to either avoid buying or make a point of buying from Esso, BP, Shell, tesco, or companies dealing with regimes you may dissapprove of, or goods manufactured in countries you may have a beef with? Does anyone ask whether the clothes they buy have been made by kids living in slavery and/or under threat? Does anyone check their pension investments aren't getting fat off the arms trade?

Yes to all the above.

> If you tick all of these boxes and more, then allow me to help you up onto your high horse to rant about a boat shunting around the ocean which occasionally hassles illegal whalers. I will listen respectfully, even if I may disagree.

I don't often presume to lecture people and don't pretend to be perfect - far from it in fact, but I do have a conscience and try to act within it.

> Otherwise, STFU.

Charming UKC poster as usual I see by someone hiding under a nickname.
AlistairB - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

Excellent, I'll be sure to buy Patagonia in the future then.
Andy Macpherson - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to all: Unlike some people here I haven't emailed Patagonia about this although I'll be interested to hear what they say. However, there's no mention of Sea Shepherd in the listings of environmental groups that Patagonia provide on their website - maybe better to wait and hear what Patagonia say before getting into the question of whether or not to boycott them?

Cheers,

Andy
Dominion - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> Just thought that info might influence your next purchase...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd

Loads of Outdoor clothing companies have their clothing made in sweatshops in China, or have the rucksacks and tents made there...

China has an appalling human rights record, as well as an appalling record for the treatment of animals, as well as being a huge polluter.

Just though this might influence your next purchases.
biped - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to Steve Climpson:

Good for you. Even better for you if you also don't lecture folk. It should be obvious from my post that my charm was not directed at you.

Regards

Stuart.
Michael Ryan - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC)
>
> I'm not sure I follow you. Isn't it blindingly obvious


That's the problem with a lot of people, they think that everyone is on the same page.

Explain yourself - if you can.
brothersoulshine - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Well I thought I had.

Perhaps you could ask a specific question and I'll try to answer.
biped - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> (In reply to biped)
> [...]
>
> That's a rather strange attitude. A bit black and white if you ask me.

Excuse my delay in replying, I was coming home from work.

I haven't a clue what you mean by those comments. I was trying to point out that starting a campaign either for or against buying from Patagonia because of alleged support for Sea Shepherd is utterly absurd. Either that or the good users of UKC must be an incredibly perfect lot, like Steve Climpson, who have run out of things to protest about because they've all already taken a stance on the thousands of other far more serious issues that their consumer activities may influence. I doubt it though.

I also find it absurd that that a lot of what seem like middle-class grown-ups suddenly turn into badge wearing rebels over something like this. There was a bunch of outdoory types I met recently who went on a huge rant about the Red Rope MC, as if they were the BNP and Al-Quaida rolled into one. Why do so many people react to so little so much, yet ignore the big things out of convenience?

Michael Ryan - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC)
>
> Well I thought I had.
>
> Perhaps you could ask a specific question

"Why should people not support Patagonia because they support Sea Shepherd?"

You answered

"When we buy a product we don't just buy some nice clothes, we buy into what that manufacturer stands for. "

YES most can understand that: we unavoidably buy things (kettles, clothes, oil, food etc) that people have made or mined or farmed under terrible conditions - virtually slavery in many cases.

"Many people, I suspect, would rather not buy a brand that endorses the kind of action that Sea Shepherd is up to. "

What action do you object to - saving whales? Explain!


"Whilst I think Patagonia's environmental message is very important, I'd rather not give them money on my behalf to fund such behaviour."

What behaviour?

Mike Peacock on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:
>
>
> What behaviour?

Have you not been following this thread?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=280786

Allegations against SS of attempting to sink ships and throw acid at people.
ads.ukclimbing.com
biped - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC)
>
> Perhaps you could ask a specific question and I'll try to answer.

Here's one. Rummage through all your kit and clothes and tell me where it was made. If it says practically anywhere in the far east, it's highly unlikely it was made by a woman in curlers who got a living wage for a 8 hour day plus sick pay, holidays and a pension.

I'm not pure as the driven snow either, for what it's worth I do make an effort to buy ethically (according to what I see as ethical). I'm not trying to have a go at you specifically. I'm just pointing out that it seems absurd to take a pop at Patagonia over this when there are so much bigger and badder fish to fry if anyone feels like making some sort of effort.

brothersoulshine - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

What Touching Centuri said.
brothersoulshine - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to biped:

Whilst I have some symptathy with your argument, if followed to its logical conclusion then we should all find the single most important issue in the world and only deal with that one. It's like saying we shouldn't give aid to Bangladesh because it's worse in Sudan.
ben b - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine: I've got Yvon Chouinard's autobiography here; you're very welcome to borrow it.

There's a remarkable honesty to it - the guy is really spectacularly grounded in reality (as you might expect for an itinerant climber who used to eat roadkill to keep the food bills down). A number of people associated with Patagonia have been at the militant end of the environmental campaign (I remember reading about nailing ceramic nails into logging forests to knacker timbermill blades somewhere, and I think it might have been in a Patagonia catalogue many years ago).

Where Patagonia stand out is in there attempts to do the right thing and their honesty about their failings. They still genuinely come across as a company who give a damn about their employees, their world, and their customers. If they support sea shepherd it won't be without thinking, and won't be without reviewing it either.

HTH

Ben B
David Hooper - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

Japan is a wealthy nation it has absolutely no justification to whale.
Patagonia deserves a huge big up in supporting Sea Shepherd.

If they prevent just one whale from suffering an agonising death from an exploding harpoon rupturing its insides then f*cking brilliant.

I would like to hope that if I were on a boat confronting those bastard whalers - i would have the courage to do what sea shepherd and greenpeace crews have done.

Direct action is right- even if it risks the death or injury of the whalers - they have bought it on themnselves.

David
trevor simpson on 17 Jan 2008 - cpc1-duns3-0-0-cust292.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to David Hooper:

> If they prevent just one whale from suffering an agonising death from an exploding harpoon rupturing its insides then f*cking brilliant.

In which case the crusties on the SS should kill the whales in a more considerate manner and hand them over to the Japs.

In return the Japs cold give them some whale fat soap which I'm sure is more ethical than buying stuff made by a global conglomerate


brothersoulshine - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
>
> Japan is a wealthy nation it has absolutely no justification to whale.

I agree

> Patagonia deserves a huge big up in supporting Sea Shepherd.
Even Greenpeace are condemning them.

There's a point where direct action crosses a line. The French took direct action against Greenpeace by detonating a bomb on the Rainbow Warrior, killing a Spanish photographer. Sea Shepherd do the same kind of shit.

When one crosses the line, it's not only morally wrong, it's counter-productive and tends to achieve the opposite of what one intends.

Anyway, that's for the other whaling thread.
David Hooper - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> Just thought that info might influence your next purchase...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd

Greenpeace (whom I support financially with a monthly standing order) are now the (very wealthy) acceptable face of eco protest - they have influence and have the ears of governments and of multinationals - they are RESPECTABLE AND RESPECTED .

With the best will in the world they cannot afford to squander their hard won respect by direct action - fair enough.

BUT this does not make the direct action of Sea Shepherd wrong - if it saves the life of one single whale then good.

You surely cannot put a blanket moral value on all direct action - French diver mining Greenpeace boat and killing activist wrong. Sea Shepherd killing whaler whilst trying to save whale - regrettable but morally the right thing to do.

I know this is an extreme example - but bear with me - when the jews were being herded into cattle trucks to be railroaded to the extermination camps would the direct action of bombing the engine and killing the guards to liberate the jews have been morally justifiable - of course it would.

Well I feel the same about the whales - direct action IS neccessary to save them - even if it endangers the lives of the stupid and cruel japanese whalers.

Would women have gootton the vote without the outrageous and imprisoable direct action of the suffragettes.

Would South Africa been free of Apartheid without the direct action of the ANC.

The whales cannot, fight,petition or protest for themselves, so it is up to us humans to try to help bilaterally by putting legitimate pressure onto governments etc and to bear witness as Greenpeace does - but this is slow and whales still suffer an agonising death. Therefore the direct action of Sea Shepoherd may save whale lives and suffering until legislation is passed.

By the way Brothersoulshine - can you give me a link to the other thread.

Cheers

DEavid
brothersoulshine - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=280786

Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd were both pursuing those Japanese ships and both engaging in direct action. They do not cooperate, however, and Greenpeace (rightly if you ask me) think that Sea Shepherd's tactics are dangerous and counterproductive.
Alasdair Fulton - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine: Greenpeace condemn most things though.....it's what they do!

{not that I think Sea Shepherds actions are acceptable, right track but over the top}
djviper on 17 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to brothersoulshine: erm im pretty sure that the jap whaling production boat rammed the SS! not the other way aorund
and yes the did through a type of acid onto the boat, however it wasnt strong enough to damage anything and all it did was stink to high heven! the SS has even helped a stranded jap whaler when it ran into difficulties

i have to admit i did smile when i read about the SS riviting up the deck sluices on a whaler! nice smell
Anonymous on 17 Jan 2008 - 5acaec7a.bb.sky.com
In reply to brothersoulshine:

Well, if Patagonia are a sponsor then good on them, and I'll certainly be buying more clothes.

As for the Sea Shepherd? Refreshing to see some people taking some action for things they believe in, as opposed to sitting on their hands and moaning about things on the internet. The very opposite of UKC as it were. Not everything in this world can be solved by polite words, sometimes more direct action is required to bring something to people's attention.

So, spurred on by the media coverage, I'm off to donate some money online.

Another - related - thought. Is a human's life always, automatically, worth more than x-number of animals? Bearing in mind that if we killed all the animals off we'd be in trouble anyway. And that there are too many humans for sustainable living anyway? I.e. if you could "save all the whales" at the cost of one human, would that be OK? Or not.

Anyway, I'm off. See ya.

marie - on 17 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine: Shall we await a kit report from Patagonia?

Ie, breathability and waterproofness of their clothing under extreme conditions on the high sea?

Sorry...
Steve Climpson on 17 Jan 2008 - host217-44-20-104.range217-44.btcentralplus.com
In reply to biped:
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
> [...]
>
> Either that or the good users of UKC must be an incredibly perfect lot, like Steve Climpson, who have run out of things to protest about because they've all already taken a stance on the thousands of other far more serious issues that their consumer activities may influence. I doubt it though.

I never claimed to be perfect, you're distorting what I wrote. You should calm down as you're ranting and diluting your argument.
>
> Why do so many people react to so little so much, yet ignore the big things out of convenience?

You're correct but ask yourself why this is so. Do people feel unable to affect the "big things" so bitch about the petty things?

BTW I think that David Hooper is absolutely right in his thoughts. When negotiation fails then direct action becomes the logical next step. Sea Shepherd have just taken it a bit further thatís all and bent some metal. If someone is unfortunately killed then perhaps the resulting publicity will focus people's minds on the subject.

Think about the poll tax riot and the way it focussed peoples feelings eventually leading to its demise and for that matter the anti-road protests which seemed to have slowed down road development plans. Direct action does work.
biped - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Steve Climpson:
> (In reply to biped)
> [...]
>
> I never claimed to be perfect, you're distorting what I wrote. You should calm down as you're ranting and diluting your argument.

No, I had a sly dig. I didn't think you were claiming to be perfect. No distortions intended and definitely no ranting. You must be new here if you think that was ranting...
> [...]
>
> You're correct but ask yourself why this is so. Do people feel unable to affect the "big things" so bitch about the petty things?


Maybe, I don't know, which is why I ask, in exasperation.

>
> BTW I think that David Hooper is absolutely right in his thoughts. When negotiation fails then direct action becomes the logical next step. Sea Shepherd have just taken it a bit further thatís all and bent some metal. If someone is unfortunately killed then perhaps the resulting publicity will focus people's minds on the subject.
>
> Think about the poll tax riot and the way it focussed peoples feelings eventually leading to its demise and for that matter the anti-road protests which seemed to have slowed down road development plans. Direct action does work.

Yep, I agree. I was there BTW, though I didn't go smashing up people's shops.

Cheers

Stuart

Steve Climpson on 18 Jan 2008 - host217-44-20-104.range217-44.btcentralplus.com
In reply to biped:

We have not very different viewpoints after all! It's just a matter of degrees.
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
> [...]
>

>
> BUT this does not make the direct action of Sea Shepherd wrong - if it saves the life of one single whale then good.
>
> You surely cannot put a blanket moral value on all direct action - French diver mining Greenpeace boat and killing activist wrong. Sea Shepherd killing whaler whilst trying to save whale - regrettable but morally the right thing to do.
>
What the f*ck is wrong with your head?
trevor simpson on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc1-duns3-0-0-cust292.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to John Wood:

> What the f*ck is wrong with your head?

My guess is drugs.

Many of these crusty types spend their life smoking weed and it eventually takes its toll
jkarran - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

> You surely cannot put a blanket moral value on all direct action - French diver mining Greenpeace boat and killing activist wrong. Sea Shepherd killing whaler whilst trying to save whale - regrettable but morally the right thing to do.

Blimey! Really?

What about killing someone to save a really big fish, what about a small fish? Where do you draw the line?
jk
djviper on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to jkarran: is it no very arogent to automaticly asume that humans are the most important species on earth?
tell me this, why should a humans life be worth more than an animals!
bearing in mind, we are one of the only animals on the planet that dont live in harmony with the other species and we have done a good job of screwing up the planet
name one other species that kills for fun as apposed to killing for survival
now think about the pissy little time we have existed, and then how many millions of years aquatic life has
what give us the right to say we are more important than another species!
yes SS may act in a radical way, burt at least there trying to stop the illegal and inhumane kiling of the planets animals
trevor simpson on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc1-duns3-0-0-cust292.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to djviper:

I would just like to retreat slightly from my position that every whale is of less worth than every human
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to jkarran) is it no very arogent to automaticly asume that humans are the most important species on earth?

We're at the top of the food chain because we put ourselves there.


> name one other species that kills for fun as apposed to killing for survival

Chimpanzes

djviper on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to galpinos: we are not at the top of the food chain!
go for a swim with a hungry shark, or maybe a jog with a lioness
this is what i mean about arrogence! but hey its ukc why expect different, after all we are all far more important than anyhing else!
Bingly Bong on 18 Jan 2008 - ukcpa.com
In reply to galpinos: And cats
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:

> name one other species that kills for fun as apposed to killing for survival

Chimpanzes


My cat. Little bastard.
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

If we're not at the top of the food chain, how come I'm not crapping myself about getting eaten all the time?
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:
> (In reply to djviper)
>
> If we're not at the top of the food chain, how come I'm not crapping myself about getting eaten all the time?

Yeah if you add up all the number of people killed by sharks, then add up the number of sharks killed by people, its clear that we are by far the biggest, baddest, shark slapping species out there! Seriously, sharks? They're not all that. GO HUMANS!
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Bingly Bong:

Snap
djviper on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to galpinos: stupidity??! ;-)
hell even the domestic dog is more capable of killing (without tools or weapons) than us
put a human up against most preditors in the natural enviroment (no man made weapons {or machiene made!}) and its not us walking away!
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

I mean, don't get me wrong, I support what SS want to do, ie stop whaling, but disagree with how they go about it. I get annoyed with the poor arguments about how were not top dog. Of course we are, that's why we can f**k things up so royally at the slightest whim.
taine - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
>>without tools or weapons>

without these we wouldn't exist in the way we do (biologically speaking) so it's rather an unfair comparison
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to galpinos) stupidity??! ;-)
> hell even the domestic dog is more capable of killing (without tools or weapons) than us
> put a human up against most preditors in the natural enviroment (no man made weapons {or machiene made!}) and its not us walking away!

I think you're missing the point. It's because we can make and use tools and weapons that we rule the earth, surely. We didn't evolve physically into the ultimate predator, but mentally.

Put me up against a predator and as I want to win, I'd pick the most appropriate weapon to kill it. It's not my fault a lion's not very handy with an AK47.
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:
> (In reply to John Wood)
>
> I mean, don't get me wrong, I support what SS want to do, ie stop whaling, but disagree with how they go about it. I get annoyed with the poor arguments about how were not top dog. Of course we are, that's why we can f**k things up so royally at the slightest whim.


Yeah, totally its the "but its ok to kill people that get in our way" mentality which makes me want to post sarcastially.
stp - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

> Whilst I think Patagonia's environmental message is very important, I'd rather not give them money on my behalf to fund such behaviour.

If you're really serious then you have a really bizarre outlook. You want to boycott a brand because it donates money to probably the only organisation in the world that is attempting to stop illegal whaling. And it's because their just too violent - even though they've never actually hurt anyone, yet stopped shed loads of violence?

Listen to yourself. You sound like something straight of the Sun. What other products do you not buy BTW?
Rob Hannah - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to stp:

Isn't suggesting that people don't buy Patagonia's products because they support a terrosit group akin to a call to boycote Japanese products because they go whaling?
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Rob Hannah:

Nice one! I wrote to patagonia to polietly mention that on of the groups they supported were a bunch of fruitloops who were going to proper kill someone sooner or later and please could they have another think about giving them free stuff. No need to threaten people with boycotts (in the modern world I think the only truely ethical act is to top yourself) and I'm not going to boycott one of the most ethical companies out there when I still use products made out of oil. Eg the computer I'm writing this on.
Swig - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:

It's not the japanese whaler's fault that they not handy enough with their ships to avoid getting sunk by the plucky eco terrorists.
ring ouzel on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood: Wrong John. Chimps dont kill for fun. There are good strategic reasons for them killing ie to gain more resources or to ensure that the neighbouring groups are so scared they wont dare try to expand their range into the killing groups territory.

I cant think of any predator actually that kills for fun. <scratches head> Nope, nuffink.
Swig - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Rob Hannah:

Two points:

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7184035.stm

2. Isn't the "acid" they throw just stinky rancid butter.
Rob Hannah - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to ring ouzel:

> I cant think of any predator actually that kills for fun. <scratches head> Nope, nuffink.

Japanese fighting fish. Not sure they are predators as such, but they don't half love a good old barny.
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to ring ouzel:


My cat definatly does. Little bastard. Doesn't even finish anything off. just leaves the bits that are left over to die slowly. Wouldn't kill anyone to save his worthless hide, no sir.
Rob Hannah - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Swig:

Two points.

1) This is not a suicide website and stp is not asking whether he should kill himself or not. It's banter, grow up.
2) The acid is acid albeit mild, and throwing it over people causes adverse reactions.
Rob Hannah - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Swig:

Nevertheless, probably not good form.
ring ouzel on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Rob Hannah and John: Fighting fish fight to gain mating rights with females and cats practice their killing techniques on prey. Its not fun as such more like honing survival skills.

You're right though Rob about the fish having a right good go!
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Rob Hannah:

1. I doubt anything rob says is going to push stp over the edge. We couldn't be that lucky

2. What would be the point of that? The deck gets covered in whale guts. rancid butter wouldn't get noticed. I think that the general idea is that they aren't going for a full on sulphuric acid bone melting type job but the chemical used must be noxious enough to be worth bothering with and is still a nasty and violent thing to do. Also it's pretty ironic that an enviromental group is using what is basically a chemical weapon.
stp - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Rob Hannah:

> The acid is acid albeit mild, and throwing it over people causes adverse reactions.

But is there any evidence or even claims that this has actually happened? Sounds like it's essentially chucking stink bombs.
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to ring ouzel:

Well aren't we doing the same thing on an instinctive level then? Even if the bastard cat does have a survival reason to kill. It definately enjoys it as well. You can just tell by looking. Bastard.
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to ring ouzel:

I'm pretty sure I watched a documentary about how Chimps kill for fun. On an aside, some're also cannibals.
stp - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

I let off a stink bomb when I was about 5 or 6. It left a weird burn mark on the floor so I'm guessing it was pretty corrosive stuff in there. Seems like I've been a violent maniac ever since I was a nipper then. No wonder I support these crazy lunatics at sea then.
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to stp:

So is leaving burn marks on whalers a good thing or a bad thing then? Enquiring minds want to know.
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:

They need to be stopped! Is anyone doing anything? :)

Lobster's are also cannibals, I will humanly disptach and dispose of any lobsters you send me for "processing". Cheers, john
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:
> (In reply to stp)
>
> So is leaving burn marks on whalers a good thing or a bad thing then? Enquiring minds want to know.

If it was in the shape of a whale, a bad thing, the shape of a harpoon, a good thing.

I guess.
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

> Lobster's are also cannibals, I will humanly disptach and dispose of any lobsters you send me for "processing". Cheers, john

How do you live with the screams?
ring ouzel on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood: Yeah we probably are. I think violence is hard wired into us.

And I agree about cats!!
Rob Hannah - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to stp:

If you could just be honest about Sea Shepherd and their activities, rather than trying to defend their actions (which are indefensible), then you could probably do far more to raise awareness for the plight of the whales.

In the style of Swig, two points:

1) Generally people on UKC want to see an end to whaling.
2) Generally people on UKC are not prepared to countenance the actions of Sea Shepherd.

This is the reality you need to come to terms with. Talk more about 1 and not about 2 and you will probably achieve something for your cause. Try and justify 2 at the expense of pushing 1 and you will be considered an idiot terrorist sympathizer, and that will be at the expense of the creatures you want to help.

Indeed, if you havenít noticed, your attempts to gain funding for sea Shepherd have actually had the opposite effect. The members of UKC want for Patagonia to remove funding from Sea Shepherd. You do need to rethink your strategy I fear.
stp - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

To all the pacifists on here who claim to be against whaling. Here something you can do that might prevent whaling in the future. Just ask them to politely ask them stop building a new ship.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/new-whaling-ship-121207#letter
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:

Its fine, i don't speak lobster. No idea if they're complaining or not. The missus, however, her I can understand (sort of)
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:
> (In reply to galpinos)
>
> Its fine, i don't speak lobster. No idea if they're complaining or not. The missus, however, her I can understand (sort of)

I wouldn't boil her then. It could get noisy.
djviper on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to galpinos: but we are not the ultimate preditor by a huge margin! and we certainly dont rule the earth, we are the only species on the planet unable to live in harmony with our surroundings, going from that we are no better than parasites!


p.s ;obsters dont scream, its hot air escaping from there shells
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
Rob Hannah - on 18 Jan 2008
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to stp:

Done.
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to galpinos) but we are not the ultimate preditor by a huge margin!

What animal can't we hunt? I'm pretty sure humans have probably killed every animal on the planet at some point. Does that not make us pretty awesome?

> p.s ;obsters dont scream, its hot air escaping from there shells

I'm aware of that. I was making a (admittedly lame) joke.
stp - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

> is it no very arogent to automaticly asume that humans are the most important species on earth?

I think this a very important point. "Important" doesn't mean that we're the top of the food chain or even the most efficient killers.

Which is most important is a value judgement. If you see youself as only part of human race, unconnected to the rest of nature then your answer is probably going to be yes, we are more important.

But if you see yourself more as a part of life of all kinds on the planet then it's likely to be no. In fact given that we're responsible for what is perhaps the greatest mass extinction the planet has ever known you might conclude that we're the one species that the planet (or "biosphere" for the pedants) could well do without.

Either way we've massively overshot the natural carrying capacity of the earth for our species. And sooner or later our numbers will decline. When that happens all this talk about not doing something because it just might hurt a few Japanese whalers is going to be pretty irrelevent. I just hope the whales survive the die off period.
hutchm on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to galpinos) ...we are the only species on the planet unable to live in harmony with our surroundings, going from that we are no better than parasites!

A triumph in contradiction, in just one sentence.
djviper on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to galpinos: god know there are many animals who are better suited to hunting than us! we need weapons and other produced items to hunt. a shark for instince can feel your electro magnetic muscle impulses from miles away, and smell a drop of blood in the ocien again from miles, how can you even put us in the same class as them, they are true masters of there enviroment!

remember there are animals that out perform us in nearly every field within the natural world

at least stp seams to grasp this!
djviper on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to hutchm: not realy! read it again, parasites work together in colonied to attack, we would not only attack our target but each other!
MJH - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to stp:
> In fact given that we're responsible for what is perhaps the greatest mass extinction the planet has ever known you might conclude that we're the one species that the planet (or "biosphere" for the pedants) could well do without.

Do you have any evidence for that statement given some of the mass extinctions that have occurred?

> Either way we've massively overshot the natural carrying capacity of the earth for our species. And sooner or later our numbers will decline.

I am sure you are right on that point.
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

The reason I use ultimate, is that we can hunt sharks, lion, monkeys, whatever. A shark (which is of course an incredible predator in water - no question) isn't going to have much truck ctaching a lion.

Through tool, weapons, machinery, our minds, we can can hunt prey effectively on land, in water, in the air. We're the only predator that can do that.
stp - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

> The French took direct action against Greenpeace by detonating a bomb on the Rainbow Warrior, killing a Spanish photographer. Sea Shepherd do the same kind of shit.

Well there it is. You really are a moron.
Ridge - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:
> (In reply to ring ouzel)
>
> Well aren't we doing the same thing on an instinctive level then? Even if the bastard cat does have a survival reason to kill. It definately enjoys it as well. You can just tell by looking. Bastard.

If cats could speak they'd speak Japanese, the language of cruelty, depravity and illegal whaling...
djviper on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to galpinos: i would suggest the use of the phrase, "most adaptable" ultimate is far to ego-centric
my main thing is while we can effictivly "hunt" these animals, all outclass us in the preditory sence
stp - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to MJH:

> Do you have any evidence for that statement given some of the mass extinctions that have occurred?

Here's a good starting point for the current one...

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Ridge:

True but that would mean the cat turning out some stunning cameras though!
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

I'm a bit lost. Sure being a predator is to hunt things. All the top predators you can name in the animal kingdom can be hunted by us, making us the ultimate predator?
djviper on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to galpinos: my point is without tools and weapons we are crap at hunting, ergo on a like for like basis we are crap preditors.
want an example, where does the food you eat come from, do you hunt all your food?
hutchm on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to galpinos) my point is without tools and weapons we are crap at hunting, ergo on a like for like basis we are crap preditors.
> want an example, where does the food you eat come from, do you hunt all your food?

If we worked on a like for like basis, my fur-free naked arse would be freezing solid in the Skipton rain by now.

They evolved claws, we evolved a better brain, and hands. Oh, and that evolved brain produced a financial system, supply and demand retailing, agriculture, thus removing almost entirely the need for hunting, except for very tasty and large things that we can't farm very well. Like whales.
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (my point is without tools and weapons we are crap at hunting, ergo on a like for like basis we are crap preditors.

What I don't get is why can'y we have tools and weapons. Sharks evolved to have their incredible movement/senses etc. and we evolved by making weapons and tools that enable us to ctach prey. What's the difference?

> want an example, where does the food you eat come from, do you hunt all your food?

No, but I could. Pass me a 12 bore and it's rabbit for tea!
djviper on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to galpinos: we didnt evolve tools, we adapted!
my point is a true predator hunts with its skills and evolved capabilities, we need to use tools to help us
remember within our enviroment we may be the apex killer, but once removedd from this enviroment we are quiet low down the trophic level
MJH - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to stp: A lot of that link is about the possibility that we might be in another mass extinction, not that it is the greatest ever. In fact if we are talking about 50% loss in biological diversity then that pales in comparison with some of the other mass extinctions eg 90% in Permian-Triassic (IIRC?).

I am far from convinced that there is sufficient evidence to claim that humans are causing a mass extinction if one is underway...and (just like some direct action) wild claims can be counter-productive. There is plenty to blame mankind for without having a wild guess...
hutchm on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

How good a predator would a shark be in the middle of the Arndale Centre?

Remove any predator from its environment and it tends to get a bit less effective.

I might have a good chance against the Arndale shark without my harpoon gun. Sound fair enough for you?
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to galpinos) we didnt evolve tools, we adapted!
> my point is a true predator hunts with its skills and evolved capabilities, we need to use tools to help us

I can't keep replying to the same point. We evolved to make the tools/weapons. Without us, they wouldn't exist. The point is, the fact we can make and use tools and weapons makes us the ultimate predator.

> remember within our enviroment we may be the apex killer, but once removedd from this enviroment we are quiet low down the trophic level

What's our enviroment? Humans inhabit vast swathes of the globe and are top dog wherever they are.

djviper on 18 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to galpinos: your arrogence supercededs you
galpinos - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
>your arrogence supercededs you

I'm not sure that makes sense?
Graeme Alderson on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos: Well you must be daft because I am 100% sure that it doesn't make sense :-)
John Wood - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (In reply to galpinos) Well you must be daft because I am 100% sure that it doesn't make sense :-)

no idea. Think he's trying to be rude
Graeme Alderson on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood: As was I - to djadder though not to galpinos :-)
Dominion - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:

> What animal can't we hunt? I'm pretty sure humans have probably killed every animal on the planet at some point. Does that not make us pretty awesome?

Not only do we kill animals deliberately, but we also kill millions every day through pollution, roadkill, pesticides, destroying natural habitats, and all sorts of other "accidental" or "careless" - as in "couldn't care less" - methods.


Sharks, for example, may be a superbly adapted hunter / killer for their environment, but the total of deaths per year sharks v humans is probably in the region of 5:38,000,000 (stats from wikipedia)

||-)
sg - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to Dominion:

whatever the rights or wrongs, in many cases direct action is clearly hugely effective.

the supposed 'debate' over whaling has clearly stepped up a gear in the last few days because of the sea shepherd's approach. the breaking of the moratorium has continued for years with no real reproach at all but by disabling vessels sea shepherd have clearly done what they aim to do and reduced the number of whales killed. insofar as they are attempting to enforce the moratorium then their aim clearly finds widespread support.

their actions certainly can't be directly equated with the french govt mining the rainbow warrior - sea shepherd are open and up front about both their actions and aims. you should know as an illegal whaler that you face the possibility of 'attention' from sea shepherd actions. and sea shepherd activists presumably accept the possibility that they may be tried under law depending on the jurisdiction they are working in at the time.
brothersoulshine - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to stp:

In reply to brothersoulshine:

> > The French took direct action against Greenpeace by detonating a bomb on the Rainbow Warrior, killing a Spanish photographer. Sea Shepherd do the same kind of shit.

> Well there it is. You really are a moron.

I'm afraid that's just not true.

Why do you say I am?

From SS's website:

Unfortunately, the seas were too rough for a controlled ramming, so the Sea Shepherd ran along side as both ships headed toward the Portuguese port of Leixoes.

The next day, slipping out of port before the authorities noticed, the Sea Shepherd surprised the Sierra drifting just outside. By radio, Captain Watson warned Captain Nordengen of what he was going to do and accelerated to full speed.

The reinforced bow of the 779-ton Sea Shepherd connected with the bow of the 650-ton Sierra and kept on going. Captain Watson circled around and hit the Sierra again on the port side, tearing open a 7- by 10-foot (2- by 3-meter) hole. The Sea Shepherd then slammed sideways into the smaller Sierra, staving in a long section of the Sierra's port-side hull.

Listing badly, the Sierra ran for protection toward some Portuguese naval ships.
David Hooper - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/new-whaling-ship-121207#letter

Done - maybe this link deserves heading up in its own thread rather than being buried in here?
David Hooper - on 18 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> [...]
>
> [...]
> What the f*ck is wrong with your head?

Hi John

Im taking the trouble to answer your post as you seem to have a genuine interest and position on this whole thread, unlike some of the idiotic postings on here.

Firstly - I am not a veggie or a tree hugger - Ive eaten whale meat (didnt like the taste) and I shoot and fish as I believe that taking wild game is one of the most ethical and ecofriendly ways to get your food(if God had meant us to be veggies - then why did he make animals taste so nice?)

I also believe that some people who get involved in politics/environmental movement-direct action/animal libbers/etc are sad f*ck inadequates with no social life and I certainly believe that somer of the animal liberation people have stepped over the line with their direct actions.

Regarding the Sea Shepherd debate - AFAIK - SS is always careful to operate within the letter of the law - I dont believe that they have had any law suits bought against them. Indeed at the moment they are entering into partnership with certain governments as kind of environmental law enforcement police. They work in partnership with the Ecuadorian navy to prevent illegal fishing practices etc in Ecuadorian waters and the Galapagos.

Please contrast this with the activites of the japanese whalers - illegally whaling in a sanctuary, assaulting peacefrul Greenpeace protesters with water cannon etc.

I guess if you think there is something wrong with my head then we have fundamentally different world views and philosophies. I certaoinly dont subscribe to the Christian notion that man holds dominion over the animals - I think we are just another species - lucky to share this beautiful planet we have found ourselves on with such a wonderful diversity of other species. If anything I guess I lean towards James Lovelocks "Gaia Hypothesis" in that the earth is a kind of single complex organism that is self regulating. If we humans become too damaging to the wellbeing of Gaia - if we become too much of a toxic virus - then Gaia's immune system will react to slap us back down.

Mankind can be a brute or we can celebrate the very best of our "humanity" and raise ourselves up.

The largest living creature (mammel - not fish like some f*cking idiots on this thread have stated) navigates and swims to the warm food rich tropics where she calves (the whales were calving off the coast of Costa Rica when I was working there) and then slowly undertakes the long journey back to the krill rich waters of the Antarctic. What do we really know about whales - what can we learn fromn them? And then the thought that someone could blast a barbed harpoon with an explosive charge into this beautiful animal and watch it thrash in agony screaming and turning the ocean red with its blood in its death throws - for what - for profit? -for a cheap meal? F*CK OFF!!! If I had the opportunity to prtevent one whale suffering this, by ramming an illegal whaler - then I hope that I would have the courage to do it.

Lets change the context for a minute John. Badger baiting - have you ever seen that John? Not pretty - dig a pit - dig the badger out of its set ,or for maximum fun - release one that you caught easrlier from a sack, smash it round the head with a shovel so that it doesnt fight back too hard, then set your dogs on it and bet on the "sport. If you was in the woods and saw some scum doing this and you had a handgun in your pocket John - what would you do? Walk away?

What about dog fighting - 2 poor bastard pit bulls ripping each other apart in a ring while the onlookers goad them on - is violence on these people justifiable if it stops the dogs suffering?

To me - the life of a whale is worth more than the life of the whaler - that whaler has made a moral choice to do what they have done - as has the badger baiter - as has the dog fighter - as has the rapist, the torturer and the concentration camp guard. All human but are their lives really worth more than those of an animal?

Killing creatures such as the whale takes something away from us - it brutalises us and diminuishes our humanity. That is not the world I want to live in and a world devoid of the whale, the snow leopard and the tiger is not one i wish to leave to my grandchildren.

There is a place for diplomatic gentle campaigning a la Greenpeace - but in the meantime whales - a highly intelligent mammal continue to suffer and die a horrific and agonising death. I totally support Sea Shepherds actions if they even stop just one whale dieing.

And before people have a pop at Patagonia and their support for environmental activism, please take the trouble to read Yvon Choinards "Let My People Surf" a really uplifting read that we can sometimes "do the right thing".

So to conclude John, thanks for your post - its not often that I am goaded by a post to write a passionate and heartfelt reply (especially when I could have been ogling Ronnie and Roxy Mitchell on Jonathan Ross).

Im very happy with "where the f*ck my head is at", its taken me a long journey to get here.

Peace and love

David
Jonathan Petty on 19 Jan 2008 - cpc2-stre2-0-0-cust507.bagu.cable.ntl.com
In reply to brothersoulshine:

From Patagonia to everyone interested in this topic:

Thanks very much for your interest in what we do as a company, and specifically for letting us know about this - I am the UK Sales Manager and wasn't aware of this until we were emailed.

As you all may know, at Patagonia we give 1% of our sales to grassroots environmental organisations...to date we have given away $29 million. This is only one aspect of the many actions we do to fulfill our mission statement of "build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm to the environment". For example we have have been using 100% organic cotton since 1996 in all our cotton products; recycled polyester since 1996 inour synchilla fleece; and our goal is to be 100% by 2010 (Yvon Chouinard's aim for us).

As far as Sea Shepherd goes we are not a corporate sponsor as wikipedia suggests. We have supported them over the years, but we haven't given them a grant ie $s for 15 years. The 'official' word from Ventura our HQ is:

"Patagonia has supported Sea Shepherd's overall efforts to protect our ocean's biodiversity at times over the past 15 years. We, as a company, support a wide range of front line activism and grassroots organizations that are part of a vibrant and diverse environmental movement. Patagonia is aware that Sea Shepherd engages in direct actions as one of their approaches to protect and conserve marine ecosystems"

We have many people who are passionate, and enquiring, about what we do, and we welcome the dialogue. We don't get everything right, but overall please remember that it is in the DNA of our company to raise awareness and do practical things to help protect our planet and its environment.

Kind regards
Jonathan
djviper on 19 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to David Hooper: its nice to see that someone else on this site values the natural equilibrium of this planet and see's the human species as another block within the wall of life, its quite discoriging to think some people still see our species as being superiour to those that have existed for millions of years longer than ours, its a shame that some people dont hold the same humble opionion as ours, as with there biased thoughts we dont hold much hope to live in harmony with our surrondings, a dangerous outcome that can only ultimately lead to our own untimate demise as a species, i just hope when this happens we havent irradicated too many more species on this plannet.
BTW if haveing a fu**ed head means you live at one with your surrondings, then i for one am glad to have a fu**ed head!
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

Having read most of the thread, but not all, the first and the last from Patagonia, the answer to your suggestion seems obvious... if you don't approve of their action you look elsewhere for gear, if you do approve, or at least understand, especially with the info about how much they actually help this group (seems not much) and how violent this group is (seems not too violent compared to the violence of those they oppose) then you will support them by considering their wares carefully before making a purchase.

On the other hand, you may do as I do and look at the quality and the price tag as we have very little way of knowing who or what are really behind the companies we buy things from.
Jonno on 19 Jan 2008 - user-54461b7d.lns1-c12.dsl.pol.co.uk
In reply to brothersoulshine:

'when the wilderness is outlawed, only outlaws can save the wilderness'

Ed Abbey .

I think there's too many prissy wimps these days who just accept things without question and always look for the soft option.


An Irish guy once said to me when I knocked on his door seeking his vote in a local election...'Do you believe in law and order'?

'Of Course' I replied.

'I Don't...I believe in justice!'.

Too bloody right mate and what a prig I must have been in those days.

When it comes to conservation and protection of the natural environment then I'm a jihadist. I wouldn't blink if a whaler went to the bottom of the sea with all hands.

Enty - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
What a load of bollox.

If all the fuel, food and clothing you ever bought was from ethically pure companies you'd either be walking everywhere naked and starving or bankrupt.

The Ent
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonno:
Nicely put sir :o)
David Hooper - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Hi Bruce

Good post in a thread full of crap - concise and common sense - a breath of fresh air - thankyou
IainRUK - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper: Good post.

My views:

I'm against whale hunting, I've said this before. However I guess i differ that I don't see the whale as anymore a special animal than the Great White or the Dugong, both are which are hunted. I know we can't fight all battles but its hypocritical for nations who hunt a species such as a dugong to be against whale hunting.

Dugongs are large marine mammals, lovely animals, yet hunting is allowed because it is 'customery', but they are a threatened animal. I do find some hypocrisy in the actions of the Australian Government in allowing Dugong hunting 'because its a tradition' and being appalled at the Japanese whale hunting, which is also part of their culture.

In my view both should be banned.

The main reason being is the method of killing, both animals are speared and drowned.

Also comments re just a fish earlier in the thread, so is the magical great white, yet that is threatened due to shark fin collections, where the animal is caught, fun removed and left to drown, as it cannot swim, which is necesary for sharks gills to function.

I've spent hours at sea with a former bask shark fisherman, the last active one in the UK, who (crazily) now works in fish conservation and some of his stories weren't pretty.

However he also had attacks on his life, and was pushed so far he bought a hand gun to protect his wife and young kids, he suffered arson attacks, and attempts to sabotage his boat so it would sink out in the atlantic. So I also agree that some protestors go way over the line.

just my tuppence worth.
Dominion - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to IainRUK:

> I've spent hours at sea with a former bask shark fisherman, the last active one in the UK, who (crazily) now works in fish conservation and some of his stories weren't pretty.
>
> However he also had attacks on his life, and was pushed so far he bought a hand gun to protect his wife and young kids, he suffered arson attacks, and attempts to sabotage his boat so it would sink out in the atlantic. So I also agree that some protestors go way over the line.

Compared to - going back to whaling - having an explosive harpoon fired into you, regardless of whether you have a calf with you or not, which will die if it's mother is killed?

I also think some protesters go way over the line. But then so do the whalers.

We have commercial fishing fleets that go after sharks, catch them, cut their fins off - so they cannot swim and will drown - and then they are thrown back into the sea to either drown or be eaten...

Humans deliberately kill somewhere between 25million and 75 million sharks per year.


These things need saying.

I don't agree with threats and violence to people and their families.

But, when it comes down to it, they are catching and killing other species without any consideration of what they are doing to the species, or any knowledge (or thought) of whether they are destroying a family group.

And with whales, there are close family attachments. Admittedly, not with sharks. But with whales, yes.

And people still shoot explosive harpoons into them.
IainRUK - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Dominion: No where did I defend his actions as a fisherman. I said something about suprisingly he's now involved in conservation, which is how we worked together.

Anyway I agree re sharks, I think both are out of order and I'm not sure we understand shark behaviour to say they don;t have family or social groups. Only recently one species of shark was reported to be hunting in groups which was thought not to occur.
Dominion - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to IainRUK:

> Anyway I agree re sharks, I think both are out of order and I'm not sure we understand shark behaviour to say they don;t have family or social groups. Only recently one species of shark was reported to be hunting in groups which was thought not to occur.

Ok, mostly was to do with sharks and the way they breed. Sharks lay eggs, and - as far as I'm aware - don't go brody over them, they are just left to hatch and fend for themselves.

Whereas whales and dolphins, being mammals, give birth to live young, and rear / nurture them.

That was the main sort of family / social group difference I was trying to get across.
IainRUK - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Dominion: Yeah true, killing a mother with a calf means the calf will also die.

I'm a meat eater so although I do think certain mammals shouldn't be eaten, (which is a bit hypcritical of me), my main concern is the lack of humane killing options for large marine mammals and fishes, dugongs, whales and sharks (when taken for fins).
brothersoulshine - on 19 Jan 2008
In reply to Jonathan Petty:
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
>
> From Patagonia to everyone interested in this topic:
>
> Thanks very much for your interest in what we do as a company, and specifically for letting us know about this - I am the UK Sales Manager and wasn't aware of this until we were emailed.
>
> As you all may know, at Patagonia we give 1% of our sales to grassroots environmental organisations...to date we have given away $29 million. This is only one aspect of the many actions we do to fulfill our mission statement of "build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm to the environment". For example we have have been using 100% organic cotton since 1996 in all our cotton products; recycled polyester since 1996 inour synchilla fleece; and our goal is to be 100% by 2010 (Yvon Chouinard's aim for us).
>
> As far as Sea Shepherd goes we are not a corporate sponsor as wikipedia suggests. We have supported them over the years, but we haven't given them a grant ie $s for 15 years. The 'official' word from Ventura our HQ is:
>
> "Patagonia has supported Sea Shepherd's overall efforts to protect our ocean's biodiversity at times over the past 15 years. We, as a company, support a wide range of front line activism and grassroots organizations that are part of a vibrant and diverse environmental movement. Patagonia is aware that Sea Shepherd engages in direct actions as one of their approaches to protect and conserve marine ecosystems"
>
> We have many people who are passionate, and enquiring, about what we do, and we welcome the dialogue. We don't get everything right, but overall please remember that it is in the DNA of our company to raise awareness and do practical things to help protect our planet and its environment.
>
> Kind regards
> Jonathan

Nice post, thanks.
jkarran - on 20 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

> is it no very arogent to automaticly asume that humans are the most important species on earth?

Yes and no, it depends how you define important really. I know what you're saying and my simple answer is yes, we (count yourself in or out of the collective 'we', your choice) are arrogant.

> name one other species that kills for fun as apposed to killing for survival

Domestic cats.

> now think about the pissy little time we have existed, and then how many millions of years aquatic life has
> what give us the right to say we are more important than another species!

What gives us the right... We do. Right or wrong, we give ourselves the 'right' to f..k the place up.

> yes SS may act in a radical way, burt at least there trying to stop the illegal and inhumane kiling of the planets animals

They're. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyway. I'm not pro whaling (or anti whaling for that matter, it's an essential part of some cultures). I do however think that no-matter how well intentioned they might be, millitant environmental/welfare groups do their causes a disservice.

jk
cobbwebb - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:

> name one other species that kills for fun as apposed to killing for survival

most predators

watch your cat next time it brings a mouse for you to hunt down in the house
cobbwebb - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to ring ouzel:

I cant think of any predator actually that kills for fun. <scratches head> Nope, nuffink.

you havent been watching much of your discovery channel then
:)
cobbwebb - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to MJH:
In reply to stp:
> In fact given that we're responsible for what is perhaps the greatest mass extinction the planet has ever known you might conclude that we're the one species that the planet (or "biosphere" for the pedants) could well do without.

>Do you have any evidence for that statement given some of the mass extinctions that have occurred?


probably sky news ....which is about as evidence based as my nan's rantings.
The biggest mass extinctions took place when man didnt exist in the form we do today
cobbwebb - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:

> I'm a bit lost. Sure being a predator is to hunt things. All the top predators you can name in the animal kingdom can be hunted by us, making us the ultimate predator?

not necessarily

we are an omnivorous species....eats both meat and veg and has a large problem solving brain which dragged us out of the prey status into a dominant species...not predator
cobbwebb - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to galpinos) we didnt evolve tools, we adapted!#

no we evolved a thinking brain that enabled us to use tools....which is not unknown in the animal and bird world...look at the bonobo chimps and galapgos finches

> my point is a true predator hunts with its skills and evolved capabilities, we need to use tools to help us

ummmm our skills are adaptability, social grouping (i.e. organised pack hunting and gathering) and the ability to look at a problem like that lion thats about to eat us, and solve it using...hey geuss what!! our adaptability, tool use, social skills blah blah

> remember within our enviroment we may be the apex killer, but once removedd from this enviroment we are quiet low down the trophic level

cobbwebb - on 21 Jan 2008
i hate it when I catch the arse end of a thread!!! I end up replying to loads at once!!.

However I have wafted from anti hunting, anti whaling ban, political protest banning the bomb through god why bother!! to a pretty amibivalent view of the world as a relatively benign place....nice enough thought for me compared with the hugely fearful and angry stance of the ban the bomb era!!

But it doesnt really answer. As a biologist/environmentalist/psychologist i love reading through the thought provoking and outright provocative down to sheer bollox.

I'm all for the likes of greenpeace and non violent protest and was chuffed to find pole and line tuna eventually getting to the shops (shows my age!). Pressure groups and pubilicisation are where its at if you want to make a difference not ramming ships (though I would agree that has its own publicity)

However my thoughts are that non violent protest is what makes us different to sharks and cats of the world who don't really put a lot of thought into their reactions. Where does direct action end? I have to say if I saw badger baiting occurring I'd pick the mobile up and get a swift 999 call off rather than unleashing the gun and stake the spot out....i.e. i'd use my thinking and problem solving skills rather than reacting without thought....which sadly in my current profession sees my working with just those sort of people that have a lack of impulse control.

We all love a good cause and certainly stopping whaling has got to be up there with good old jamie oliver and his plight of the battery hen of the world....but there are ways more successful than some of the methods of sea shepherd.
OldManOfTheHills on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to cobbwebb:

Well I for one fully support Sea Shepherd; extreme actions such as killing endangered and defenceless animals in a sanctuary demand extreme measures, in the similar way that the killing endangered human ethnic group in a sanctuary demands extreme response. I am not a vegetarian, the chicken species for instance is not under threat, and I think certain artic people may even have a right to attempt limitted low tech whale hunting, but mechanised whaling is an abomination.

I will continue to buy Patagonia gear if its affordable and suitable
IainRUK - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to OldManOfTheHills:
> (In reply to cobbwebb)
> I am not a vegetarian, the chicken species for instance is not under threat,

Neither are some species of Whale.

Its an animal welfare issue as much as (if not more than) an animal conservation issue.

Same as with chickens. I won't buy eggs from caged birds, not because the species is under threat but due to welfare reasons.
trevor simpson on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc1-duns3-0-0-cust292.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to IainRUK:

surely we should be looking for a kinder way to kill whales?
djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to trevor simpson: why kill them at all!
IainRUK - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper: Devils advocate here, but why should whales, and I mean species which aren't endangered, be offered more protection that great whites, dugongs, or even land mammals which are hunted?
djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to IainRUK: they shouldnt but this post is specific to whales,
looking through wiki,Japanís take will include 100 Sei Whales, 10 Sperm Whales, 50 Humpback Whales, 50 Fin Whales, and 50 Brydeís Whales, some of which are considered endangered, along with 850 (+/- 10%) Minke Whales which are classified as near threatened .

In the 2006-2007 Antarctic whaling season, Japanese whalers took 505 Minke Whales, of which 262 were pregnant females. They also killed three Fin Whales, one of which was pregnant

quiet a lot for "scientific resurch" dont you think!

also remember that it takes the avarage whale between 90 and 100 years to reach maturity, and 5 out of 13 are indangered
IainRUK - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper: Age at sexual maturity isn't an argument against a 'fishery', however it would require careful management.

Re your age of sexual maturity. You are misleading. Minkes reach maturity within their first decade of life, around 5-7 years old. The 'average' whale means nothing. So does 5 out of 13 whales being endangered, as long as only common cetecea are hunted.

Minke's are one of the most abundant of the Baleen Whales. Estimates of world wide populations range from 500k to 1mill. So the collection of 500, even if 262 were pregnant may not harm population numbers. I'm not qualified in stock assessment so couldn't make a call on such data, are you?

An animal may be pregnant when killed, but so will many other species that we, as in people from Western Europe, hunt.

I'd be interested to compare the numbers of Minkes killed through incidental deaths (net entangling etc) rather than hunting each year.

BTW I'm a marine biologist who is opposed to Whaling, but the way to fight Whaling isn't through spurious arguments and incorrect facts, that just weakens ones argument.

The oldest animal ever known to Science is commercially fished and is ground up as fish meal.

djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to IainRUK: actualy estimates for minke whales are around 338'000 and as such are listed as "near threatened" on the iucn red list
btw i never mentioned "sexual maturity" in my post
ads.ukclimbing.com
IainRUK - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper: "also remember that it takes the avarage whale between 90 and 100 years to reach maturity"

So what do you mean by maturity?

Maturity in the animal world is general referred to in a reproductive context. I've never heard it used in any other way.
IainRUK - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to IainRUK) actualy estimates for minke whales are around 338'000 and as such are listed as "near threatened" on the iucn red list
> btw i never mentioned "sexual maturity" in my post

No, only one estimate reached a value of 338,000 and the IWC themselves cast doubt over such estimate.

djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to IainRUK: i allways thought maturity meant fully physicaly devoloped, which is quite different to sexual maturity
djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to IainRUK: that was the last agreed estimate
IainRUK - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to DjViper: They also cast doubt over the 340,000 estimate. estimates have ranged from 300,000 to 1 million, but changes in survey methods have made comparisons difficult.

Re 'near threatened', that depends on its range.

re maturity. Yes with animals, maturity, generally (almost always) means age of sexual maturity. If you ask someone what age does species x become mature, they will assume sexual maturity.

What quote did you read that said 90-100 years?

Look I am against Whaling myself, but feel the arguments against it are at times poorly construed and at times hypocritical (Aussies and Dugongs).
IainRUK - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper: "Final circumpolar estimates from the IWC IDCR/SOWER population surveys (1978/79-2003/04) were 338,000 and were only 39% of those from the 1985/86-1990/91 surveys[3], however, the IWC has not yet decided whether these estimates reflect a real change in the population or a change in the survey methodology. "

BTW this is unclear. To me 338,000 refers to A pole, not both poles. So I'm not sure if that refers to world wide populations.
djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to IainRUK: i got the figure off some american resurch document with reguards to maturity (i.e fully physicaly grown)
you do like your sea cows dont you ;-)
djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to IainRUK: BTW this is unclear
i do have to agree on this, it would seam that a lot of the figures are intentionaly ambigious
IainRUK - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper: Yes :-)

But I do think its hypocritical because one country can spear and drown large marine mammals because its 'traditional', yet oppose another countries want to. It seems the only difference is one has that magical term 'whale' in its name.

Personally I think any hunting that allows the animal to endure such a long death should be banned.
djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to IainRUK: "Personally I think any hunting that allows the animal to endure such a long death should be banned."
i whole heartedly agree! i also feel that all "sport" hunting should be banned
i like the frase
"if it aint for eating it aint for killing"

David Hooper - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> "if it aint for eating it aint for killing"

Excellent sentiments - who said it originally?

djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to David Hooper: me dad!
brothersoulshine - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

Does he apply that philosophy to the kind of parasites that live in one's intestines?
djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to brothersoulshine: dont realy know and unfortunately cant ask him
dissonance - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

> "if it aint for eating it aint for killing"

and they do eat the whales.

what more do you want?
djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to dissonance: any animal to be killed in a humain manner!
dissonance - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to dissonance) any animal to be killed in a humain manner!

what about reared in a humane manner, up until the slaughter that is?
johnj on 21 Jan 2008 - 88-107-129-155.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com
In reply to dissonance: what like a whale farm?
dissonance - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to johnj:

nah the farm would result in worse overall standards surely.

I am with IainRUK here, there are plenty of reasons to be against it and presenting dodgy arguments just allows them to be ignored.
johnj on 21 Jan 2008 - 88-107-129-155.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com
In reply to dissonance: I'm not 'presenting dodgy arguments'

it was something called humour, maybe you missed that whilst you was saving the world

why are you with IainRUK? i thought he was married
dissonance - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to dissonance) I'm not 'presenting dodgy arguments'

nah but dj is.

> it was something called humour, maybe you missed that whilst you was saving the world

nah - way to much effort for me. maybe save a couple of acres and work up to the world.

> why are you with IainRUK? i thought he was married

here, on this.
same diff.
i knew there was a reason i gave up studying tonight and went for some mild trolling.
Mick Ward - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to David Hooper) me dad!

And good on him.

Mick
djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to dissonance: what about reared in a humane manner
i would hope that would go without saying!
unless of course the animal is wild and we have no part in its upbringing, which would make this imposible
dissonance - on 21 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

> unless of course the animal is wild and we have no part in its upbringing, which would make this imposible

but arguably couldnt hunting a wild animal be better than rearing it in captivity.
take an example from the other thread, what about salmon farming vs catching wild?
djviper on 21 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to dissonance: of course, provided its killed humainly
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to djviper)
, what about salmon farming vs catching wild?

I used to think this was a no brainer and bought my wild caught salmon from Tesco.

Then I read Yvon Choinard (of Patagonia's) "Let My People Surf" book, in which is a compelling critique of wild caught salmon. Apparently it is a big industry netting loads of salmon and as well as catching common salmon they are also catching endagered salmon species indescrimanately (or something like that).

So I now buy organic farmed which i guess is a reasonable compromise.

When I finally move to Wales full time I intend to revive my boyhood fishing skills and try for mackeral and sea bass on the coast and also see what I can pull out of the Llugwy (kayakers?) which I believe is stocked for fishing.

last ascent - on 22 Jan 2008
sorry, can i do a big back up?

Gaz lord:
> (In reply to brothersoulshine) Patagonia also make military clothing/equipment too.

this is news to me and way more of a shock than them supporting sea shepherd. are you saying patagonia actually has military contracts? with which armys?
Bill Davidson - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> Just thought that info might influence your next purchase...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd

From now on I'll be buying Patagonia stuff when I can & supporting SS with a DD donation. Fair play to them for trying to stop the unjustifiable.

John Wood - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to Bill Davidson:

Fair nuff, when a whaler drowns, is crushed, freezes to death is burned to death, etc. Will you make a donation to his widow?
Bill Davidson - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

Why would I want to do that? Will you?
John Wood - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to Bill Davidson:

Because you want to finance the people who are going to kill someone sooner or later. I thought it would be a nice gesture, to reflect your complicity.
Bill Davidson - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

Complicity! You must have me mixed up with someone else. But going along with your logic I shouldn't finance something because according to you they are going to kill someone sooner or later. I think you could expand that train of thought to quite a lot of things I finance. Toodle Pip!
John Wood - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to Bill Davidson:

Like who, the IRA? If you think you can imperil a vessel without creating a serious risk to life then you are simply and utterly wrong.
Bill Davidson - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

WTF are you on about, the IRA, jeezy effin peeps. Not quite sure if your mad or just trying to wind me up. Why not try actually engaging your brain before you write such utter pish. Now GTF & bother someone else.
John Wood - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to Bill Davidson:

In English please?
brothersoulshine - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

He says that sinking ships in dock with limpet mines or ramming ships at sea to rip holes in them are not the kind of activities that endanger life. He says that when the French sank that greenpeace ship it was different.
John Wood - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

Oh, so what he meant to say was "I'm a f*cktard" Right. Got ya.
hutchm on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

Though 'Jeezy Effin Peeps' may become my expletive of choice....
djviper on 22 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to brothersoulshine: ok so some approve of the SS and some dont, what are peoples views of the hostage taking by the japanese whaler Yushin Maru? bearing in mind,why the 2 SS members borded the boat (and this is the wording of the japanese foreign minister) "They came to our ship to hand over their letter of protest and our side received it"

or how about the small matter of the 3 foot whole the japanese whaler Kaiko Maru tore in the Robert Hunter by ramming it!

half of you are going on a sea sheppard witch hunt, what about the japanese illegaly operating fleet that have done the same if not worse?
brothersoulshine - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

These issues have been thrashed out on the other SS thread which you might like to have a look at if you haven't already.

Yes I know that whaling isn't good and most of the people who are saying they're not chuffed with SS are not chuffed with whaling either.

What we're talking about here is how to try to stop whaling, or rather, how not to try to stop it.
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

Hi John

Still throwing the insults around rather than having a civilised debate.

I took the bother of writing a reasoned response to your question "where the f*ck is my head at" earlier up this thread. Maybe you would like to read it and respond.

And no more insults please -as soon as you do that you have lost the debate anyway.

Im very open to being enlightened and having my point of view changed - I ve learned a fair bit from good posts on these forums over the years - so do come back with some reasoned debate rather than facile namecalling.

Cheers

David
djviper on 22 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to brothersoulshine: i was unaware there was another thread ;-)

problem with stopping whaleing is as long as we allow "leathal resurch" it will never be stopped! all groups like SS and greenpeace can do is inconvenience the whaleing ships as due to the monies raised by whaleing official government groups will never stop it
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

Do nyou not think the actions of Sea Shepherd has got the whole thing a much higher profile across various media this year - surely that has to be a good thing?
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to Bill Davidson:
You got mail
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:
> (In reply to brothersoulshine) i was unaware there was another thread ;-)

there ya go

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=281374&v=1#x4170816

just as entertaining as this one :o)
brothersoulshine - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
>
> Do nyou not think the actions of Sea Shepherd has got the whole thing a much higher profile across various media this year - surely that has to be a good thing?

Yes, of course it has got it higher profile. Whether that's a good thing or not is a different question. If it means that legitimate anti-whaling arguments are now associated in the public's eye with trustafarian idiots then that's not really a good thing, is it? And if it means that next time the Japanese go whaling they're accompanied by their navy who stop Greenpeace bearing witness to it then that's not really a good thing either.
djviper on 22 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to David Hooper: is it worth trawling through or is it just the same sanctomonius crap?
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> [...]
>
> Yes, of course it has got it higher profile. Whether that's a good thing or not is a different question. If it means that legitimate anti-whaling arguments are now associated in the public's eye with trustafarian idiots then that's not really a good thing, is it? And if it means that next time the Japanese go whaling they're accompanied by their navy who stop Greenpeace bearing witness to it then that's not really a good thing either.


I dont get the Trustafarian bit - theres probably a fairly large Trustafarian crew contingent on both ships - rightly or wrongly and certainly a stereotypically generalisation, these people do tend to get caughty up in environmental causes. There was certainly a few on board Esperanza on the TV docu the other week. Is Paul Watson a trustafarian?

I still hold that both organisations - by keeping separate and defined roles - have an important part to play - Greenpeace doing what they do - they have authority,gravitas and credibility with the establishment, with governments and with industry and yes I am sure they will suceed in the long term BUT Sea Shepherd actions are saving whales now.

Ultimately I guess we are both on the same spectrum of wanting to "save" whales - but just on different wavelengths of that spectrum on how to do it.

On a tangent Did you get the woodburner or check the Gransfors axes out. My mate has a Morso Squirrel for sale - £150 - bargain ;O)
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper: No - its a bit different - have a trawl.
Also a new 3rd thread just entitled "Sea Shepherd"

BTW are you stiull planning on being in Wales this weekend - its not a bad forecast.
djviper on 22 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to brothersoulshine: if it gets people talking about it and raises public awareness it can only be (within reason) a good thing
djviper on 22 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to David Hooper: ill make a brew!
undecided, was planning on wild camping it, but alas the missus is haveing "her time"
brothersoulshine - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

Yep, we finally got the stove in just before it got really cold and miserable. And mrssoulshine got me a gransfors splitting maul for crimbo. I've been meaning to write to you to tell you how much I love it :-)

I've just about come to the end of easy free wood and now I'm having to cast the net a bit wider to keep it cheap and sustainable.
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

I respect other peoples arguments and point of view on this as long as they dont sink to insults - there has been too much of that.

Its an important and emotive issue and its really good that its getting so fully debated - conciousness raising stuff.
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Those axes really are something erlse arnt they?
Ive got the splitting axe, the wedge, the small forest axe and the carving axe.

Gransfors run an 8 day log cabin building course which Im thinking of going on.

Enjoy the axe :o) - works of art!!!
John Wood - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

I've made plenty of civilised debate. You assert the right to kill people who harm whales, badgers and dogs. I really don't have a clue how to engage you.

Also, he started it. Basically, I'm only insulting people who think that killing people to save animals is justifable. 'cause i think its a bit strange.

The debate is contained within the first 50 or so posts on the first thread on this. There is very little of value after that apart from the lobbying of patagonia.
galpinos - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

I'm not sure whether the increased media attention has helped or hindered to be honest. If the SS had just managed to get 2 crew members taken hostage, the japanese could have been cast as the bad guys. Due to the fact SS have a "ram" and that they threw acid (in whatever concentration or however innocuous the media still used the word "acid"), I feel it'll count against them.

The crew of the SS are turning from enviromentalists acting on their conscience to "eco-terrorists" which doesn't help their cause (which is unfortunate, as their cause is a just one imo).

Would you not prefer to see them go about it in a different way?
djviper on 22 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to galpinos: the main argument i have is would they get any media coverage or raise awairness, or indeed get any results if they acted in another way?
galpinos - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

> Also, he started it.

Hmmm, not the best defence I've heard. It didn't even work when I was 5 years old.

To be honest John, you have favoured the personal attack and insult method or arguing as opposed to the reasoned debate method.

Hopefully your job doesn't involve debating!
galpinos - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to djviper:

Physically place there boats in the way of the whalers?

I'm not usre if this is possible or whether it'd work. I don't have the answers. I just feel their methods undermine the moral arguement they possess.
djviper on 22 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to galpinos: it does work, greenpeace did it recently
and i do agree with the undermining, however when democratic talks fail what other options are there
ads.ukclimbing.com
John Wood - on 22 Jan 2008
I made my reasoned arguments several hundred posts ago. I'm now expressing my contempt for those who hold human life cheaper than whale meat.

PS Your last sentance counts as an insult.
djviper on 22 Jan 2008 - cpc2-hatf3-0-0-cust384.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to John Wood: ok in a reasoned argument, why is a human life worth more than that of a wild animal
galpinos - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:

Sorry, I forgot the smiley. ;)
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to John Wood:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
>
> I've made plenty of civilised debate. You assert the right to kill people who harm whales, badgers and dogs. I really don't have a clue how to engage you.
>
> Also, he started it. Basically, I'm only insulting people who think that killing people to save animals is justifable. 'cause i think its a bit strange.
>
> The debate is contained within the first 50 or so posts on the first thread on this. There is very little of value after that apart from the lobbying of patagonia.

Dear John

Im a commited pacifist - I would not wish harm on anyone. It would be an absolute tragedy if anyone were to injured or killed. However the possibility of this happing through Sea Shepherdsa actions are a reality sadly.

You state you dont have a clue how to engage - do it through reasoned debate - not insult or just being dismissive/ignoring those with a differing worldview to yours. Who knows you may even change some minds if your rhetoric is up to it.

Best wishes

David
David Hooper - on 22 Jan 2008
In reply to galpinos:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
>
> The crew of the SS are turning from enviromentalists acting on their conscience to "eco-terrorists" which doesn't help their cause (which is unfortunate, as their cause is a just one imo).
>
> Would you not prefer to see them go about it in a different way?

I guess you are right - once the eco terrorist label (deserved or not) is bandied around by the media - then the cause looses support.

What could they do differently - I guess aping the methods of Greenpeace and getting in the harpoons firing line would double the effectiveness of the greenpeace approach.

I believe in their methods if it saves whale lifes in the short term - but if they are garnering sympathy for the japs and their whaling thenj ...hmmm...difficult.

Its such an emotive muddled issue.

It would be hard to sit back and do nothing if you had the resources (boat with ram) and whales were being slaughtered in front of you.

I do think SS is being demonised on these forums - AFAIK their captain(Paul watson?) is a superbly skilled seaman who takes calculated action. I have never heard of them hurting anyone OR of ever being prosecuted for doing anything illegal. If anyone knows better and can post a link then I happily stand to be corrected.

A pleasure debating with yopu sir!!! :o)

John Wood - on 23 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

Here's my reply from Lonely Planet:

Hi John,

Thanks for taking the time to email us.

We appreciate you letting us know about your concerns with regards to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and good to hear you have admired our environmental content over the years within our guides.

There has been a misunderstanding in the media coverage. We, Lonely Planet, do not fund and have not funded the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. However Lonely Planetís co founders, Tony and Maureen Wheeler, have privately funded them in the past and Paul Watson (their captain) has come to Lonely Planet to give a talk (just as others do). After the media interest we also found out that Sea Shepherd had put our logo on their website. We asked them to remove it which they've now done.

Thanks again for getting in contact with us and do let me know if you have any further questions.

All the best for your future travels Ö

Kind Regards,

Nicole (emailing from Melbourne | Australia)


Job's a good 'un
David Hooper - on 23 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:

Sea Shepherd captain - Paul Watson writes in todays Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2245331,00.html
brothersoulshine - on 23 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

"It's all a matter of perspective. If you love whales, we be heroes; but if you eat whales then we be pirates."

Echos Bush's "If you're not with us, you're against us", wouldn't you say?
David Hooper - on 23 Jan 2008
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
>
> "It's all a matter of perspective. If you love whales, we be heroes; but if you eat whales then we be pirates."
>
> Echos Bush's "If you're not with us, you're against us", wouldn't you say?

Dont agree with the first part - you can "love" whales but not agree with SS methods - do agree with the second part - standard practice to slur your opponent in some way.
Nevis-the-cat - on 23 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:

Aside from the rights and wrongs of whaling, that article was excruciating. If he wants to be romantic and play pirates he should rock up off the coast of Somalia and meet some real ones, with blood on their hands.

David Hooper - on 23 Jan 2008
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
And off the coast of Venezuala - modern piracy is on the increase.
Michael Ryan - on 23 Jan 2008
"In 30 years of eco-piracy we have never injured a single poacher, though we've sent nine whalers to the bottom. Instead of cannon balls, our guns shoot coconut cream and chocolate pie-filling. We toss stink bombs instead of grenades and we are so non-violent we don't even eat meat or fish on our ships. No fish, fowl or mammals have died in the making of our high seas campaigns.

What we do is defend the whales from illegal slaughter by ruthless and merciless killers. If people want to call us pirates for that, we're proud to be so. We have whales to save and Japanese ships to attack."

You go Sea Shepherd!!!!
David Hooper - on 23 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:
> You go Sea Shepherd!!!!

Off the "impartial" editorial fence eh Mr Ryan? I had my suspicions about you. Nice one !!! :o)

GO SEA SHEPHERD GO!!!

P.S. Mick....hows about UKC joining 1% for the Planet...I'm going to with my modest little one man operation?
trevor simpson on 23 Jan 2008 - cpc1-duns3-0-0-cust292.lutn.cable.ntl.com
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

> we are so non-violent we don't even eat meat or fish on our ships.

If you get killed by a vegetarian it doesn't count.

<avoids falling foul of Godwin's law>
John Wood - on 23 Jan 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Wow. So Mick. IF and when they're activities kill someone, will you still support them?

For the last time, if you;

ram a ship at sea

damage it's shell plating

damage it's propulsion

You are creating a very, very severe risk of loss of life. As I posted several days ago, the most dangerous jobs you can do in peacetime are to work on a merchant vessel or a trawler.

Do you consider that risk acceptable to save a whale or that its justfiable to kill a person to save an animal (as the SS side of the debate maintain)?
morphus on 24 Jan 2008 - 88-104-182-251.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com
In reply to brothersoulshine:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> [...]
>
> Yes, of course it has got it higher profile. Whether that's a good thing or not is a different question. If it means that legitimate anti-whaling arguments are now associated in the public's eye with trustafarian idiots then that's not really a good thing, is it?

haven't read all the thread yet, but your crass label suggests you are trolling again and have lost any argument that you may have had

could you summarize your objections to the protesters actions and suggest more effective methods to stop whaling?
Nevis-the-cat - on 24 Jan 2008
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to Nevis-the-cat)
> And off the coast of Venezuala - modern piracy is on the increase.

Yep, good article in this months Yachting Monthly about a yacht that was stalked by pirates and had to outrun them for 24 hours as they played cat and mouse.

Scary stuff as I am sure peter blake would agree, had he not been shot by pirates.


back to the whales, I digress.....

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.