Sea Shepherd's Captain Watson arrested in Germany

I hope the arrest the real law breakers.

The clowns and liars are the ships from whaling countries who call their illegal whaling activities "research."

stopping a commercial whaling operation in the Southern ocean is one thing however what is being depicted in "Viking Shores" is quite another and in the long run will score them few points

Whale meat is the very best meat you will ever eat.
So there is demand too.
That could be why the Japanese are working on cloning meat...

It was my understanding that the Japanese government foists off the unused, unwanted whale meat onto the schools to serve in their cafeterias.

So which is true?

after they torture and slaughter these highly intellgent creatures.

Pathetic, brutal, and stupid.

The cruelty of humans never ceases to amaze me.

I have watched a couple episodes of the Viking one and I am really torn. These are folks who live on island where they really depend on the sea for food. On one hand I find whales extraordinary and seeing them being killed like that breaks my heart, but on the other hand, they eat all the meat and only take what they need. They've been doing forever... much like the natives in Alaska and really depend on it.

I can see both sides and I don't think either sides is "bad".

But i guess human life is not worth as much.

Lars77

Well, I guess he might as well have tried to ram an iceberg, as the ship he tried to ram was twice the size of his own pirate ship.... And even though the coast guard ship did sustain some damage - the damage to the ship Mr Watson had, was far worse - in fact he had to leave for friendlier ports, as the ship was felling with water... And even then, as He was the one ramming the coast guard ship, he cried wolf, and claimed it was the Norwegian Coast guard ship who was ramming them... Lucky one, for mr Watson I guess, that the coast guard ship was commandeered by a level handed commander, who was able to do the right thing and not just shoot the ship out of the water... I guess that would have been in order, as Watson was legally speaking attaching the LAWFULLY police authorities in Norwegian waters...

And for that, and other crimes, he got a warrant on his head - who is still open if he ever choose to return to Norwegian waters...

But now, I guess he is busted - and possible wile sit in a german prison for a while... And possible it also would be the end of the whole affair in the end as he is not able to make vawes anymore...

He might even loose some weight in german prison....

Diclotican

that human life is not on the verge of extinction. Rather, our sheer numbers are crushing the life out of most other species. It's easy to sit back and cast electronic stones at those trying to help. Better to propose a helpful idea or take positive action one's self.

Norway has a quota of 1286 Minke Whales, and according to Stanford University the population of Minke Whales is around 670.000. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/january18/minke-whale-research-012110.html

I agree that hunting any species to extinction should be stopped. But to try and commit homicide in this particular case (and then play the victim) is just stupid.

Of course you are free to not belive what scientists say.

and buy tickets to support a real circus, like a good clown lover...

activities in the Southern Ocean. The directly cited the activities of the Sea Shepard Society as a reason for their decision.

Call him whatever you like. He's a hero in my book.

Conservates and Republicans really hate him.

He advocates for a part of the planet that has few advocates against a powerful machine.

I was in Berlin recently and had the pleasure of seeing a guy in a Sea Sheperds t-shirt devour a pizza with three kinds of meat on it. Pathetic.

So what is it about whales (all species) that makes them so special and worthy of protection? And don't tell me its only about low numbers (which is disputable). People seem to get emotional in some odd way when it comes to this particular animal.

were hunted to the brink of extinction is not "disputable" unless one is either willfully or unknowingly ignorant about the subject.

There may be many different reasons why people in general and the 88 member nations of the International Whaling Commission believe that whales are "worthy of protection".

For one, it is abundantly obvious (again, to anyone who is not either willfully or unknowingly ignorant about the subject) that without a framework of protection for harvesting whales in the open ocean many species would be hunted to extinction.

Of course, if your ethics don't include any value on preventing avoidable extinction, then that argument will be meaningless to you.

For another, the large cetaceans are the only animal on Earth with brains larger than that of human beings. It is well established, or at least as well established as it can be (given the inherent difficulties in assessing intelligence in general, non-human intelligence in particular, and ocean-dwelling non-human intelligence more particularly) that animal intelligence is directly correlated with brain size. Whales, like all of the higher animals, are sentient life forms.

Once again, at this point I must speak of ethics and obviously, if your ethics are such that non-human life has no value other than whatever gains or service it can be to humans, then you may want to just skip this part.

Anyway, whales are sentient creatures of possibly high intelligence, and are demonstrably caring, loving, and emotional. Some people have a set of ethics that dictates that all life is worthy of respect and protection; that cruelty towards animals is wrong; and that no animal's life should be taken needlessly if at all possible. Where hunting whales for meat is an option rather than a necessity, it shouldn't be done. One should eat another species that has a greater reproductive rate and that doesn't depend for its survival on intact families (like farm-raised livestock) and is less intelligent than whales.

You're free to mock this guy in Berlin as "pathetic". I'm free to speculate on your character as well, but I'll keep it to myself.

Yep.

the Internet is full of people who love to do things like that.

Personally, i do not like industrial fishing or whaling on the scale that the Japanese do with factory ships etc. I think it is greedy and and problematic. Norwegian whalers are guys with a small boat. They also only hunt Minke Whales which are not on the brink of extinction and the Norwegian quota is a mere 1286. According to Stanford University the population of Minke Whales is around 670.000. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/january18/minke-whale-research-012110.html.
I won´t defend the killing of any animal that is facing extinction.


It is interesting that the whales have such large brains, i am sure they are intelligent creatures. But pigs are amongst the smartest animals on the planet according to some studies, as well as octopus. And still we eat them.

So there seems to be something that makes the whale worthy of more protection than other animals. And i find that hypocritical. If you can eat industrially raised and slaughtered beef or chicken and pretend to take the moral high ground while criticising sustainable whaling you are mistanken.

to criticize whaling of any kind, as I don't eat pigs, octopodes, cows, or chickens (regardless of how they're raised)?

If so, consider it done.

So yes you can do that

Did you have any additional comments ?

then why were they back there this year? They left early again, but obviously the Japanese either lied or the story was wrong.

Such clowns and liars defending sea life.

Go for it...Sea Shepherd! The criminals are the shark-fin butchers. Dig further, and find the people who use the shark fin, the "market". Eliminate that, and the trade is gone. Who are these dummies who think shark fin will grow what they themselves cannot?

It was ok...

http://oceana.org/en/our-work/protect-marine-wildlife/sharks/learn-act/shark-finning

Shark finning is the brutal practice of slicing off a shark's fins, often for use in shark fin soup, an Asian delicacy. The shark -- sometimes still alive -- is thrown back into the water to bleed to death.

Shark fin soup was once an Asian delicacy reserved for the wealthy but with a growing middle class, shark fin soup is now becoming common fare at weddings, banquets and business meetings. A bowl can cost up to US $100, making the fins easily the most lucrative part of the shark.

Since shark meat is inferior to other fish and the bodies are bulky and take up precious cargo space, sharks are finned around the world. This brutal practice is also incredibly wasteful; shark finning only utilizes one to five percent of the shark’s body weight, removing an essential food source from many communities.

In addition, without the fins attached, many sharks can’t be identified, which further impedes management. Estimates suggest that between 26 and 73 million sharks are finned each year, all for a tasteless product that translates to “fish wing” and adds nothing more than structure to a broth.

Shark finning is the brutal practice of slicing off a shark's fins

I don't get worked up over brutality to a fish, of all things.

all for a tasteless product that translates to “fish wing” and adds nothing more than structure to a broth.

Texture is often prized as much as taste in Asian cuisine.

I'll be taking my Mom out for dinner in a couple of hours, and I'll very likely order seafood of some sort. Frankly, my only concern regarding the life of the salmon I'll be eating is whether or not it's delicious.

Because while I, too, am not over brimming with compassion for fish, I do recognise the intense pressure on top marine predators, and the implications that has for ocean ecosystems. Upon which, I might add, we are entirely dependent.

But since we have pretty much poisoned the seas, I take comfort that those who indulge in these foods (and provide market demand for these practices) are taking in several different toxins that tend to concentrate in the top predators.

Bon apetite.

Whereas you, by your own admission, do.

BTW, I've only eaten shark fin soup once. As I said, my reaction was, "meh". I'm not taking in loads of toxins by consuming top predators.

Sorry to disappoint you!

While I'm not for infighting and your comments really haven't added anything of substance to this conversation, you're really wrong. As a matter of education, perhaps try going to wikipedia (for a start) and reading a little about bioaccumulation and amplification of pervasive lipophilic exotoxins through the food chain. Why, for instance, do women of extreme northern latitudes, who exist without any perception of industry, present polychlorinated biphenyls in their breast milk still to this day even though PCBs been globally banned for decades? I expect your response is that they should modify their culture and stop eating the fat of seals, their largest source of food.

Oh wait. Maybe we could stop eating the fins of sharks because it's Asia's convenient (and egregiously misinformed) Viagra...

Best,
Hayduke

Please document that assertion.

As for the rest, I'm not sure exactly how this went from the ethics of eating a bowl of soup to PCBs in women's breast milk...
And with that I'll have to bid adieu to this thread; I'm flying in the morning, and need to get a good night's rest.

And thank you.

and then there's maiming them needlessly.

Shark finning is the latter practice.

It's sort of like the difference between squashing a spider with your shoe and pulling its legs off one by one.

It's sort of like the difference between squashing a spider with your shoe and pulling its legs off one by one.

Poor analogy. The fisherman aren't doing this for kicks and giggles...it's hard work. There's no malice involved.

Indifference, granted.

Indifference to the suffering of animals has been known as a failure in man for a long time.

Even the great rationalist Immanual Kant with his strict catagories of "persons" and "things" recognized that cruelty towards animals is immoral, albeit indirectly so. Kant believed our only direct duties are to persons and animals are not persons. He believed we can only have indirect duties towards animals. We ought not to mistreat animals, not because of anything about them, but because "he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men."

"If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals."
- Immanuel Kant, "Duties to Animals and Spirits", in Lectures on Ethics

The utilitarian thinker Jeremy Bentham addressed the question of suffering in animals:

"...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
- Jeremy Bentham, The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) Chapter XVII, Section 1

Animals can suffer and normal, sane people can recognize when they are suffering. This plain observation was true in Jeremy Bentham's time as well. Just as Kant and Bentham recognized this fact in the 18th century, we recognize today that this behavior is an indicator of psychological problems in children and adults. Clearly animals can suffer, as anyone who has ever heard the shriek of an animal in pain knows. It doesn't take a degree in biological sciences or a scientific study to confirm this fact to any sane person.

The question of animal suffering has been taken up in modern times by ethicists like Albert Schweitzer who defended his doctrine of "Reverence for Life", and by Peter Singer who also laid an ethical foundation for respecting life.

Respect for life is prominent also in non-Western traditions like Buddhism and in many native traditions.

But in your ethics "brutality to a fish, of all things" is nothing to get "worked up over".

Nor does it seem to make any difference to you that the animal in question has been designated an endangered species at risk of extinction, or that the bulk of the animal was not even used, but rather only it's fins were cut off and the rest thrown back to waste - all of this done for commercial profit.

This kind of practice doesn't fall under any ethical system that I know of.

learly animals can suffer, as anyone who has ever heard the shriek of an animal in pain knows. It doesn't take a degree in biological sciences or a scientific study to confirm this fact to any sane person.

As I am sane, I agree. Sharks suffer when they have their fin cut off.

I just don't particularly care about the suffering of sharks. My dog (just for example) would be a different matter, since I differentiate between species in regards to their treatment.

Respect for life is prominent also in non-Western traditions like Buddhism and in many native traditions.

How nice for them. I subscribe to neither one.

Nor does it seem to make any difference to you that the animal in question has been designated an endangered species at risk of extinction,

I have no knowledge that the particular shark whose fin I merrily ate 10 years ago was endangered. In any case, I'm certainly not in favor of harvesting animals to the point of extinction. Animals are renewable resources which need to be managed properly so they can be harvested indefinitely.

or that the bulk of the animal was not even used, but rather only it's fins were cut off and the rest thrown back to waste

So what? Apparently, it's not commercially viable to use the rest of shark...otherwise they'd do it!

all of this done for commercial profit.

What in the world is wrong with commercial profit?

This kind of practice doesn't fall under any ethical system that I know of.

I'm a speciest and an atheist, if that helps.

Well, as I just pointed out in another post, I have to leave this thread, since I'm flying in the morning.

they are mammals.

Hence the discussion of shark fin soup, and sharks most decidedly are fish.

i don't know what i was thinking.

May Sea Shepherd continue Whale Wars with you soon...

from the link in the OP



now why would the Guatemalan Authorities first order the Sea Shepherds to stop the Varadero and then send one of their own gun boats to stop Sea Shepherds?

something doesn't add up

In a lot of these scenarios, one agency of government will try to uphold conservation laws while another agency of that same government will try to interfere. Seen it before.

that "order" - perhaps SSCS interpreted it as a deputizing to take some more assertive steps than the Guatemalans had in mind...

Or not.

A country that profits off the products acquired through means, no matter how horrid, will tend to prosecute those that try to stand in the way of people being able to do so. Just one more pathetic shot by yet another political juggernaut at this little ragtag group of activists. One that, as history has proven more often than not, will miss, making the charging entity look the fool. Again.

It's like they think this is not a planned-for contingency or that none of the dozens of top-flight activists that Watson has trained could ever step into his shoes. It's a deep bench and the cause is stronger than it's been in years. Likewise, it's not Capt. Watson's first go-around with arrest or law-enforcement.

Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson arrested in Germany
The Canadian-born activist is due to be extradited to Costa Rica over an attempt to stop a shark finning operation in 2002.
Hélène Hofman May 13, 2012 18:17

The founder of the anti-whaling Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Paul Watson, has been arrested in Germany and will be extradited to Costa Rica.

Watson, who was born in Canada and has US citizenship, was stopped by authorities at Frankfort airport on his way to France, the Costa Rica Star says.

He is due to appear in court next Thursday on charges relating to what the newspaper describes as a "bizarre situation that unfolded near Isla del Coco, in the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, back in 2002".

The ABC quotes from a statement released by the group, which labeled the arrest as "nonsense".

More:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/germany/120513/sea-shepherd-founder-paul-watson-arrested-germany

His solipsistic view of things wore thin with when I saw his lack of seamanship.

It can't be both high seas and Guatemalan waters, it is either/or.
The laws can be quite different.

Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson Arrested in Germany on 10 Year Old Warrant
Mat McDermott
Living / Culture
May 14, 2012

Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd, was arrested in Frankfurt, Germany on Saturday, on a 10 year old warrant, issued by Costa Rica.

The warrant stems from an incident that occurred while filming the documentary Sharkwater, in 2002. Sea Shepherd gave their account of the events on their site:

The specific “violation of ships traffic” incident took place on the high seas in Guatemalan waters, when Sea Shepherd encountered an illegal shark finning operation, run by a Costa Rican ship called the Varadero. On order of the Guatemalan authorities, Sea Shepherd instructed the crew of the Varadero to cease their shark finning activities and head back to port to be prosecuted. While escorting the Varadero back to port, the tables were turned and a Guatemalan gunboat was dispatched to intercept the Sea Shepherd crew. The crew of the Varadero accused the Sea Shepherds of trying to kill them, while the video evidence proves this to be a fallacy. To avoid the Guatemalan gunboat, Sea Shepherd then set sail for Costa Rica, where they uncovered even more illegal shark finning activities in the form of dried shark fins by the thousands on the roofs of industrial buildings.

BBC News reports Watson is due in court this morning. More info when we have it.
•

http://www.treehugger.com/culture/sea-shepherd-paul-watson-arrested-germany.html

the sea animals.

Anti-whaling activist arrested for ramming boat 10 years ago
Guy Adams
Los Angeles
Tuesday 15 May 2012

An anti-whaling activist, famed for televised confrontations with fishermen, has been arrested for allegedly attempting to use his boat to sink an illegal shark fishing vessel off the coast of Guatemala.

Paul Watson, the founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, was detained at Frankfurt airport on Sunday on an international warrant filed by Costa Rican authorities accusing him of a "violation of ships traffic" during an incident which occurred 10 years ago, while filming a documentary called Sharkwater.

He is accused of using his ship, the Farley Mowat, to ram a vessel called the Varadero, which was observed conducting illegal shark-finning activities. In claims filed with prosecutors in 2002, several members of the crew described Watson's behaviour as attempted murder.

Charges against Mr Watson were examined by Costa Rican authorities and swiftly dropped, after videotape of the incident was aired. However the case was recently re-opened by new prosecutors who filed the extradition request under which he is now being held.

More:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antiwhaling-activist-arrested-for-ramming-boat-10-years-ago-7746817.html

"Charges against Mr Watson were examined by Costa Rican authorities and swiftly dropped, after videotape of the incident was aired. However the case was recently re-opened by new prosecutors who filed the extradition request under which he is now being held. "

Environmentalists are the n-----s of the world now.

meaningful work that makes a difference. Whaling is revolting.

May 16, 2012
Sea Shepherd attorney speaks out following German government decision
Gillean Smith

Today in Frankfurt, Germany the general Public Prosecutor to the Higher Regional Court requested a preliminary extradition arrest warrant against Sea Shepherd Conservation Society founder Captain Paul Watson, on the basis of the local arrest warrant and request for extradition from Costa Rica.

Shortly after this morning's news from the German court, one of Watson's attorneys sent out the following statement:

Dear all,

Today I received the request from the general public prosecutor in Frankfurt to the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt to issue a preliminary extradition arrest warrant against Paul WATSON on the basis of the local arrest warrant and the request for extradition from Costa Rica. The general public prosecutor gives notice, that the Costa Rican authorities have asked for extradition on a charge which is also a criminal act under the German law (dual criminality rule); the general public prosecutor is concerned that the preliminary arrest is necessary because of the likelihood of an escape of the client.

At this stage of the procedure we do not have all the evidence and we do not have any extradition papers from the Costa Rican authorities. Therefore the public prosecutor only asks for a preliminary extradition warrant; he does not ask for a decision of the court concerning the extradition itself. Absolutely unusual - I never had this experience in all my practice in cross border cases - is the fact, that the public prosecutor stated that the German Ministry of Justice and the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs have the power to stop the extradition procedure on political reasons.

More:
http://www.examiner.com/article/sea-shepherd-attorney-speaks-out-following-german-government-decision