2007/12: Protecting whales: are the actions of radical conservation groups such as Sea Shepherd too extreme?<BR>

2006-2007 Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window

Related issue outlines:
2006/19: Should the ban on commercial whaling be lifted?

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
whales
whaling

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page

2007/12: Protecting whales: are the actions of radical conservation groups such as Sea Shepherd too extreme?<BR>

2007/12: Protecting whales: are the actions of radical conservation groups such as Sea Shepherd too extreme?

What they said ...
'When Sea Shepherd ships show up, the whalers stop the killing and they run'
Paul Watson, head of Sea Shepherd

'Their [Sea Shepherd's] behaviour is the same as terrorist attacks ... If possible, we'd like to file a lawsuit against the group and stop such activities'
Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, the director of the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research's survey division

The issue at a glance
On March 23 2007, a Japanese whaling vessel, the Nisshin Maru, returned to port after what appears to have been an accidental fire.
This brought an early end to Japan's annual whale hunt in Antarctic waters. Whaling in Antarctic waters is banned.
Japan avoids the ban as it claims that its whale hunt is conducted for research purposes. Opponents dispute this as after the research is conducted the whale meat is then sold for consumption. It is also claimed that no valid scientific findings have ever resulted from the research.
The Japanese whaling fleet is regularly harried by the radical conservation group Sea Shepherd.
This year Japanese video depicted protesters aboard a Sea Shepherd ship flying a skull-and-crossbones flag. They are claimed to have launched smoke canisters, thrown containers filled with chemicals, and dropped ropes and nets to entangle the whalers' propellers.
After the Nisshin Maru returned to Japan some officials within Japan threatened to sue Sea Shepherd for what they claimed were its dangerous and illegal actions. There is no suggestion that Sea Shepherd was responsible for the fire on board the Nissin Maru.
The debate surrounding the appropriateness of Sea Shepherd's actions continues.

Background
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a non-profit, non-governmental, primarily maritime organisation which has as its self-proclaimed purpose the policing of international conservation law. It claims to undertake campaigns guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature (1982) and other statutory laws protecting marine species and environments.
The society was founded by Paul Watson, one of the three founders of Greenpeace. Watson wanted to directly intervene to stop environmental damage and actually to enforce international laws, regulations, and treaties.
Sea Shepherd is based in Friday Harbor, Washington, in the United States, and has a fleet of three vessels the Farley Mowat, the Robert Hunter and the Sirenian, as well as several smaller boats.
Sea Shepherd operations include acting against whaling in Antarctic waters, patrols of the Galapagos Islands, and action against Canadian seal hunters. Sea Shepherd claims to have sunk ten whaling ships since 1979.
The organisation admits to having scuttled and sunk fishing boats engaged in fishery operations while in harbor, the sabotage of vessels in harbour, ramming the whaling ship Sierra in Portuguese harbour, and the seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea. Sea Shepherd has also conducted an intense media campaign especially directed against Japanese high-seas whaling and the Canadian sealing industry.
Sea Shepherd bases its actions on enforcement of international maritime law under the United Nations World Charter for Nature; however, the organisation has no official mandate or authorization to enforce any legislation. Sea Shepherd was deprived of its status as an International Whaling Commission(IWC) observer after sinking Icelandic vessels in 1986. In 1994, IWC Secretary Ray Gambell stated 'the IWC and all its members ardently condemn Sea Shepherd's acts of terrorism.'
Supporters of Sea Shepherd's actions claim they are necessary because countries such as Australia are too fearful of losing Japanese trade to enforce international environmental law and they claim that small countries in the IWC which support whaling have been bought by Japanese development aid.
Despite its frequent legal troubles in various nations, Sea Shepherd currently has working agreements with several countries, including Ecuador, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Indonesia, to help those countries fight poaching, and in the past has worked against poaching in co-operation with the United States government.
[For a more detailed treatment of Sea Shepherd see Wikipedia's entry which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd]

Internet information
Sea Shepherd's home page can be found at http://www.seashepherd.org/
The site details the aims of the organisation, the justifications it gives for its actions, some of the campaigns in which it is currently involved and includes a 'News' section where media reports on its actions can be accessed. Many of the media reports are news releases issued by Sea Shepherd.

Greenpeace is a non-profit conservation organisation, with a presence in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific. One of its key projects is opposition to whaling around the globe. It has monitored and attempted to impede whaling in both southern and northern oceans.
It is typically regarded as a much more moderate organisation than Sea Shepherd. Sea Shepherd has recently accused Greenpeace of actively impeding its operations intended to halt Japanese whaling in the Antarctic.
Greenpeace's Internet site gives detailed arguments against whaling.
This can be found at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/save-our-seas-2/save-the-whales/japanese-whaling

The Japanese Whaling Association is a Japan-based lobby group that defends whaling for scientific purposes and is seeking to have the moratorium on commercial whaling lifted.
Its Internet site gives a great deal of information in support of the pro-whaling position. Two sections of particular interest are the Q & A (question and answer) section and the 'History of Whaling' section. The whole site repays careful investigation.
It can be found at http://www.whaling.jp/english/index.html

The Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) is the Japanese body which oversees Japan's whaling program for scientific research. The body has an Internet page containing many media releases and videos critical of Sea Shepherd's activities.
From the index heading 'Illegal Harassment and Terrorism against ICR Research' you will find a further link titled 'Sea Shepherd's violent history'. This is a chronological listing of the supposedly illegal activities in which Sea Shepherd is said to have been involved.
The ICR's Internet site can be found at http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm

In January 2006, the ABC's Catalyst program presented a 12-minute segment on scientific whaling. In this segment, a panel of experts goes through all known research documents arising from Japanese whaling. The program raises serious doubts about the validity of Japan's claim to be conducting scientific research via its whale hunts. A direct link to the Internet version of this program can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/science/broadband/catalyst/asx/whalescience_hi.asx Caution: you will need a fairly fast connection speed to view this film - broadband preferably

Stop Eco-Violence! (SEV) is an advocacy organisation which aims to raise the awareness of eco-terrorism and the harm it causes others and to support legal efforts to stop violent conservation organisations. SEV will not name the individuals or organisations that support it financially. It claims this is because it fears they will be targeted by eco-terrorists. There are those who have suggested that the group is a front for organisations that cause environmental damage.
SEV's Internet site can be found at http://www.stopecoviolence.org/

Arguments in favour of the actions of radical conservation groups such as Sea Shepherd
1. These radical conservationists are acting to protect endangered species
The founder of Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, has claimed that his sole concern is the preservation of endangered marine species.
Mr Watson has stated that during 35 years at sea he has seen populations of marine life diminish considerably and says that nearly all the world's fisheries are collapsing, creating 'very serious biodiversity issues.'
'I'm not interested in being politically correct and never have been, but I've always been interested in being ecologically correct and speaking to the truth of these issues,' Mr Watson has declared.
Referring specifically to Japanese whaling practices and the threat they pose to marine life, Sea Shepherd has noted, 'The Japanese whale extermination plan labelled JARPA II will slaughter 17,000 piked whales, 800 fin whales, and 800 humpback whales over the next few years.'
This year, 2007, Japanese whalers had a target of 860 whales. They were forced to return to port having taken 508 of that total.
The radical conservation groups are not alone in their concern about the threat whaling poses to a range of marine populations. Japan's program to take up to 935 minke whales and 10 fin whales this summer was the subject of a joint diplomatic protest in Tokyo by Australia and 20 other nations in December 2006.

2. Radical conservationists act against nations and individuals that are breaking the law
The group claims it 'is dedicated to working towards cooperative agreements between nations to protect species and habitats according to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Mandate.'
On its Internet site the group state, 'The mandate of the organization was marine mammal protection and conservation with an immediate goal of shutting down illegal whaling and sealing operations.
Sea Shepherd [has conducted an] historical 160 voyages over two decades, enforcing international laws where no law enforcement existed - on the high seas ...
Sea Shepherd assists national and international bodies in the enforcement of international law under authority of the United Nations World Charter for Nature.'
Sea Shepherd cites nations such as Japan which it claims pursues its whaling operations in violation of international law. Of Japanese whaling it claims 'The Japanese whale kill is illegal ... This Japanese whaling operation is in violation of many international laws and regulations, including the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling.
They are targeting endangered fin and humpback whales that are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (CITES). The Japanese whalers are also in violation of the Australian laws protecting the Australian Antarctic Territorial waters.'

3. The measures taken by more moderate conservationist groups are less effective
Radical conservationists argue that the methods used by more moderate conservationists do not work. For example, Paul Watson, the head of Sea Shepherd, has been highly critical of Greenpeace's failure to prevent Japanese whalers from continuing to operate.
Mr Watson has stated, 'The problem has been that Greenpeace has been unable to stop the Japanese after a decade of campaigns where they have chased the Japanese ships displaying their protest banners ...You would think that after a decade of expensive campaigns that Greenpeace would have realised that the Japanese fleet does not give a damn about protests. Sea Shepherd is not down here to protest, we are down here to enforce international conservation law and to stop the illegal whaling operations of Japan.'
Mr Watson has further claimed, 'The best way to tell the difference between the Sea Shepherd approach to whaling and that of Greenpeace is this: When Greenpeace shows up in Antarctica, they film whaling and buzz the whalers in inflatable boats. The whalers simply continue whaling looking at Greenpeacers as a minor annoyance. When Sea Shepherd ships show up, the whalers stop the killing and they run.'
A New Zealand born member of Sea Shepherd, Simeon Houton, has stated, 'We are the only ones actually willing to go down and stop them...whaling has been completely illegal for 20 years and there's nothing being done about it. They [Japan] are still going down there slaughtering whales so this is the only tactic, and I think that a lot of people actually do appreciate the fact that we are going down there and taking a stand against these types of actions.'

4. Radical conservation groups do not aim to endanger human life
Radical conservation groups such as Sea Shepherd claim that their intention is never to endanger human lives and that they use non-violent strategies. As part of its mission statement Sea Shepherd states, 'Sea Shepherd adheres to the utilization of non-violent principles in the course of all actions and has taken a standard against violence in the protection of the oceans.'
Paul Watson, the head of Sea Shepherd, has stressed that Sea Shepherd records and sometimes blocks acts of animal cruelty but that acts of violence that may occur are generally taken by those they are opposing and sometimes by law enforcement agents.
In an article published in the New Zealand Herald describing Sea Shepherd's efforts to film the slaughter of seals in the Gulf of St Lawrence, Watson wrote, 'The authorities were alarmed that we pointed cameras at the sealers but when a sealer aimed a high powered rifle with scope at another crewmember and myself, the Mounties refused my request to order him to desist from aiming his weapon at us.
So aggressive were the Coast Guard that they narrowly missed ramming the Farley Mowat with their 300-foot icebreaker Amundsen. Only by going into full reverse was the Farley Mowat able to prevent the collision.'
Sea Shepherd has also noted that it frequently has inaccurate accusations made about it. For example the group has been condemned for hurling acid onto the decks of vessels engaged in whaling. It has been claimed that this is a dangerous act with the capacity to harm human beings. However, Sea Shepherd has countered by claiming that it throws smoke bombs and bottles containing foul-smelling butyric acid aboard, both with the intention of halting or interfering with the whaling operation, but not with the intention of harming the whalers.
Paul Watson, the head of Sea Shepherd, has stated, '... in 30 years of operations we have not injured a single person nor have we had a single crewmember seriously injured. We have not been convicted of a single felony.'

5. These groups act in accord with a range of international treaties, declarations and conventions
Groups such as Sea Shepherd claim that they act in accord with international laws and treaties.
As part of its mission statement Sea Shepherd claims, 'We accomplish ...[our] goals through public education, investigation, documentation and, where appropriate and where legal authority exists under international law or under agreement with national governments, enforcement of violations of the international treaties, laws and conventions designed to protect the oceans.'
The same document further states 'Sea Shepherd campaigns are guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature. Sections 21-24 of the Charter provide authority to individuals to act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws.'
Sea Shepherd also states it 'cooperates fully with all international law enforcement agencies and its enforcement activities complying with standard practices of law and policing enforcement.'
Groups such as Sea Shepherd claim that their primary mission to is to uphold the law. They claim they are operating to stop whalers and others who are in breach of a wide variety of international conservation charters.
On its Internet site Sea Shepherd claims it acts to support the following international treaties and declarations:
The World Charter for Nature
U.N. Doc. A/37/51 (1982)
The International Whaling Commission (IWC)
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
March 3rd, 1973, Washington, D.C.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
December 10th, 1982, Montego Bay
The Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
November 23rd, 1972, Paris, France
The Convention of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention (NAFO)
International Convention for Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT)
The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
June 5th -16th, 1972, Stockholm, Sweden
ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
July 9th, 1985, Kuala Lumpur
The Berne Convention
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species

Arguments against the actions of radical conservation groups such as Sea Shepherd
1. A number of radical conservation groups are said to act outside the law
Japanese whalers and those of other nations who have had their activities blocked by groups such as Sea Shepherd claim that Sea Shepherd is acting illegally.
Japanese whalers have threatened to sue the environmental group Sea Shepherd for physically attempting to thwart the fleet's government-backed research hunt earlier this year in the Southern Ocean.
Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, the director of the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research's survey division, stated, 'Their [Sea Shepherd's] behaviour is the same as terrorist attacks ... If possible, we'd like to file a lawsuit against the group and stop such activities.'
The institute has displayed photos of the Sea Shepherd ship Robert Hunter apparently set to collide with the Nisshin Maru. Crew members on the protest vessel were seen throwing containers filled with chemicals and smoke canisters, as well as ropes and nets to entangle the whaler's propellers.
It has further been claimed that contrary to assertions made by Paul Watson, the head of sea Shepherd, that he and other members of his organisation have been found guilty of acting illegally in the manner in which they have acted to protect certain animal species.
In 1983 Paul Watson and Paul Pezwick, another member of Sea Shepherd, were tried and convicted in a Quebec court for 'interfering in the annual seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence'. The trial followed their arrest in March 1983 when a Sea Shepherd vessel was boarded by Canadian police. Watson was charged additionally with piloting a ship in a dangerous manner, intimidation of the sealers and being unlawfully within a half mile of the seal hunt - a violation of the Seal
Protection Regulations. Watson was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment.
There are other radical conservation groups who have behaved in a far more sustainedly illegal manner. In January 2006 eleven people were charged in the United States for an alleged five-year arson spree that justice officials called a 'vast eco-terrorist conspiracy'. A total of 65 charges were laid for attacks in five western states which the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front admitted carrying out.
The damage to the targets, including forest ranger stations and meat processing plants, ran to $23m.
In may 2005 senior FBI counter-terrorism expert John Lewis said so-called eco-warriors had committed 1,200 criminal acts between 1990 and 2004 in the United States, causing millions of dollars of damage.

2. Radical conservation groups use violent measures that put human lives at risk
Although Sea Shepherd claims to be non-violent and to never have caused the death or injury of anyone against who they have protested, their critics claim that the methods they use are dangerous and may one day result in the loss of human life.
For example, it has been claimed that in 1986 Sea Shepherd attempted to stop the Faroe Islands pilot whale harvest. It has been claimed that using rifles, Sea Shepherd activists shoot at Faroe Islands police in an attempt to sink their rubber dinghies. The
Sea Shepherd vessel was ordered to leave Faroese territorial waters. The police report of 7 October 1986 states, 'One of the rubber dinghies was attacked directly by a Speed Line rifle. The attack ... endangered the lives of the police crew members ... and signal flares containing phosphorous were thrown at the police. At a later stage the Sea Shepherd used "toads" (rotating iron spikes, pointed and sharp at both ends) against the rubber dinghies ... petrol was poured over the side of the ship and signal flares were thrown from the Sea Shepherd vessel in an attempt to set the petrol on fire.'
In 1991 Scott Trimmingham, then president of Sea Shepherd left the organisation, apparently in protest at its use of violent measures. Mr Trimmingham has been quoted as saying, 'We had rules about not hurting anyone, about not using weapons. I left because those rules and that philosophy seems to be changing.'
Paul Watson is claimed to have stated at a 2002 Animal Rights Convention in Washington DC that if a person were to die as a result of one of his actions he would consider the death 'collateral damage'.

3. There are better ways of protecting endangered species than the extreme actions these groups take
It has been claimed that there are far better ways of advancing the cause of environmentalism than the potentially dangerous actions taken by groups such as Sea Shepherd. Paul Gray, a columnist for the Herald Sun, wrote, in an opinion piece published on February 19, 2007, 'There's little doubt the environmental consciousness of most Australians has risen in recent years.
But this is not the result of repeated high-profile activism, a mixed blessing for the green cause.
Where the rise in consciousness has occurred is through the exposure of millions of suburbanites, particularly young ones, to effective education about the marvellous complexity of life on earth in its many forms.
TV series like Sir David Attenborough's Life on Earth and the talents of the late Steve Irwin combine with zoos and nature parks to make hands-on environmentalism part of growing up.'
Less extreme conservation groups such as Greenpeace appear to believe that a less interventionist approach is likely to be more effective. As part of the mission statement on their Internet site they claim, 'We promote open, informed debate about society's environmental choices. We use research, lobbying, and quiet diplomacy to pursue our goals, as well as high-profile, non-violent conflict to raise the level and quality of public debate.' Organisations such as Greenpeace believe that public education and heightened government awareness of environmental issues are the best ways of advancing the cause of conservation.

4. Radical conservation groups damage the conservation cause
It has been claimed that extremist conservation groups actually damage their cause because the general public is unlikely to accept the dangerous methods they employ.
Paul Gray, a columnist for the Herald Sun, wrote, in an opinion piece published on February 19, 2007, 'Extreme green protesters, like the violent G20 activists who have broken the law during several international summit meetings, are often excoriated in just this way by the community's loudest voices ... protesters who endanger the lives of whalers while trying to save the whales are not going to win widespread support ... The ire of the public can still easily be ignited against lobbying that goes too far. Activists who really do want to change the world, not just get their names on TV, should bear this in mind.'

5. Radical conservation groups have split the conservation movement
It has been claimed that the more radical methods used by groups such as Sea Shepherd will alienate the public and turn governments and law enforcement agencies against the conservation movement. Thus, there are many within the conservation movement who disapprove of the actions taken by radical conservationists because they fear that these radical will bring the whole movement into disrepute. Therefore, many moderate conservation groups deliberately hold themselves apart from the extremist groups.
The concern here is that this split further damages the conservation movement in the eyes of the public. It also fragments the efforts of the movement. For example, Paul Watson, the head of Sea Shepherd, has recently claimed that Greenpeace has actively intervened to frustrate Sea Shepherd's anti-whaling operations.
Whatever the truth of such accusations, critics of Sea Shepherd have suggested that its radical actions have served to split the conservation movement and that this can only damage the cause as a whole.
An indication of the extent of the rift within the environment movement is that there exists within the United States a group titled 'Stop Eco-Violence'. In its mission statement it asserts, 'Stop Eco-Violence (SEV) is a grassroots advocacy organisation committed to raising the awareness of eco-terrorism and the harm it causes others, and to building the unified support necessary for the advancement of legislative and law enforcement efforts to eradicate violence perpetrated in support of environmentally motivated agendas. Backed by a broad coalition of supporters, SEV was founded on the core principle that violence is no solution to addressing environmental and social issues.'
There are those who argue that where organisations have been established specifically to counter other organisations then significant harm is being done to the environmental cause.

Further implications
It is unlikely that the current actions of Sea Shepherd will either put an end to whaling or be decisive in turning public opinion around such that the world community comes to support a resumption of whaling in the southern hemisphere.
Opposition to whaling within the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is clearly softening, though this would appear to be the result of the success of lobbying by countries such as Japan and Norway and perhaps is also effected by the financial clout of Japan as a trading partner and source of economic aid for many of the nations in the Commission.
It seems likely that if whale killing around the world is allowed to increase then the actions of groups such as Sea Shepherd are likely to become more extreme not less.
In the long run, however, it is likely that conservation groups will become less extreme. Concern over global warming and the probable extinction (at least in the wild) of many iconic species is serving to heighten environmental awareness around the world. Support for conservation issues is fast becoming a mainstream position which politicians and others cannot afford to ignore. Many environmental warriors are likely to be able to put done their smoke bombs for a microphone or a camera.
The power of the media to shape public opinion in this area becomes greater as media magnates recognise and feed the shift in popular views.
On the other hand, the general fear of political terrorists is likely to make people less and less tolerant of those whose behave violently in support of any cause, even one with strong popular appeal.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age, November 15, page 15, analysis (ref in part to Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd Society ships, activists) by Andrew Darby, `Hunters and protectors'.
The Age, January 10, page 7, news item by Andrew Darby, `Anti-whaling "pirates" get more muscle for Antarctic skirmish'.
The Age, January 16, page 11, comment (on Japanese awareness of issues, incl whaling) by Tets Kimura, `Getting to know the Japanese'.
The Age, January 30, page 7, news item by Andrew Darby, `Britain to deregister anti-whaler after Japan pipes up' (ref to Sea Shepherd Society's ship Robert Hunter).
The Age, February 9, page 3, news item (ref to Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd Society ships) by Andrew Darby, `All at sea'.
The Age, February 12, page 7, news item by Andrew Darby, `Film shows attempts to stop whalers'.
The Australian, February 13, page 7, news item, `They rammed our ship'.
The Age, February 13, page 3, news item, `Whaler, greenies collide'.
H/SUN, February 14, page 9, news item, `Whale fleet on the run' .
The Australian, February 14, page 9, news item by Peter Alford, `Japanese whalers and greenies get physical'.
The Age, February 14, page 2, news item by Andrew Darby, `Tensions ease in anti-whaling fight'.
The Age, February 15, page 10, news item by Andrew Darby, `Activist "pirates" head for Melbourne'.
H/SUN, February 16, page 12, news item by W Flower, `Fire stops whalers'.
The Australian, February 17, page 12, news item by Peter Alford, `NZ wants whale ship away from Antarctica'.
The Age, February 17, page 11, analysis by A Darby, `Sea Shepherd leaps from ignominy to hero status'.
H/SUN, February 19, page 18, comment by Paul Gray, `Whale of a lesson for protesters'.
The Age, February 19, page 7, news item by Andrew Darby, `Whalers face pressure to withdraw fire ship'.
H/SUN, February 20, page 14, news item by Sarah Wotherspoon, `Sea warrior shows its scars'.
The Age, February 20, page 7, news item by Miletic and Darby, `Whaler-hunters claim victory as ship limps into port'.
The Age, February 26, page 7, news item by Andrew Darby, `Japanese whaling ship sails after fire'.
H/SUN, March 24, page 28, news item, `Ship had 500 whales in hull'.

Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.