http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/sea-shepherd-lose-ady-gil-after-collision-with-whaler/story-e6frfku0-1225817238562

I think most of those criticizing Sea Shepherd here have substantial amount of time at sea. Also most of us are active in conservation efforts, research, and outreach. I think none of us here could be considered “sitting in our arm chairs”.

The worst thing that could happen to Watson is for whaling to suddenly end.

As his luck would have it, that is not likely to happen anytime soon, because as Kevin Zelnio points out people like SS has done more, not less, to entrench opinion in whaling countries.

I’ll posit my theory (tape down the caps lock key and commence flaming): Arguments against whaling fail because they overwhelmingly tend to take the form of a moral dictum, which comes across as patronizing at best and insulting at worst when levelled against people — e.g., the Japanese, Norwegians, Icelanders, or for that matter native Greenlanders — for whom whaling is utilitarian.

Let me put that another way. You (not you but a generic anti-whaling you) are talking to Norwegians or Japanese from the point of view, which seems self-evident to you, that killing whales and seals is morally wrong. Therefore, they are behaving immorally and would stop if you could only succeed in making them understand that. What they’re hearing you make, on the other hand, is an emotional argument to the effect that some mammals are morally distinct from other mammals, e.g. cattle, because they live in the ocean and don’t have legs, therefore eating them is wrong. Oh, and also they sing. Pass the ham, please. Any hope of mutual understanding ends right there.

The only way to have a productive discussion with people in other countries who consider marine mammals a resource — and I’ll stand up and say I’m one of those people — is to present resource conservation arguments and discuss whaling in those terms. That’s not glamorous, it doesn’t feel like “action,” and it doesn’t fire up the righteous indignation that brings in the bucks to buy boats. It doesn’t come with the instant gratification of feeling like you’re fighting a “war” on the “good” side. It certainly doesn’t get you your own TV show. What it does do is get both sides back out of the trenches to actually achieve something.

“He admitted in the Diet that there were cultural differences over whaling, and in the way that Japan hunted, and conducted its science.

But he said it was unforgivable to illegally interfere with whaling, referring to the stand-off over the detention of two Sea Shepherd activists who boarded a Japanese catcher vessel last week.”

It is not always good to do something if that something is illegal, irresponsibly dangers lives, irresponsibly uses donor’s money, ignores national and international maritime laws, and has not over an extended trial period resulted in accomplishing any stated goals. When something doesn’t work repeatedly, do you keep doing the same thing over and over again for 30 years or do you find another innovative way to solve a problem? The record is skipping and no one is moving the needle at Sea Shepherd.