Jump to content

Sea Shepherd in Shetland


Mattie
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not contradicting myself at all!. In reality the Faroese don't have to hunt whales because the times of subsistance living etc are gone.

 

My problem is that SS are harassing a small island community which they know, nor care, very little about. They're doing nothing but picking a fight with a small ancient people whose lifestyle of catching whales has been handed down to them. SS have no right to storm in and dictate what the Faroese should and shouldn't be doing.

 

Mark my words, these leftist environmental "crusaders" are thugs and will take the law into their own hands when it comes down to it.

 

I'm not for or against the practise of the Faroese catching whales. If I'm honest I didn't like the picture of the mother with the calf hanging out and lying on the pier but I'm not going to stoor to Faroe, foaming at the mouth, demanding that they stop.

 

As usual the LPA wash their hands of the issue.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I am living in a country where factory farms are usual and vegetarians the minority I think I have no right to tell the Faroese people how to behave.

 

It should be the decision of the Faroese people to abandon the sensless Grindadráp like I hope the Spanish people will do with their bullfighting ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always a controversial subject but how come whales and seals get such special treatment when it comes to the animals human beings kill and eat?

 

Fair enough if a species is near extinction and the predation is putting the species at risk but that is not the case with the small amount of pilot whales being killed in Faroe.

 

Yes whales exhibit some intelligence but so do many other creatures that are killed for human consumption.

 

I also think that if seals had evolved to look like giant slugs then no one would bat an eyelid if we killed them. The fact that they have cute puppy dog faces is what creates their special status in my opinion.

 

Tha halal and kosher slaughter of animals is pretty gruesome but we don't see greenpeace on the case there. Doesn't seem that different to how the Faroese are killing these whales. Probably too much hard work for Greenpeace to get involved in religion tho.

 

As human beings to be 100% clean in our morals we should not eat or harm any animals. To pick and choose the animals that can be killed and how they are killed is hypocrisy.

 

Off course this is never going to happen so we have to agree on some unilateral points, ie not killing endangered species and having agreed methods of slaughter. To try and transfer our cultural cuisine values to other countries is bit arrogant really. I mean eating horse meat doesn't rock my boat but it is eaten in many countries. Difficult to argue the difference between horses and other animals on the 'what deserves to be eaten chart'!

 

Conversely the whaling in Faroe will definitely die out. Much quicker if left alone by Greenpeace. One of the reasons it continues is that they are so annoyed by the actions of external pressure groups they almost continue it in a show of defiance. Left alone this would disappear much more quickly. Young folk are really not that interested but they dislike outsiders interfering in their culture even more.

 

Greenpeace are irritating because they are completely self appointed and unaccountable. They then aggresively preach their version of morality to the rest of society, quite often through dangerous and unlawful activity. They are not that unlike some well known religions in this sense.

 

If is difficult to see what they stand for unless the whim of the latest idealistic recruits to their crusade. As mentioned halal and kosher killing are a pretty medieval way to be slaughtering animals and thousand of animals are killed in this way every day all over the world, and more specifically within the UK itself. However Greenpeace prefers a hugely expensive campaign against the killing of 200 pilot whales. You have to wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I just thought, depending on how they feel, that they could have released a press statement distancing themselves from the Sea Shepherd organisation and their actions.

 

But maybe as an official organisation they have to remain neutral(i.e silent) and I seem to remember Allan Wishart waffling on about something that because Lerwick is a "British" port they can't legally stop anybody from entering(something to do with the rights of passage incase of war).

 

I was going to edit my post in the one you quote from and remove that sentance because of my above thoughts but the edit buttom seems to be gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If is difficult to see what they stand for unless the whim of the latest idealistic recruits to their crusade. As mentioned halal and kosher killing are a pretty medieval way to be slaughtering animals and thousand of animals are killed in this way every day all over the world, and more specifically within the UK itself. However Greenpeace prefers a hugely expensive campaign against the killing of 200 pilot whales. You have to wonder why?

Well, it's not Greenpeace, this is Sea Shepherd, which was created by that guy Watson, a former GP member who thought GP were not aggressive enough. As rightly pointed out above, SS are never seen when it comes to the Spanish bullfighting, killing of kangaroos in Australia etc. Millions of animals get killed by hobbyist hunters annually in the US alone. But SS prefer to attack small island nations who have been dependant on fisheries and marine harvesting during their entire history.

 

Yes, the pilot whale hunting will probably die out sooner or later, the annual catches are decreasing year by year and the Faroese health authority is discouraging people from eating the pilot whale meat because of a high concentration of mercury and other dangerous substances. I don't agree though that this hunt is more barbarian than what's going on in trivial slaughterhouses. In recent decades there were made some legal changes, prohibiting the use of several types of hooks during the hunt, and nowadays the whales are slaughtered by special knives, so they die within a matter of seconds, 1-2 minutes at most. The usual fishing when fish is caught and let be dying in the atmosphere for hours is much more barbarian than this, but nobody cares.

 

Speaking of seals, this is another sad story of how these green extremists are making damage to people's living. The infamous trade ban on seal products, courtesy of Greenpeace, which was originally aimed against the hunting of young seals in Canada, also affected the seal products exports from Greenland, even though Greenlanders do not hunt for young seals and use other methods than Canadians. Greenpeace did recognise their mistake where Greenland was concerned and was going to officially apologise, but then withdrew their apology ("we do no wrong"). The ignorance of these "green" hippies from big cities, who think they are the ones to tell the world what's right and what's wrong, has cost small Greenlandic villages as much as their livelihood.

 

The vegetarianism these guys are suggesting in a direct or indirect way is another example of their arrogance. A vegetarian diet is on average 3 times more expensive than the usual one featuring meat and is not affordable by many. And if all the 5-6 billion humans will give up eating meat and start being vegetarian, I think they will eat up all grass and tree leaves on Earth within a month, what will mean the end of life on our planet. We are predators, we need meat, which means we have to kill animals for it. Even though this looks so sad, this is the natural course of things and the only way to maintain balance in our nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vegetarianism these guys are suggesting in a direct or indirect way is another example of their arrogance. A vegetarian diet is on average 3 times more expensive than the usual one featuring meat and is not affordable by many. And if all the 5-6 billion humans will give up eating meat and start being vegetarian, I think they will eat up all grass and tree leaves on Earth within a month, what will mean the end of life on our planet. We are predators, we need meat, which means we have to kill animals for it. Even though this looks so sad, this is the natural course of things and the only way to maintain balance in our nature.

 

Where on earth do you get this from? I'm vegetarian and would argue that a vegetarian diet is considerably cheaper than a non-vegetarian one (just check any restaurant menu for price comparisons!).

 

I don't see why LPA should be expected to take any sort of stand. If these people are paying their harbour dues then they are just as entitled to use the harbour as anyone else - whether or not you agree with what they stand for.

 

And as for the organisation not getting involved with bullfighting etc protests - as someone earlier pointed out, the clue is in the title!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I just thought, depending on how they feel, that they could have released a press statement distancing themselves from the Sea Shepherd organisation and their actions.

 

But maybe as an official organisation they have to remain neutral(i.e silent) and I seem to remember Allan Wishart waffling on about something that because Lerwick is a "British" port they can't legally stop anybody from entering(something to do with the rights of passage incase of war).

 

I was going to edit my post in the one you quote from and remove that sentance because of my above thoughts but the edit buttom seems to be gone.

 

Even if they "had" to allow them to use the harbour, they could have made them as "unwelcome" as possible, by allocating then a berth at Heogan or at least as far away as Dales Voe. In practice it wouldn't have made much difference, but at least there would have been the symbolism of bunging them "out of sight, out of mind". Right next to the north boat ramp in the middle of whatever tourist season we may be having, is about as overtly advertising the fact SS are here as you can get.

 

Whatever the "legal" status of the LPA on the issue, local businesses bunkering and supplying them with stores are highly unlikely to be similarly constrained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where on earth do you get this from? I'm vegetarian and would argue that a vegetarian diet is considerably cheaper than a non-vegetarian one (just check any restaurant menu for price comparisons!).

This is from an interview with a dietologist I read not so long ago. He argued that a vegetarian had to eat a larger amount of food than a non-vegetarian. I think in general he might be right, especially if we take into account people who are working physically, those living in cold areas, children, teenagers etc. P.S. I've tried vegetarian/non-meat diets in the past myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purely from my own experience, I would have to disagree with that and I'm pretty certain I've read many articles etc which claim that vegetarian diets can be cheaper. Not that this really has anything to do with this thread so apologies for deviating!

 

I still cannot see why LPA should take a stance just because some people disagree with what this organisation represents - we are all entitled to express our views after all. If I disagree with BP's practices, purely for example, should I go huffing and puffing to LPA asking them to ban them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Its more a case of being disappointed that the LPA haven't taken a stance than demanding they do. They're entitled to behave in any way they see fit. By not taking a stance, it can be taken to mean they're tacitly condoning, if not actually supporting SS. Remaining neutral is extremly difficult with something like SS when you're a provider of something they need.

 

While I'm not going to argue SS's alleged aims aren't very laudable, they are after all self-styled "pirates". In the simplest terms, they're a crowd of self-appointed vigilates, accountable to no-one, who force upon others the "rules" as SS believe they should be.

 

If an unaccountable self-appointed vigilante gang were roaming Shetland, enforcing on anyone and everyone "rules" that they believed to be "right", would you, if you were a business owner in Shetland, willingly trade with them in any way that progressed their advancement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, what would the reaction be if one of the boats used to round up and beach the pilot whales in Faeroe was to call in at Lerwick? Would they be confined to the Green Head base and persecuted as vicious and barbaric murderers with calls for the authorities to ban them from entering port, or would they be welcomed with open arms as our oppressed northern neighbours?

 

Just a thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the Co-op who are supplying them food? Captain Flints and The Lounge are selling them drink! The oil companies supplying fuel, the engineering companies doing work on their boats!

 

The local media are even giving them publicity! Whatever next? Will the Pipe band be going along to serenade them? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, what would the reaction be if one of the boats used to round up and beach the pilot whales in Faeroe was to call in at Lerwick? Would they be confined to the Green Head base and persecuted as vicious and barbaric murderers with calls for the authorities to ban them from entering port, or would they be welcomed with open arms as our oppressed northern neighbours?

 

Just a thought...

 

I'm not arguing whaling shouldn't stop in Faeroe, its not necessary any longer, and serves very little purpose, I'd just be much happier given our history if anyone choosing to protest about it had gotten their bunkers and stores elsewhere, and left us out of it. Its not a discriminatory thing, if a Faeroe boat with whale meat on board came in for bunkers and stores, I'd be saying exactly the same thing.

 

Given that as close an ancestor as my great-grandfather was doing in the latter quarter of the 19th century exactly the same thing the Faeroemen are being pilloried for today, complete neutrality is the only option I feel comfortable with.

 

If a boat that's been at sea, be they protester or whaler, requests to use one of our harbours, its only civilised to allow them in. But having done so, I don't believe we owe either protester or whaler anything but to ensure their vessel is seaworthy, and that they have adequate food and fuel to reach the next port. In the case in hand, that would be either Kirkwall or Torshavn.

 

That now though is rather academic, as thanks to the wonderful miracles of the EU, we're bing used to do the dirty work of the Maltese, while having to put up with the presence of one side of the fight longer than might otherwise have been necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...