SEA SHEPHERD EMBARKS ON INTERNATIONAL OCEAN PROTECTION CAMPAIGN

Richard I am sure that someone out there is glad to get such good intel on the sailing. Would you mind publishing the operating parameters of your radar and sonar/fathometer equipment also, it could be of real help. Also, what will be their most common radio frequencies used? Please keep the group advised of any changes as they come up. Thank you,

Feb. 9, 2000

SEA SHEPHERD EMBARKS ON INTERNATIONAL OCEAN PROTECTION CAMPAIGN 'Ocean Warrior' leaving Seattle to take on longliners, shark- finners, seal and whale hunts

The flagship of the Sea Shepherd conservation society will embark from its home port of Lake Union, Seattle, on Thursday, on a mission to put the worsening plight of marine wildlife at the top of the agenda of the world's governments.

The 200-foot, jet-black Ocean Warrior will cross two oceans and make port in at least half a dozen countries, starting with an international pelagic shark conservation conference in Monterey and Los Angeles, California, then on to San Ignacio Lagoon in Mexico, site of the highly controversial proposed Mitsubishi salt mine, and proceeding to run shark and dolphin poaching patrols off Costa Rica. She will then proceed to the Newfoundland/Labrador front during the spring Canadian seal hunt. On the other side of the Atlantic, she will patrol for illegal driftnetters in the Mediterranean, then go to the Faroe Islands, a protectorate of Denmark that is the site of the world's largest whale hunt and currently the subject of a Sea Shepherd boycott that has shut off more than 20,000 European outlets to Faroe Islands fish exports.

'We are private citizens who are forced to take action due to the failure of our governments to protect our common heritage,' said Captain Paul Watson, who will command Ocean Warrior's international volunteer crew on her 17,000-mile voyage. 'At the dawn of the 21st century, governments are acutely aware of the ruthless exploitation of life in the oceans, whether through unsustainable commercial fishing or development, or in the name of tradition. They are aware, and they fashion regulations and make laws and speeches, but the regulations are not sufficient, the laws are not enforced, the speeches are just words, and the massively destructive practices get worse. Sea Shepherd takes action. And when the laws of man lag too far behind the law of nature, we don't hesitate to obey the higher law.'

Sea Shepherd's record of international enforcement on behalf of marine wildlife goes back more than 20 years. Under Captain Watson's command, the Society has sunk nine whaling ships at their moorings in enforcement of the 1986 global ban on whaling, rammed several driftnetters following ratification of the U.N. resolution against that destructive fishing practice in 1992, and clashed repeatedly with the governments of the U.S., Canada, and Denmark over unsustainable fishing practices and the slaughter of Gray whales, Harp seals and Pilot whales, respectively.

And what will Paul Watson and his merry men do if/when they stumble across some shark and dolphin poachers?

And what will Paul Watson and his merry men do if/when they stumble across some seal hunters?

And what will Paul Watson and his merry men do if/when they stumble across some driftnetters?

So Paul Watson not eating fish from the Faroe's has resulted in 20,000 outlets being shut down? What does he do with all that fish anyway? Where does he get it now?

I notice Norway wasn't on Watson's travel itinerary. Why is that? Is he afraid of the Norwegian Coast Guard? Guess the SS isn't all that brave when facing people who fight back.

It sounds to me like a vigilante. It also sounds 'flip-floppy'. One moment you are passing along the words of a congressman who stands up for your cause, while the next moment you are saying (in essence) that you have placed yourself above the law. How do you propose to be taken seriously in your efforts to protect certain species of marine life (er - whales) , when you have so little regard for human life?

You say about this group that they (and you in association) are private citizens who are 'forced to take action' due to the failure of our governents to protect your 'common heritage'.

What 'common heritage' would you be referring to? And by 'taking action' do you mean: 'sinking nine ships in their moorings' or 'ramming several driftnetters' or 'clashing repeatedly with governents'? I don't know about the 'clashes' with governments, but I'm pretty certain that destruction of other people's property is against the law. I'm surprised that this would be admitted in public. It seems a rather violent and illegal method of 'taking action' for people who are so intent on using the laws, whether national or international, to reinforce your own agenda. But then the ones who get caught are usually the ones who boast.

Have a good day.

Human life is not being threatened here. Marine life is. Those who insist that human life is somehow more important are specists.

That would seem quite appropriate.

I'm rather proud of it.

The violence is on the part of the murderers of whales, not those who would attempt to stop them by destruction of property.

Oh great, we finally get rid of the Hare Krishna trolls and now the environmentalist wacko troll shows up.

insist> that human life is somehow more important are specists.

Is it not specist to protect Whales and not make a similar struggle for Tuna, Mackeral and other marine life that are hunted in far greater numbers than the 1 whale the Makah killed for spiritual reasons. Hey maybe the Salmon would like some help-you could still attack Indian sovereignty as an added bonus if you protect salmon.

Sheridan Murphy

: driftnetters' or 'clashing repeatedly with governents'? I don't know about : the 'clashes' with governments, but I'm pretty certain that destruction of : other people's property is against the law. I'm surprised that this would be : admitted in public.

It may be admitted in the occasional press release, but Paul Watson has a history of vigorously fighting any legal case against him. In other words, when it comes to opne court, where Mr. Watson could stand up and admit clearly and categorically his actions and the reasons for his actions he dissappoints.

Do donations to Sea Shleppers pay the high-priced lawyers Watson retains to defend himself?

It seems a rather violent and illegal method of 'taking : action' for people who are so intent on using the laws, whether national or : international, to reinforce your own agenda. But then the ones who get : caught are usually the ones who boast.

There is only one law in the Sea Schlepper cult of personality.

: Have a good day.

: Donna

: > : > 'We are private citizens who are forced to take action due to the : > failure : > of our governments to protect our common heritage,' said Captain : > Paul : > Watson, who will command Ocean Warrior's international volunteer : > crew on : > her 17,000-mile voyage. 'At the dawn of the 21st century, : > governments are : > acutely aware of the ruthless exploitation of life in the oceans, : > whether : > through unsustainable commercial fishing or development, or in the : > name of : > tradition. They are aware, and they fashion regulations and make : > laws and : > speeches, but the regulations are not sufficient, the laws are not : > enforced, the speeches are just words, and the massively : > destructive : > practices get worse. Sea Shepherd takes action. And when the : > laws of man : > lag too far behind the law of nature, we don't hesitate to obey the : > higher : > law.' : > : > Sea Shepherd's record of international enforcement on behalf of : > marine : > wildlife goes back more than 20 years. Under Captain Watson's : > command, the : > Society has sunk nine whaling ships at their moorings in : > enforcement of : > the 1986 global ban on whaling, rammed several driftnetters : > following : > ratification of the U.N. resolution against that destructive fishing : > practice in 1992, and clashed repeatedly with the governments of : > the U.S., : > Canada, and Denmark over unsustainable fishing practices and the : > slaughter : > of Gray whales, Harp seals and Pilot whales, respectively. : > : > : > : >

I'd love to.

<snip>

First of all, Maslow's model is quite old by now and is certainly not universally accepted. Jeez, I studied that in high school and I won't say how long ago that was. But, let's look at your following statements in that light anyway.

Since the whale provides for Physiological needs (food and The whale provides little in this regard since the Makah are reliant on 'dominant society' sources for vegetables, fruits, grains, and meat the rest of the year. They could provide far better for their physiological needs by promoting intensive gardening.

, Safety and Security (the ability to provide for their own

See above. The notion that the whale contributes to any great extent to their safety and security is bogus. If they were cut off from the 'dominant society' they would perish, thus this safety and security is illusary.

, Love and Belonging

They may well pat themselves on the back for killing a whale but they have earned the hostility of much of the civilized world. Thus they have only isolated themselves from the larger community and have ultimately reduced their love and belonging.

, Self-esteem (feeling good about who and what they are in accordance heritage)

I never heard Maslow define self esteem in this way, I might suggest it is your interpretation of it. Most psychologists would promote self esteem based on internal beliefs rather than external actions. To base ones self esteem on the slaughter of another creature would seem both perilous and foolhardy, since this slaughter is likely to be prohibited in our lifetime. Then where will the Makah be? Would it not be a better sign of mental health to base ones self esteem on internal principals as opposed to ancient rituals and archaic rites?

No, it is not apparent to anyone. Self actualization does not require external rituals and animal slaughter to occur. Such 'needs' are self imposed by the tribe and bear no relation to the external world or true internal needs. I could make the arguemt that I 'need' to collect all the Pokemon cards for my self esteem, since society is promoting that. The only difference between that 'need' and the Makah 'need' for whale slaughter is that the Makah have a longer history of doing so. If Pokemon is around in 500 years or so, perhaps some will argue that it is a legetimate 'need' also. I could also have the 'need' for slaves...too bad that society has forbidden that...now I will never be fulfilled...oh poor me!!! Bottom line, fulfillmemt comes from within, not from external stimulus be it whale slaughter, slaves, or Pokemon.

Sorry, it is protection of whale life. The Makah will exist just fine sans whales. No need to make excuses. If they can't function in the modern world, perhaps they ought to consider that their society and culture is no longer viable. Societies *do* oulive thier usefullness on a regualar basis over time you know. Ask the Romans, the Celts, etc.

Sorry dear, it is you people who would slaughter whales to make some people 'feel good' about themselves that have it all backward. Animals are not here to make you 'feel good' or help you with your self esteem issues. You can do that youselves without spilling blood...I hope?

Since you are not Makah, how can you possibly say what they need? How can you know more about them than they know about themselves? They have stated what they require to continue practicing traditions that they feel are important, and it isn't killing every whale in the sea. Don't worry, there will be plenty left for you to look at.

So can you, sans a couple of whales.

No need to make excuses. If they can't function in the modern world,