Still a “relentless” supporter.
“We live on the most incredible planet, and yet we abuse it, and we abuse it mercilessly”- Paul Watson
Still a “relentless” supporter.
“We live on the most incredible planet, and yet we abuse it, and we abuse it mercilessly”- Paul Watson
For years I have been annoyed at some of the terminology used in conservation and environmental circles.
I think we should consciously try to think about changing the words we use. We need to put an end to the utilitarian, consumeristic jargon that is employed to justify ecological exploitation and the infliction of cruelty on nonhuman species.
Let’s start with the Canadian seal “hunt.” This is not really a hunt when you think about it. No one is tracking, stalking, or pursuing seals. The cowardly sealers merely walk through a nursery of defenseless seal pups and whack and bash them on the head. The little fellas can’t escape, they can’t swim, and they can’t defend themselves. Let’s call it what it is – a slaughter or a massacre. I like to call it the Canadian Annual National Obsession Enterprise (CANOE). A fitting acronym for this home grown Canadian obscenity.
And the baby killers swinging the clubs are not hunters. They are cowardly thugs.
And you don’t harvest seals or fish or any other animal. That word has to go. You harvest corn, oranges, or apples but not seals or fish. I notice farmers don’t even use the term for cows or pigs. They slaughter cows and pigs, they don’t harvest them. So, why the use of this word? It’s just another attempt to remove the ugliness of their actions from the language and to justify our crimes with denial.
The Canadian government has even tried to label baby seals as adults by defining an adult as any seal over three weeks of age. It seems to me that any seal that can’t swim, can’t escape, and is helpless on an ice floe at three weeks of age qualifies as a baby seal.
And this word sustainable. This gem was dreamed up by that whale-killing former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Bruntland. She was all for conservation so long as it was outside the borders of Norway and did not involve Norwegian fishing vessels.
This word sustainable popped up around the time of the U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in 1992.
What does it mean? After you strip away the spin and the green-washing it simply means: business as usual.
For example, there is a great deal of talk about the value of “sustainable fisheries.” I can’t think of many fisheries that are truly “sustainable.” Practically every commercial fishery in the world is in a state of commercial collapse, yet you can still find “sustainably-fished” cod or salmon, (at least it says so on the label).
In a world of almost seven billion people, words like sustainable mean very little. Just think, if every person on earth ate one fish per week that would be nearly seven billion fish per week or 364 billion fish a year. The oceans can not endure this so what is happening is that fish are becoming more expensive meaning only wealthy nations can afford it which means sending giant factory ships from Europe and Japan to the coasts of Africa and India to plunder fish that Africans and Indians need for survival. There are over one million fishing vessels operating every day on the world’s oceans taking tens of millions of tons each day. How does the word sustainable even remotely fit into the reality of worldwide fishing?
The ecological reality is that all fishing should be prohibited immediately if we are to protect oceanic eco-systems. There are simply not enough fish in all the world’s oceans to meet the demand of expanding human populations. When demand far outweighs supply, the word sustainable is meaningless.
Another word used these days is “stocks.” It makes it sound like the ocean is our private warehouse. We use terms in fisheries like “managing the stocks,” or the “stocks have been reduced,” or the “stocks are healthy.”
It makes it sound like its all neat and handy, and already on the grocery shelf. The correct term is populations.
We don’t say there is an “unhealthy stock of humans messing up the environment.” Nor do we say that the “stock of humans need to be managed,” although Adolf Hitler attempted to do just that.
When you put the three above-mentioned words together, you get the “sustainable harvesting of stocks” of fish. Talk about separating ourselves from nature.
Sometimes the word fish is replaced by the word “product”
“Yes sir, we caught a million cans of product this season, all canned up and ready to go to market, sustainably, and humanely harvested, of course.”
Which bring us to the term “humane,” as in “humane killing.”
This term suggests that killing is acceptable as long as it is humane. It actually means the killing of animals is acceptable by humans so long as we can appease our guilt by making it sound okay by “humanizing” the action. When did killing become humane?
Namibian seal slaughter supporter Oswald Theart just last week described the killing of fur seals in Namibia as “the most humane killing known to man.”
The Canadian government describes the slaughter of baby harp seals as “the most well regulated, most humane hunt in the world.”
They render the word “humane” as meaningless.
But if human behaviour is observably cruel then the word humane should actually mean cruel and not kind. Humans wipe out 70 million sharks a year, slicing off their fins and tossing them back into the sea. This seems to be the normal human approach to exploitation and thus I suppose it is accurate to say that the fishermen humanely kill the sharks if we change the definition from being kind to being unkind.
But we humans really believe we are kind. We just justify our cruelty and declare ourselves humane. For example, if men with clubs go walking through the streets kicking and clubbing kittens the media and the public would be outraged. In fact we are angered beyond measure and rightfully so when the Chinese authorities conduct mass seizures and slaughter of dogs yet many of these same people seem to think it is perfectly alright to kick, club and skin baby seals alive.
Homo Hypocriticus or the Hypocritical primate is a word that would best describe us. We call ourselves Homo sapien meaning aware or intelligent but just simply calling ourselves this does not make it so.
Thus we have the absurd description of the Canadian seal hunt or the Japanese dolphin slaughter as “humane sustainable harvesting of stocks of seals/dolphins.”
By simply using the word “humane,” we can accept that being bludgeoned in the head with a spiked club is kind of okay because it is described as humane.
Imagine the outrage if animal shelters put down dogs with a club instead of lethal injection. Of course, we avoid the word “kill” in the shelters by saying we put the poor animals to “sleep.” It sounds much nicer.
We always hear about how Faeroese whale killers “humanely saw through the neck of a pilot whale to sever the spinal cord.” It takes a few minutes but the Danish government has said that the slaughter of pilot whales is a humane, sustainable, harvest of wild pilot whale stocks.
And to add insult to injury we name some whales “right whales” because whalers viewed them as the right whales to kill because they were slow and did not sink after they were killed. I would prefer to see the Patagonia right whale called simply the Patagonia whale.
And the poor little Minke whale has been insulted with the moniker of a notorious Norwegian whaler, a sadistic character by the name of Captain Meinke who liked to kill whales. I would prefer to have the whale named after someone who likes whales or defends whales instead of some serial murderer of whales. We call this whale the Piked whale.
And why is it that you can’t describe an animal killer as a murderer?
Webster’s dictionary defines murder as the killing of another human being, but it also says that to kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously is also murder.
Homicide is the correct term for the killing of a human being. Cetacide is the killing of a whale and simicide is the murder of a chimpanzee.
I think that murder is an acceptable term for describing the barbarous slaughter of a seal or the inhumane killing of a dolphin, a whale or an elephant.
We just like to pretty things up to deny our responsibility in the willful taking of life.
And then there is the categorizing of people into different camps in an attempt at dehumanization. Environmentalists are often called eco-terrorists although no environmentalist has ever terrorized or hurt anyone. Yet corporations like Union Carbine, Shell, BP and Exxon can kill people and cause incredible environmental damage without the media referring to them as eco-terrorists. Usually, it is the employees of these corporations that call the nature defenders eco-terrorists. It figures.
We don’t have a logging industry anymore, they call it silviculture. It goes along with the Healthy Forest Initiative where a healthy forest is a forest that is harvested, humanely, and sustainably, of course. The loggers are now “forest nurturers” who farm and harvest the forests for the benefit of future generations.
And finally the word conservative. What happened with this word? Conservative means to conserve, to maintain the status quo. When did Conservative come to mean undermining the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Air Act? When did conservative mean being anti-conservationist?
As a conservationist, I’ve always viewed myself as a conservative but now I find that the right-wing, radical, wacko anti-conservationists who destroy forests, overfish the oceans, and pollute our rivers are now calling themselves conservative and accusing me of being a radical for working to conserve nature and endangered species.
I think it is clear that we have a serious language pollution problem.
— Paul Watson, Polluting the English Language to Justify Slaughter
Operation Divine Wind - Thank you from Paul Watson | by seashepherd
Killer. Given the loss of the Bridgett-Bardot and their helicopter pilot, I’d say they did pretty well—something I would only come to expect from Neptune’s Navy.
Fuck yeah, Sea Shepherd.
The Bob Barker docking in Sydney.
Holy shit, I want to work on one of those vessels.
”Identify yourself or face imminent destruction”!!! - NATO warship. “Errr, This is the Steve Irwin. Good morning to you also!
— Captain Paul Watson (42 minutes before this post was made.)
As some of you may know, I’m an onshore volunteer for Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which means I try to do as much as possible from my current position here as a poor college student.
So, one of my tools at hand is petitioning. Some would say that online petitioning is a futile effort at best. If you’re one of those people, I’d like to present you with a few results.
1. A cruel experiment confining kangaroos for up to 9 months in a small cage was called off. (Read more.)
2. Costco, one of the largest seafood retailers in the U.S. will stop selling “red-listed” species of fish. (Read more.)
3. Shark finning is now banned in Guam. (Read more.)
So, I’m not sure how effective the petitions are, but if people like Pete Bethune attest to their key-role in conservation, I’m all for them.
Write some basic things about yourself.
This is pretty bland and is a piss-poor excuse for the first day’s writing, but I’ll put this aside.
My name is Travis. I had my first degree in Computer Electronics Engineering before I was old enough to drink and I’ll hopefully be receiving my Bachelor’s in that field sometime around May.
Interestingly enough, I earned my CompTIA A+ Computer Technician certification on my 21st birthday.
I’m an activist for the environment and it’s inhabitants that aren’t us; I believe the other animals of our world deserve to be here far more than we do.
I’m also looking to fulfill a life-goal after college, which is to obtain a commercial pilot’s license and to pursue a career flying small aircraft to very beautiful places. I don’t care what I’d be specifically doing, so long as I enjoy it.
I really enjoy writing, if you couldn’t already tell. I could definitely use more reading, though. However, I think that’s true for most people, and yet… I’ve still read more books in five years than a large portion of society will have read in fifty. Now you understand why I say that.
But yeah, I’m not sure what else to put for today’s topic. If there’s anything you’d like to know, you’re more than welcome to ask.
sharkchunks asked: Well said on all points. I have to recognize as well that you have followed the subject with far closer interest than I have and in the future, I'll probably just defer to your knowledge of what they have and haven't done, especially as we agree about the level of illegal actions they used to take, and that the level has indeed become more palatable, even to me. Colon juice is far kinder than the stereotypical eco-fury of the 80s.
What I would do about the situation, or rather what I am doing: Propagandizing for stricter enforcement of the current laws, with an eye toward changing the laws to encourage economies not dependent on hunting (Seals, whales, anything) and eventually, a drastic improvement of animal welfare laws. This sounds like a miniscule and impotent approach to Japan at first but consider the state of the global mishmash of hunting cultures- They are dying, fast. We need only guide the bodies to collapse in the right place. Commercials, films like the Cove and other such projects are in the end more likely to affect real change. Unlike the image of ramming a Japanese Whaling boat, it doesn't look like much but Sea Shepherd's gung ho activities actually hurt in the long run. Though they can stop a season, they can't change the laws. On the contrary they make people like me look like lunatic terrorists for bringing up the subject. So my principal gripe is a standard self centered Satanic one- They make my job harder.
And of course I have to agree with your comments on the worker's perspecitve- They chose their jobs, they have to deal with the job hazards. Like colon juice. If I ever start a 2nd tumblr I'm calling it ColonJuice.
You see, I’m a part of the organization as an onshore volunteer. The work I do here, when, where and how I can, is exactly what you described. If I have the ability to petition my local governor against laws that would affect animal welfare in a negative way, I do so. If I discover ways I can vote to help and promote wildlife/environmental conservation wherever I can, I will do so. Even if propagandizing my homeland’s public area is possible, I’ll take on the job.
The only difference I’m seeing between us is the image of Paul’s actions to the public. I believe, at least here in the U.S., Sea Shepherd (or, those Whale Wars dudes) have a highly positive image to the public, especially when the captain and associates go on TV talk shows like Jay Leno. For other places like South Africa, Central America, and obviously Japan where SSCS is looked upon with vehement opposition, I can understand why promoting their activity would be a more risky affair.
Hah, I’ll look forward to the content on that blog.
Anonymous asked: Your 'religious' and philosophical views are pretty evident, but I'm really curious as to where you see yourself in the political spectrum. Are you involved or do you care about politics?
On Politics, I consider myself to be a Libertarian. I used to consider myself an independent, but when I heard of the party and read up on everything on their website, I was in a state of pretty much 95% agreement.
If you want a more graphic representation, you can check out an older post of mine (and see your own results as well, if you wish.)
As for whether or not I’m involved, I’d have to say… “meh, not really.” It’s not that I’m apathetic or anything, because I do care… I just know how to pick my battles is all. There are far more important fronts to fight on for me than the useless babblings and warmongering of the shitty, insignificant and, well, boring people of whom I have no desire to live among. However, that’s not to say that I won’t take action in my community if I’m able to.
I’d rather just leave and go somewhere else more suited to my personality, philosophy, and lifestyle.
Thanks for asking,
P.S. Was there any specific reason for the anonymous question?