Blog #24

Who is "right" in the controversy involving whaling and the Sea Shepherd?

When observing who is right in this controversy involving whaling it is hard to answer that question. It is a versus situation. This controversy is between what a man believes is right, and what is actual law. Although whaling is wrong, it actually inst illegal and many people believe Paul Watson's actions are absurd, and out of line.

Yes whaling is bad, but the truth is it actually isn't illegal. In an article I was reading called Neptunes Navy: Paul Watson's wild crusade to save the oceans by Raffi Khatchadouria it discussed how "Whaling is not banned, but it is not necessarily permitted, either." To make matters worse for Paul Watson, what he is doing is not approved by his government. This means that even when he confronts what he calls "illegal" whaling boats, there is nothing really that he can do a bout it. A perfect example of this was when Watson attempted to arrest a whaling boat. " Watson had arrested a whaling vessel on the high seas, but he was constrained by the fact that he had no real authority to do so." This man is doing what he believes is right, to protect wildlife.

Since Watson's actions are not only unauthorizedly but sometimes lethal, he has made many enemies, not just internationally, but within his own conservationist community. Because of Watson's actions against whaling, some of those actions put upon whaling boats from countries where whaling is illegal, he has become hated by many countries. "Officials in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Costa Rica have denounced him; some have even called him a terrorist." It is beliveable to see why these countries denounced him. To them, he is ruing a business that is not illegal in their countries. To make matters worse "In the mid-nineties, Norway convicted him of attempting to scuttle a whale named Nybraena, and he spent eighty days in prison." Watson even managed to make enemies with people of his own kind, conservationist. According to Kristjan Loftsson, the director who manages Hvlur, of of Iceland's largest whaling companies " Watson has made enemies of other conservationist too. For decades Greenpeace has wanted nothing to do with him." This is especially harsh because Watson was the actual founder of Greenpeace.

Paul Watson is a very smart man who actually has good logic behind his reasonings for helping wildlife. Watson believed that the human race was arrogant. He even said "I say, when you're dealing with a species that;s as arrogant as the human race you've got to be arrogant to believe that you can actually change it." With that being said he also believes that everything that humans do, such as art, movies, and architecture is "worthless to the earth". Watson then goes on to make a very good point about how humans view nature, and business; "In anthropocentric society, a harsh judgment is given to those that destroy or seek to destroy creations of humanity". "Monkey-wrench a bulldozer and they will call you a vandal. Spike a tree and they will call you a terrorist. Liberate a coyote from a trap and they will call you a thief. Yet if a human destroys the wonders of creation, the beauty of the natural world, then anthropocentric society calls such people loggers, miners, developers, and businessmen."

It is easy too see where both sides are coming from, but both of them make very good arguments. Whaling is bed, yet not illegal. A man is just doing what he thinks is right. I think this is a unanswerable question. Both sides think they aren't doing anything wrong, yet both sides have a flaw. For Paul Watson, he is doing what he believes is right, but is a wild vigilante whose actions are sometimes fatal to others around him. For whaling companies, they are just doing business that isn't illegal where they live, but the downside is that whaling is bad, and can eventually lead to their extinction. No one really is right, though both make good arguments.