Success Always Attracts the Jealous, the Naysayers and the Profiteers

.Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

Listening to Dr. Martin Tobin testifying at the trial of Derek Chauvin was riveting. Here is a scientist, a world authority on breathing who explained what happened in great detail in a manner that the jury could understand and relate to.Dr. Tobin was the perfect expert witness with impressive knowledge of the science of breathing Dr. Tobin a world-renowned pulmonologist literally wrote THE book on the science of breathing.

According to the American Thoracic Society is “Dr. Tobin the supreme scholar of critical care medicine and editor or author of seven extraordinary textbooks on the subject.” The Lancet described his textbook Principles And Practice of Mechanical Ventilation as the “Bible” of the field of mechanical ventilation.Yet despite these prestigious credentials, defenders of accused murderer Derek Chauvin actually are questioning Tobin’s scientific knowledge or/and questioning his motivation, claiming that the fact that he did not charge a fee for his testimony indicates bias.If he had charged a fee, the claim would be that he was simply paid by the State to say what the State wanted him to say.So, what does this have to do with the Netflix film Seaspiracy?

Ali and Lucy Tabrizi have directed and produced a film in a way that the general public can understand and relate to, and the film includes some of the world’s foremost Ocean scientists and ocean activists.The other thing that Dr. Tobin’s testimony and Seaspiracy have in common are critics.The reality is that no matter what we do, no matter how good the science, no matter how well presented, there will be critics ready to question, ready to ridicule, ready to dismiss and ready to condemn.Critical constructive questions are okay and in fact encouraged but ridicule, dismissal and condemnation from critics are unacceptable and most likely influenced by a conflict of interests and/or simple jealously. I’m hearing criticisms about Seaspiracy from the usual suspects, all quick to challenge the science as they see it and to point out where they see flaws in the film. The usual suspects being people paid by the fishing industry or by NGO’s that profit from or support commercial fishing or even NGO’s that were not included in the film.Of course, there are things in the film that can be legitimately questioned. Every film certainly has flaws but usually the concerns are that the film did not cover certain issues. It is however quite difficult to cover a subject like global fishing in a mere 90 minutes.

The criticism of the science in the film is irrelevant and based on bias for the most part. There is always disagreement in science. The criticism that the film did not include experts is confusing. I don’t see how anyone can be regarded as more of an expert on the subject of the Ocean than Dr. Sylvia Earle.The criticism that the film promotes veganism is strange. The film never pretended to do otherwise. The fishing industry produces hundreds of films that promote the eating of fish. There is nothing secretive about the film’s position on eating fish.Will McCallum of Greenpeace U.K. criticized the film by saying “turning vegan can’t be the only answer.””A campaign that focuses only on veganism ignores the billions of people that depend on the oceans for survival,” said McCallum, head of oceans at Greenpeace UK.”And without finding a lasting solution that looks after people and planet, our oceans don’t stand a chance.” A predictable response considering even Greenpeace ships are not vegan and serve fish to their crew compared to Sea Shepherd ships having had a vegan diet policy for three decades but McCallum’s statement that billions of people depend on the oceans for survival skirts around the fact that artisanal fishers, poor nations and indigenous people are not the people industrialized fishing is catering too. The European and Asian commercial fleets catch fish for wealthy consumers and in doing so are literally stealing the fish from poorer nations.Greenpeace was not depicted in the film which may be on reason Greenpeace is not happy with it.Oceana’s responded by saying, “Choosing to abstain from consuming seafood is not a realistic choice for the hundreds of millions of people around the world who depend on coastal fisheries – many of whom are also facing poverty, hunger, and malnutrition,” the group said.Once again, they miss the point. The film never attacked coastal fishing communities but it did attack commercial operations that are plundering the waters offshore of coastal communities. They film is not advocating veganism for impoverished peoples facing hunger and malnutrition. In fact, the film stresses that it is industrialized fishing that is the cause of mass starvation and poverty.

The very fact that Oceana refers to living marine beings as “seafood.” Indicates their bias in favor of the fishing industry.I once attended a meeting on Ocean Conservation held by Conservation International in the Dominican Republic where both Dr. Sylvia Earle and I witnessed a smorgasbord of fish presented to the participants. We both marveled at the fact that the organizers did not see the contradictions. Ordering Chilean Sea Bass (Not a bass and not from Chile by the way) in a New York upper scale restaurant or eating Bluefin tuna on sushi rice in Tokyo has nothing to do with poor communities in Africa and India that have suffered greatly from the ravages of industrialized fishing. The criticism that the film was shoddy journalism would be concerning if not for the fact that the film was made by film makers not by journalists. Film makers have a story to tell whereas journalists report on stories about other people, things or happenings. The criticism that the film is racist is ridiculous. One fishing industry critic Fisheries consultant Francisco Blaha amusingly generalized the filmmakers by stating that the film has a tendency to generalize. He tweeted, “I’m over the set up where the ‘bad guys’ are predominantly Asian, the ‘victims’ predominantly black/brown, and the ‘good guys’ talking about it and saving the ocean are predominantly white.”Blaha admits in a tweet that he actually did not see the entire film and his bias is apparent in his job title as “fisheries consultant” to industrialized fishing corporations. In the film the bad guys are not predominantly Asian. The film’s focus is on European as well as Asian fishermen and shows how artisanal fishing communities in Africa are being devastated by industrialized fishing. Industrialized fishing corporations are the bad guys. His assertion that those in the film are predominantly white males is also incorrect. The film was made by a man of Middle Eastern background and a woman – Lucy Tabrizi and features the voices of Dr. Sylvia Earle, Dr. Jane Hightower, Tamara Arenovich, Lori Marino and Lamya Essemlali amongst others. A common tactic of the commercial fishing industry is to distract from the destruction they cause by attempting to make the public believe that the fishing industry is simply made up of hard-working fisherfolk out there in small boats in heavy weather, working hard and taking risks to provide a necessary need for the good of humanity.The reality is that commercial fisheries are instead huge corporate entities with 100 million-dollar vessels like super trawlers, bottom trawler, purse seiners, gill netters and long liners. They are not engaged in “catching” fish. What they are doing is raping and plundering life from the Ocean, destroying bottom structures and pulling trillions of animals from the sea in a systematic policy of biological extermination for the sake of profit.

The entire global fishing industry is a polished efficient extraction industry that utilizes deception and distraction to justify their greed and destruction.Despite the self-serving industry critics, this extraordinary film is a critically acclaimed success and that is a fact. It is a weapon of revelation influencing millions and it needs to be built upon and not dismissed or belittled, especially by people who profess to care about marine ecology. The Ocean does not have time for the justifiers, the appeasers and the complainers. Right now, the Ocean needs activists more than scientists.

Leaked Documents From Fishing Industry Expose Plan To Attack Seaspiracy Netflix Release

Seaspiracy seeks to uncover ‘alarming global corruption’ – and is already facing backlash from the fishing industry before it’s reached screens, the leaked document revealedby Emily Baker16th March 2021Updated 17th March 2021



Reading Time: 3 minutes

AUS seafood industry body is launching a campaign in response to the discoveries it labels ‘vegan propaganda’ showcased in the upcoming documentary, Seaspiracy – despite the fact the film is yet to be released.

It was revealed in a leaked document sent to Plant Based News.

Protecting the seafood industry

The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) is a trade group that represents the US seafood industry, and actively encourages people to eat marine life. Moreover, it claims to be committed to ‘sustainable’ fishing and ‘responsible aquaculture’.

In addition, the NFI says it works to ensure both the media and consumers ‘have the facts about seafood’.

The letter brands the documentary, soon to be screened on Netflix, a ‘dishonest attack’. This is in anticipation of its discoveries and claims it ‘disingenuously’ targets the fishing industry – despite not viewing it.

Seaspiracy branded a ‘dishonest attack’

NFI said: “But hijacking a lifestyle while disingenuously targeting an industry that provides billions of healthy meals and employs 1.7 million Americans is an unacceptable and dishonest attack.”

As a result, the organization is planning retaliation in order to protect the industry, the leaked private document confirms. The media strategy will ‘combat inaccuracies’ and ‘highlight Netflix’s lack of oversight when it comes to the presentation of facts’, it continues.

As a result, it is ‘reaching out’ to restaurant and retail customers in the seafood sector to arm them with ‘friendly talking points’ once the film debuts on March 24.

Letter to Netflix

It goes on to state that the NFI expects Seaspiracy to be an ‘unabashedly vegan activist production’ similar to that of hit Cowspiracy and What The Health?, as Kip Andersen produced all three.

Additionally, the NFI reached out to Netflix, accusing it of promoting ‘propaganda over facts’.

In a letter, it told the streaming service that both Cowspiracy and What The Health? contained a ‘litany of hyperbole’ over fears Seaspiracy will be similar.

The letter voiced grievances to Netflix’s Co-CEO, claiming the documentary is ‘masquerading’ as facts about seafood.

It reads: “The producers of this film are vegan activists… Veganism is a fine choice for some – but my heavens, they do miss out on the complete array of seafood options like enormous King Crab, buttery Maine lobster, succulent Iceland cod, and omega-rich Alaska salmon.”

In a separate press release, the NFI claims it called on Netflix to create a ‘propaganda’ tab on its website for ‘films based on exaggeration, fabrications and conspiracy theories’.

‘Vegan propaganda’ will also uncover the ‘human cost’ of the fishing industry, its creators claim

Plant Based News approached the NFI to comment. “We consider the film vegan propaganda and we’d like Netflix to start a whole new tab for just this type of content,” the organization said in response.

The NFI claims seafood industry workers’ welfare is ‘vital’.

It added: “Mistreatment of workers at any place in the seafood value chain should be exposed. And regulators, policymakers and law enforcement should engage where needed right away.”

This is despite the Seaspiracy documentary trailer showing snippets of a different picture. One clip includes the quote: ‘When the ships are in the ocean, they can throw you overboard’.

Defending animal agriculture

The NFI alerted the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA), an organization that claims to connect a range of figures in the industry, including farmers, and encouraging its members to eat meat.

On its website, it accuses animal rights advocates of ‘misleading consumers’ – in response to undercover footage obtained from farms.

AAA agreed to ‘push back publicly against Seaspiracy‘, the leaked document states.

Seaspiracy trailer

Seaspiracy seeks to uncover ‘alarming global corruption’ and its trailer has already garnered hundreds of thousands of views on social media. trailer garnered thousands of views online and promises to uncover the ‘war’ on the ocean

For more information, visit Seaspiracy

The documentary is out on Netflix on March 24

Criticism of Seaspiracy is Much Ado About Nothing

It’s Time to Make a Big Deal About Something And That Something is the Dying Ocean..

By Captain Paul Watson.

Predictably, the successful release of Seaspiracy on Netflix is receiving some criticism from the usual subjects. That was expected, but it really is not all that important. Many documentaries that I have been involved with over the years have been met with similar negativity and vitriol. I remember the criticisms of Rob Stewart and his wonderful film Sharkwater. And The Cove also was belittled by some although the criticisms did not prevent the film from winning the Academy Award for best documentary of the year. Sea of Shadows was also belittled as was even my own film WATSON by Leslie Chicott and I do remember Lesley’s earlier film Inconvenient Truth and all the climate change denialists with their hired “scientist” apologists lambasting the credibility of Al Gore. And don’t even get me started on all the “experts” denouncing Greta Thunberg for being too dramatic, too, young, and too naïve for their taste. Seaspiracy as a film is what it is, a message transmitted by a medium to provoke discussion and to expose and illustrate a global problem and as such it is both powerful and influential and most importantly thanks to Netflix it is reaching millions and trending phenomenally. It was never meant to be some academic scientific dissertation filled with footnotes and boring references to peer reviewed papers. It’s a film, not some doctoral thesis to be picked apart in search of validation to justify a particular bias.

If we were to produce a 90-minute film with a purely objective scientific fact confirmed narrative as suggested, it would most likely not appeal to the general public and nothing would change. The corporations and those who work for them already know the facts. They just don’t care because they are motivated by profit.Film making is story telling. It’s meant to be emotive. It’s designed to captivate viewers and to entice discussion and controversy. If people are talking about it that means it’s a success. If people are criticizing it, that means it is having an impact. If some people are condemning it, that means that some people are threatened by it.Personally, I don’t care if there are scientists and industry people who dislike the film. I don’t need biostitutes and P.R. firms to lecture me on something I have seen and witnessed with my own eyes over the last 60 years. There is no such thing as a sustainable fishery. That is my considered observation based on 60 years of experience. Phytoplankton populations in the sea have been reduced by 40% since 1950 and that is probably the most important validated scientific fact to be concerned about. (Source:…/phytoplankton…/

Life in the Ocean is being diminished and that diminishment is escalating. I’m not surprised that there are many who wish to deny this just as there have been many quick to deny climate change.Change comes about through stories and in today’s world, the most powerful communication medium is film. Lucy and Ali Tabrizi are telling an important story and it’s a great deal to tell in a mere 90 minutes. I would have liked to have seen more details, but more tends to be difficult when making a film because there always tends to be too much material and too little time. Seaspiracy is a hit and it is reaching millions and Ali and Lucy Tabrizi have done a wonderful job in a project that I have actively been involved with for the last few years and proud to be associated with as I’m sure Captain Peter Hammarstedt and Dr. Sylvia Earle are as well. Fisheries consultant Francisco Blaha amusingly generalized the filmmakers by stating that the film has a tendency to generalize. He tweeted, “I’m over the set up where the ‘bad guys’ are predominantly Asian, the ‘victims’ predominantly black/brown, and the ‘good guys’ talking about it and saving the ocean are predominantly white.”Blaha admits in a tweet that he actually did not see the entire film and his bias is apparent in his job title as “fisheries consultant” to industrialized fishing corporations. In the film the bad guys are not predominantly Asian. The film focus is on European as well as Asian fishermen and shows how artisanal fishing communities in Africa are being devastated by industrialized fishing. Industrialized fishing corporations are the bad guys. His assertion that those in the film are predominantly white males is also incorrect. The film was made by a man of Middle Eastern background and a woman – Lucy Tabrizi and features the voices of Dr. Sylvia Earle, Dr. Jane Hightower, Tamara Arenovich, Lori Marino and Lamya Essemlali amongst others. As for Sea Shepherd, we are working hand in hand with African and Latin American nations to oppose Asian AND European exploitation of the waters of these nations. We are in fact working with and for African and Central and South America nations. This means we are working in opposition to the industry that Blaha consults for. In 2019, Blaha was the winner of the 2019 World Seafood Champion Award which is all we need to know to understand his bias

This film by Ali and Lucy is their project, it is their voice and they have every right to tell their story the way they wish to tell their story. If the critics don’t like it they should take up the challenge and make their own film. In fact, that is the only valid response. All this chatter and pooh-poohing of a film they happen to not like is irrelevant and meaningless.If they want to make a film with what they consider to be “real” science they should do it. It’s easy to be a critic, easy to slam the work and creativity of others. If there is a film they would rather see produced, one that meets with their approval they should just shut up and make it.

Farley Mowat wrote and made a TV series Sea of Slaughter a few decades ago. Solid science it was indeed yet it was dismissed by industry and restricted to the limited audience of the CBC and he was also told that he was not delivering his message properly meaning he should be doing it by not offending anyone. He warned us years ago about what was happening yet nothing changed and things became much worse.

This film despite the naysayers and the critics is a critically acclaimed success and that is a fact. It is a weapon of revelation and it is influencing millions and it needs to be built upon and not dismissed or belittled, especially by people who profess to care about marine ecology. The Ocean does not have time for the justifiers, the appeasers and the complainers. Right now, the Ocean needs activists more than scientists.…

Let’s Not be Fooled by the Crocodile Tears of the Corporate Fishing Industry

By Captain Paul Watson

The corporate industrialized fishing interests as expected are working overtime in their attempts to discredit Seaspiracy. They are cherry picking the science and trying to suggest that industrial fishing is both sustainable and necessary. It’s not.Commercial industrialized fishing is not sustainable. It exists because of billions of dollars of government subsidies to prop it up. Remove the subsidies and the entire industry, an industry based on short term profit for short term gain will collapse.This film Seaspiracy is not directed at artisanal or indigenous fishing. In fact artisanal and indigenous fishing communities are being diminished and destroyed by corporate fishing. There are some positives. Kudos to Alaska for banning fish farms and for the hatcheries that support the wild salmon runs but this is an exception to the norm.For the most part the sea is being strangled of life by the super trawlers, the bottom trawlers, the huge seiners, the long-liners, the gill netters and by aquaculture.The situation is serious. It involves slavery, it promotes high seas piracy, it scours the sea bottom, it pollutes the marine environment with millions of tons of discarded plastic fishing debris.Corporate fishing is a global scheme of short term investment for short term gain and the fact is that coral reefs are dying, plastic is choking the depths, fish populations are being dangerously depleted and phytoplankton populations have been diminished by 40% since 1950 and phytoplankton produces more oxygen and sequesters more CO2 than all the trees and plants on land.How can it be justified for an endangered fish (Antarctic toothfish) to be caught and transported across the globe to be sold as Chilean sea bass in restaurants in Denver, Paris or a hundred other different cities? How can it be justified to feed millions of fish every year to pigs, chickens, farm raised salmon, cats and fur farms? How can it be justified to wipe out the herring runs off British Columbia to feed salmon in cages or to destroy seals in Canada or dolphins in Japan as scapegoats for the excessive greed of the fishing industry. I was raised in an Eastern Canadian fishing village in the Fifties and I have witnessed this steady diminishment of life in the sea and the astonishing ability of humanity to adapt and accept this diminishment. I have spent more than a half a century at sea in all the world’s oceans and I have seen the death, the destruction, the pollution and the greed.I don’t care what propaganda the industry and its enablers spread or how many biostitutes they hire to justify their greed. The fact is that a super trawler is an abomination against nature, a 100-mile long gill net or longliner is a weapon of mass ecological destruction and government subsidies are the evidence that worldwide, many governments are willingly complicit in the extermination of marine life and the collapse of marine eco-systems.I have seen with my own eyes the heart-breaking devastation of the Great Barrier Reef. We pulled one gill net from one ship (Thunder) from the depth of 2 kilometers off the coast of Antarctica that was 72 kilometers long and weighed 70 tons. We seized a drift net in the North Pacific that was over 100 miles in length and I’ve seen and smelt the bodies of a quarter of a million salmon rotting on the beach in Chile. Sustainable fishing is a myth and slapping the word onto a can of tuna claiming that no dolphins died is a blatant lie. And what about the tuna? 90% of Bluefin tuna populations have been eradicated? We massacre 70 million sharks a year primarily for their fins for a soup that has zero nutrition and then we complain when an average of five people die from shark attacks per year, a number lower than that of 40 people on average that die each year from falling from a skateboard. The fishing industry is driven by the politics and the economics of extinction. The more scarce the fish, the greater the demand and thus the greater the profit and there is almost a universal lack of economic or political will to police the high seas and to crack down on the poachers, the quota exceeders, the by-catch wasters and the corporate cartels that finance and control them. Predictably the industry trots out images of traditional fishermen, usually artisanal fishing communities implying that it is these hard-working individuals that we are seeking to shut down when it is the industrialized fishing operations that have been devastating artisanal and indigenous fishing communities around the world. After a long lifetime of voyages and campaigns and tens of thousands of sea miles, I have realized a truth and a reality that the industry works hard to ignore, discredit and deny. That truth is that life in the Ocean is being diminished and the very fact that we have lost 40% of our oxygen producing phytoplankton bodes darkly ill for the future of humanity. This is the reality. When the Ocean dies, we die with it.Note: For those who will surely try to claim that I am exaggerating about phytoplankton diminishment, here is a source for reference: (1) Source: Scientific American. Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 percent Since 1950 by Lauren Morello 2010.

The Shameful Reality of Aquatic Torture and Death Pens

Underwater factory farms are condemning fish to live “on the edge of what they can tolerate”.
  • The Shameful Reality of Aquatic Torture and Death Pens

    Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

    One of the things that has troubled me for many years is the way that we treat the fishes of the sea.

    As a species we deny and ignore their sentience. We dismiss them as living beings and refuse to comprehend that these animals think, that they suffer, that they have emotions.

    We literally vacuum them from the sea using highly mechanized machinery to scour the bottom of the sea, to trap them in huge nets or to ensnare them in hooks on long lines that can stretch over a hundred miles across the waves. We suffocate them, we crush them, we tear open their mouth with savage hooks and mutilate their delicate gills in plastic curtains of death and destruction.

    For fish there are no safe places. We have invaded their homes and ravaged their lives, destroyed them by the billions and polluted their habitats.

    And to add insult to injury, not content to murder them in their homes we now breed them in massive confinement facilities that literally fill the air with the stench of decay and death as they spew toxins, parasites and viruses into once pristine eco-systems.

    A Haida elder once told me that salmon farms were a perversion of the spirit of the salmon.

    What we do to them by raising them in concentration camps is obscene.

    We abuse them, we assault them with chemicals, we force them to consume dye in the food pellets to actually dye the flesh pinkish while they are alive. We inject them with antibiotics and force them into toxic chemical baths. We scour the sea to catch millions of other fish from other species to render into cheap fish meal to feed them. We see hundreds of thousands of them die off as the farms collect insurance for the losses and then we send them to market after slicing off the cancerous growths so that humans can have cheap salmon.

    As a species, we cruelly accept that the viruses and parasites that these mass incarceration facilities produce gets transmitted to wild indigenous species of salmon and that the diminishment of wild salmon means the diminishment of food for Orcas, Eagles, Bears, Seals and so many other species of wild sentient creatures.

    These fish that are bred in these horrific facilities are living, self-aware sentient beings that we force into unbearably miserable confines and it takes a toll in suffering and death, pollution and ugliness.

    These shameful facilities degrade not just the salmon but also ourselves.

    They need to be shut down in every eco-system that these companies have invaded.

Trump mocks 16-year-old Greta Thunberg a day after she is named Time’s Person of the Year

Commentary by Captain Paul Watson:


In response to Greta being named Time magazine’s Person of the year, the President angrily attacked her because he wanted to be Man of the Year.

But the “Man” who failed to be is furious that a 16 year old Swedish girl got the goden egg that he so desired and tweeted:

Donald J. Trump

So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!

Greta, not to be intimidated by a narcissistic sociopath intent upon ushering in all the perils of unaddressed climate change by opportunistic world leaders like himself responded brilliantly.

Without hesitation she replied on her Twitter profile with: “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”

This young lady was born to be a leader and what she has done has been incredibly stunning. She skipped school to cross the Atlantic twice by sail, she addressed the United Nations, she toured North America including Standing Rock and the Tar Sands in Canada, she told Prime Minister Justin Trudeau he was not doing much, she stared down the President of the United States and just recently addressed the Climate Change Conference in Spain.

And I don’t thing she has (in the immortal words of Captain John Paul Jones) even begun to fight.

I can honestly say that over the last 50 years of activism I have ever met or seen someone so focused and unrelenting with her message. I have had the privilege of speaking with her and what impressed me was her courage, her passion, her commitment and her exceptional mind.

Over the next 50 years as humanity slides towards a future most cannot even comprehend or imagine, her vision hopefully will help to navigate us towards a safe harbor.

She is an incredible leader today and she will be an exceptionally inspiring leader in the years to come.

I wonder if that good old fashioned movie she will be watching with a friend will be “Soylent Green”.

In a morning tweet, the president said the Swedish climate activist needs to work on anger management and suggested she see a movie with a friend.

Costa Rica’s Ministry of Environment Joins Efforts with Sea Shepherd Conservation Society


As part of a campaign to protect the Cocos Island UNESCO World Heritage Site, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society partnered with Costa Rica’s Ministry of Environment to collect and transport 34 tons of marine pollution, illegal shark finning long lines, and other confiscated fishing gear, which had been accumulating on the remote volcanic island of Cocos for over 25 years.

For a one-time project, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society removed over 1700 miles (2800 kilometers) of nylon monofilament fishing line from Cocos Island and shipped it to Aquafil to be transformed into ECONYL® regenerated nylon, which is used for carpet flooring and fashion items.

Island Del Coco National Park is home to many marine ecosystems that provide universal importance. The Costa Rican thermal dome off the coast of the Cocos Island gives 7% of biodiversity to the world. Thanks to this one-time collaboration, harmful marine debris was recovered from the ocean and is set to be transformed into a high performing material that can have a second life in new products.

“It is not just about sending a boat to the island and bring the trash to the mainland, it is to do the whole work,” stated Costa Rica’s Minister of the Environment Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, concluding “this is an achievement we are very proud of, and above all, we are very grateful for the support we received.”

“Plastics are a serious threat to marine ecosystems. Removing illegal nylon fishing gear from such a pristine environment, repurposing the material and ensuring it will not be used to kill sharks again is a big step in protecting sharks and the Tropical Eastern Pacific marine environment, which Cocos Island is part of,” said Captain Paul Watson. Adding, “This is a very important migration route for sharks and Sea Shepherd’s commitment to protect sharks and their habitats is a holistic one, tackling Illegal targeting of sharks by longline and overseeing the proper disposal of the fishing gear, by ensuring a chain of custody from the high seas to the recycling facility.”

ECONYL® nylon is obtained through the regeneration process of nylon waste and reduces the global warming impact of nylon by up to 80 percent compared with material generated from oil. Aquafil, the Italian company that invented ECONYL®, brings new purpose to waste materials that would otherwise pollute the world’s landfills and oceans.

Source: Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Watson – The Movie

Image may contain: one or more people and text

WATSON – The Movie poster

Just saw the new movie poster for WATSON. Amazing!!! I’m honoured that Leslie Chicott made this incredibly well done film about my life and about Sea Shepherd. Love the poster, love the film and I adore Leslie and Louise. Thank-you Terra Mater and Participant.

WATSON has been shown three times to sold out theatres at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC and it was shown at the Dallas Earth X Conference yesterday.

It is of corse difficult to promote a film about one’s self especially when it’s named WATSON. But what is important is that it is the story of what has become a global movement.

The film is a brilliant distillation of a half century of activism. It is my hope that it will be inspiring to a younger generation now facing challenges and struggles for greater and more perilous than anything that I have experienced during my lifetime.

The film hopefully will soon have a theatrical release.


Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

One thousand whales will die because of a vote amongst a group of arrogant humans today in Florianopolis, Brazil

The vote was on so called indigenous whaling. In other words a slaughter quota for the Inuit, the Yupik, possibly the Makah, some Greenlanders and a few bogus aboriginal groups in the Caribbean.


Well the Aboriginal people of the Caribbean were the Caribs and they were wiped out by the Spanish colonizers. Thus, the people wanting to kill Humpbacks and pilot whales in Bequi, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and St. Lucia have no indigenous “rights” to slaughter whales at all.

Not that anyone has a right to murder a highly intelligent, self-aware, socially complex sentient being like a whale.

The position of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is that no one should have the “right” to kill whales anywhere for any reason.

Killing whales is plain and simply – murder!

The Japanese, Icelanders, Norwegians and Danes and Faroese are mass murderers and the killing of whales by indigenous cultures is also an act of murder.

I make no apologies for this position. We have been called racist for opposing the murder of whales but we are not motivated by racism. We don’t care what the color or the culture is of the hand that fires the harpoon. There is no justification for the mass murder of whales.

Racism is allowing one group to have special rights to commit murder based on culture and race.

We oppose whaling by the Japanese but also by the white Europeans of Iceland, Denmark and Norway.

Our passion and our loyalty is to the nation of whales and we will not betray them for any cultural justification.

I would like to salute the 7 nations that had the courage to vote against indigenous whaling.

Costa Rica
Dominican Republic

58 nations voted to slaughter whales in a proposal led by the United States.

Brazil, Chile, Gabon, Mexico and Peru abstained.

Australia has little respect for Aboriginals but voted to allow the Inuit on a distant continent to kill whales.

Japan has denied the indigenous Ainu people the right to whale and hunt but they have no problem backing indigenous peoples in the USA, Canada and Greenland to kill whales.

Perhaps the United States believes they can absolve the guilt of genocide by allowing the slaughter of whales so that the whales must die for their colonial sins.

It all reeks of self-serving hypocrisy.

Denmark will now try to convince the world that the slaughter in the Faroes is indigenous.

Will the Makah once again try to kill whales just to prove then have the right to do so? They have no subsistence necessity and nothing in their culture justifies killing a whale with a .50 caliber recoilless rifle.

How many more Humpbacks must die in Greenland to provide fad foodie meals for bored tourists?

How many 100 to 200 year-old Bowheads must die in the Arctic by people using explosive harpoons, motor boats, and sonar?

Sea Shepherd’s position on Aboriginal whaling may be controversial but it is consistent. We have always opposed the murder of whales and we always will, by anyone, for any reason, anywhere.


50 Shades of Veganism Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

No automatic alt text available.

by Captain Paul Watson

I have seen the steady evolution of veganism in my lifetime. In the Seventies we had vegetarians but practically no one had ever heard of a vegan.

As a vegetarian in 1979, I was hard pressed to find a decent meal and at dinners I would find myself ordering an omelette for lunch or dinner which actually was considered somewhat unusual. Finding a vegetarian meal was possible but almost always restricted. Finding a vegetarian restaurant was more of a challenge but there was always Indian and Japanese vegetable sushi.

But I have seen the movement grow and although it began slowly, in recent years it has accelerated rapidly to the point where traditional meat venues like MacDonald’s and others have seen the writing on the wall and now are offering vegan burgers and the dairy industry is totally freaking out over coconut, soy, almond, hemp, oat and pea milk.

Vegan scarcity has evolved into a cornucopia of vegan alternatives. The movement has exploded and due to many considerations like animal rights, health, the environment etc, the movement is becoming stronger with each passing day.

My prediction is that by 2030, western society will be predominantly vegetarian and veganism will be the norm and not the exception.

Being a vegan sometimes appears to be a complicated affair. People seem to be vegans for different reasons and there does seem to be a bit of bickering amongst vegans on just how vegan one should be.

The only negative aspect of veganism is intolerance. And it’s not just intolerance by vegans towards meat eaters and vegetarians but intolerance of other vegans.

Sea Shepherd ships have been vegan since 2000 and we have had thousands of crew participate in campaigns so we have had plenty of opportunity to see the various factions of veganism in relationship to each other.

People do not have to be vegan to be crewmembers but they must be vegan on the ship as crewmembers. Because of this over the years we have introduced hundreds of meat eaters to veganism and as a result many have made the decision to adopt veganism as a life style.

Given the opportunity to eat real vegan meals by excellent vegan cooks it is amazing how many people have discovered veganism as a real option – healthy, delicious and easy to do.

But we have also discovered a major obstacle to people embracing veganism and that obstacle is vegans with hostile, holier than thou, angry and judgemental proselytizing attitudes.

I tend to look at this from the point of view of both the animals and eco-systems which really means I do not give a damn why anyone is vegan. The motivations to me are irrelevant. Anyone who is vegan is good for animals and for the environment. Vegetarians are also good for animals and the environment and even people who refrain from eating meat once or twice a week or who cut down on their meat consumption are good for animals and the environment.

Abstaining 100% is wonderful. Abstaining 50% is good. Abstaining 25% is helpful.

Most vegans were once vegetarian and/or meat eaters. People can change but they change best by seeing examples from others. Those who lead by example are helping to recruit more people to a vegan life style than those who try to recruit though shaming, anger and ridicule.

Every vegan meal consumed is a bonus for animals and for the environment.

It’s easy to tell when someone is a vegan because they will damn well tell you but it is somewhat more difficult to determine what kind of vegan a person might be.

Just for fun, I thought I would prepare my 50 Shades of Veganism to illustrate the wide diversity within this thing we call veganism.


“A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.” Definition of veganism by the Vegan Society in 1979.

1. True vegan – Absolutely no animal products used in any manner without the need for any justification, explanation, defensiveness or offensiveness.
2. Level 5 Vegan. … A Level 5 Vegan was defined as someone who never eats anything that casts a shadow. While this definition is nonsensical the Level 5 term as it’s used today is a mostly tongue-in-cheek reference to someone who refuses to make any compromises at all in their vegan lifestyle.
3. Paleo-vegan – The Paleo diet without the meat – unprocessed foods.
4. Compassionate vegan – does not consume animal products out of a deep love for animals.
5. Compassionate Ethical vegan – does not consume animal products out of a deep love for animals and a deep concern for the lives and welfare of animals.
6. Compassionate Ethical Health vegan – does not consume animal products out of a deep love for animals and a deep concern for the lives and welfare of animals and sees veganism as a healthy life style.
7. Compassionate Ethical, Health, Environmentalist vegan – does not consume animal products out of a deep love for animals and a deep concern for the lives and welfare of animals, sees veganism as a healthy life styleand is concerned about the impact of the meat and fishing industry on the environment and climate change.
8. Activist vegan – a vegan who is an actual activist for animals. An on-the-ground-gets-things-done-in the-face-of-the-enemy-vegan.
9. Enemy Identification Confused vegan. A vegan who is unable to actually identify the real enemy i.e. the animal abusers, meat producers, hunters, and abusers and instead sends time and energy attacking vegetarians and other vegans.
10. Ethical Environmentalist vegan – does not consume animal products out of concern for the lives and welfare of animals and because they are concerned about climate change and the environment.
11. Ethical Environmentalist Health vegan – does not consume animal products out of concern for the lives and welfare of animals and because they are concerned about climate change and the environment and they also want to have a healthy lifestyle.
12. Raw vegan – A vegan who only consumes raw fruits, nuts and vegetables.
13. Raw till 4 vegan – Raw until 4 and cooked vegan after.
14. Raw Ethical vegan – A raw vegan who adopts a raw vegan diet out of concern for animals,
15. Fruitarian – Vegans who eat only fruits and nuts.
16. Raw Environmental vegan – a raw vegan who adopts a raw vegan diet out of concern for ecology and climate change.
17. Raw health vegan – a raw vegan who adopts a raw vegan diet for health reasons.
18. Organic vegans – only organic vegan foods
19. Organic Raw vegans – only raw organic fruits and vegetables.
20. Home Grown Vegans – Vegans who only eat food locally grown and preferably organic.
21. Competitive Purist Vegan – An ethical vegan who is constantly comparing themselves to other vegans and pointing out how they are better vegans than other vegans.
22. Veggie Jesuit – An ethical competitive purist vegan whose mission is to convert all of humanity to veganism through intimidation, shaming and bullying.
23. Proselytizing vegan – They just really have to preach – all the damn time.
24. Angry vegan – Constantly angry with anyone who is not a vegan.
25. Health Vegan – A vegan because it is healthier but could not give a damn about the environment or animal rights or welfare.
26. Annoying vegan – a person whose advocacy is just damn annoying.
27. Celebrity vegan – Promotes veganism in an attempt to be cool.
28. Compassionate celebrity vegan – Promotes veganism because they are actually cool.
29. Athletic vegan – A vegan who sees veganism as providing their body with more endurance, stamina and overall health.
30. Ethical Athletic vegan – An athlete who embraces veganism and promotes it because of concern for the lives and welfare of animals.
31. Environmental vegan – A vegan who is vegan because they are concerned about the impact of the meat industry and fishing on the environment and climate change.
32. Trendy vegan – A vegan who is a vegan because it’s like – well, trendy to be vegan.
33. Straight Edge vegan – A vegan who does not smoke or drinks alcohol but loves coffee.
34. Plant based vegans – These are vegans who do not like to be called vegans primarily because they are environment or health motivated vegans. Like it or not they are still vegans.
35. HCLF vegans – High Carb low fat vegans.
36. Honey eating vegan – A vegan who for different reasons justifies the consumption of honey. One reason put forward is that there is a need to support bee colonies for pollination.
37. Non-Face Eating vegans – People who view themselves as vegans but will eat animals without faces like oysters, clams and scallops for example and will insist it is still a vegan lifestyle.
38. Leather wearing vegans – People who refrain from eating animals but continue to wear leather clothing like belts and shoes.
39. Flexitarian – A person who is a vegan sometimes but not always depending upon circumstances.
40. A Freegan vegan – A person who views themselves as vegan but eats anything as long as it is free.
41. Fall off the Wagon vegan – a vegan who decides to no longer be a vegan but intends to become vegan again. ]
42. Revengeful ex-vegan – a vegan who now eats meat and passionately embraces carnism.
43. Goth vegans – Goths who practise veganism. It’s kind of their thing.
44. Nazi vegans – Yes there are indeed vegan Nazi cults because they claim Hitler was a vegan.
45. Hindu vegans – Not all Hindu’s are vegan but there is a movement to embrace veganism in Hinduism.
46. Krishna vegans – Hari Krishna, hare veganism.
47. Infiltrating vegan – someone who nefariously pretends to be a vegan for the purpose of infiltrating vegan activist groups.
48. Pervy vegans – Males who pretend to be vegan in order to pick up vegan females.
49. Norvegans – not real vegans just Nor vegans.
50. VEGANS – aliens from the star system Vega.