Since Watson did not have authority, he made use of what he did have: publicity. For those of you who know Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, you won't be surprised to see this photo and long profile landed a cover story in this week's New Yorker.
Not that Paul Watson is not worthy of a long profile. Without a doubt, Paul Watson is one of the (if not the) most energetic and outspoken advocates against the wholesale destruction of the oceans, accompanied by some radical gestures. I first heard Watson speak a decade ago and his dynamism attracted me to his cause. I immediately became a member and, two years after hearing him, I volunteered with Sea Shepherd's anti-shark finning campaign in the Galapagos Islands.
By then, Watson had been policing the high seas for a quarter of a century. He was a co-founder of Greenpeace on Vancouver's shores, but was too individualistic to be part of the team. Bob Hunter, a senior Greenpeace member, wrote about Greenpeace's decision to kick Watson out.
"No one doubted his courage for a moment. He was a great warrior-brother. Yet in terms of the Greenpeace gestalt, he seemed possessed by too powerful a drive, too unrelenting a desire to push himself front and center, shouldering everyone else aside."
After the Greenpeace verdict, Watson was far from deflated. Instead, he formed his own group and took to the high seas. In 1981, for instance, he secretly entered Siberia to document a Soviet food-processing facility that was converting illegally harvested whale meat into feed for animals at a fur farm.
Though has has been accused of being a megalomaniac, I believe Watson's showiness (full captain's apparel, for instance) is part of his shrewd understanding of the media. The author also captures his skills at debate with several anecdotes and quotations, such as:
"People say, 'You're incredibly arrogant,' " Watson told me. "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."
And you can imagine my excitement when I found this story not only shared details about Watson's life and recent voyages but dedicated a paragraph to shifting baselines and Daniel Pauly:
"We forgot the wonder and splendor of a virgin nature," Watson wrote recently. "We revise history and make it fit into our present perceptions." In 1995, the process of forgetting was given a name--"shifting baseline syndrome"--by Daniel Pauly, a scientist at the University of British Columbia. "Essentially, this syndrome has arisen because each generation of fisheries scientists accepts as a baseline the stock size and species composition that occurred at the beginning of their careers, and uses this to evaluate changes," Pauly argued in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution. He concluded, "The result obviously is a gradual shift of the baseline, a gradual accommodation of the creeping disappearance of resource species." When Pauly and others took a longer view, they noticed another worrying trend. Humanity had been eating its way down the ocean's food web; as large marine predators became scarce, people developed a taste for smaller and smaller fish. Animals that were once used for bait or that were considered worthless (hagfish, sea cucumber) were later taken in large quantities for human consumption. "Bait thirty years ago was calamari," Pauly told me. "Now it is served in a restaurant. It is very nice. But it was bait before." Future generations, Pauly predicts, only half in jest, will grow up on jellyfish sandwiches.
Not if Paul Watson can help it.
Comments
He claims the title professor because he taught one class at a community college; come on does this guy even have bachelor’s degree?
This has to be one of the most unethical groups out there. Watson and has band of lemmings spread lies, just look at what he stated about a Native American group the Makah trying to resurrect a small part of their culture through whaling. Watson claims: Makah where using high powered harpoons, Truth: The harpoon was thrown by hand.
Watson lie: Makah want to commercially whale and sell the whale products. Truth: Tribe had no such intention, look the AK tribes; they can’t and do not sell marine mammal products.
Watson lie: Japan gave the Makah $1,000,000 to harvest a whale. Truth: Anyone who has ever stepped foot on a reservation can tell you that if a million dollars shows up you can tell. Nothing changed on the Makah reservation, same old cars and houses in need of repair.
Doesn’t this guy have something better to do than try and keep down the most oppressed group in America? Watson is not someone any serious scientist should idolize.
Posted by: Marco | November 2, 2007 10:43 AM
Watson is not an idol nor is he infallible. He is human and therfore must be taken as a sum of all his parts.
No, he doesn't have a bachelor's degree, a point made by the author of the New Yorker article (but I believe he teaches/taught a communications course at a California university).
As for the Makah whale hunt, this is probably one of Watson's most contentious issues. Paul Watson's ultimate triumph is his ability to make headlines (as he has done again in this week's New Yorker), not necessarily his fact-checking (if you read the article, the point is made repeatedly and Watson even likens himself to Ronald Reagan in this respect). I admire (not idolize) Watson's media savvy and his zeal but, like anyone operating at the most radical margins, I could not say I agree with all of his tactics. I stand by many of Watson's efforts, though (read more about the Galapagos campaign for an insight into some of the other Sea Shepherd strategies).
I also admire Watson and the Sea Shepherd in the same way another environmental hero, the late David Brower, did: Environmental groups with radical approaches are invaluable for making others look reasonable.
Posted by: Jennifer L. Jacquet | November 2, 2007 11:03 AM
I would argue that at best Watson doesn�t help the environment and at worst does great harm to the environment, environmentalists and scientists. When people see video of a crazed guy trying to ram and sink large ships with crew aboard I really don�t think they become enlightened to our environmental issues. Viewers don�t go out and trading in their pickups for hybrids, rather they view environmentalists as being radicals who go beyond the boundaries of ethics and responsibility to prove a point irregardless of the facts. Watson is making hard for all of us who produce good, honest, ethical science to have public credibility. Show boats like Watson are providing fuel for the global warming denialists and pro-overfishing groups. It is easy to marginalize scientists when you have a �professor� running around trying to drown people.
Why do you think Watson is so focused on whales? Do you think he really believes that whales are our bothers and we have spiritual connection to them? I bet not. Is whaling the largest issue facing our environment? Not by a long shot. Will the harvest of one gray whale every few years have any impact on a population of thousands (10-30), which many actual whale scientists believe is at carrying capacity? No. So why Watson is so hot about whales? Whales have gone from steaks to soul in America and he is harnessing this new found flipper hugging to get is face in the press.
I would argue that articles such as the following have done more to protect whales Watson ever has. (just to mention a few) Cipriano, F. and S.R. Palumbi. 1999. Genetic tracking of a protected whale. Nature. 397(6717):307-308. Baker, C.S., et al. 2000. Scientific whaling: Source of illegal products for market? Science. 290(5497):1695.
Not to mention anyone on the US Marine Mammal commission.
By Watson flagrantly ignoring the law, ethics, and good taste he is allowing his opposition to do the same. How is this helping?
For a balanced look at the Makah issue read A Whale Hunt by Robert Sullivan http://www.amazon.com/Whale-Hunt-Robert-Sullivan/dp/0684864339
My "facts" as you called them an earlier version of the post above came from Sullivan's book, personal contact with people who have worked on Makah reservation for many years, and having spent some time working with Native American groups.
How many times are going to edit the post above?
Posted by: Marco | November 2, 2007 4:46 PM
Marco - thank you for speaking the voice of a true scientist who shows absolutely no understanding of human nature. Why don't you also go on to chide people for watching too much television and going to Nascar events. You speak with the voice that causes mainstream society to laugh at angry scientists and all their frustration over people not being rational. You should have been outside the Sea Shepherd event in Santa Monica a month ago with a picket sign trying to ward off the mobs of powerful celebrities and wealthy folks who turned out in numbers that I really couldn't believe -- I'm not sure I've ever seen a celebrity event with so much power. It would have been great for you to have been shouting at them, "Pay no attention to these kooks."
Have you no clue of what motivates most humans? Here's a hint: it's not data.
Posted by: Randy Olson | November 4, 2007 5:31 AM
Randy-
So are saying that if want to be a good scientist I needed to go sink some fishing boats, preferably with people aboard? Not sure my committee would agree.
Nice general statement but you are ignoring Watson’s specific actions. Why did focus so much energy on the Makah? He has done a lot of harm to the Makah people.
It also seems you are also confusing media attention and results. Right now the Sea Sheppard’s rely entirely on Watson. If he were to stop trying to sink boats today what difference has he made? What long term change has he made? Has he been taken seriously by those in charge of changing regulations? Watson is short term flash in the pan and will result in little actual change.
“You speak with the voice that causes mainstream society to laugh at angry scientists”
Again are you stating that I need to blow ships up to be taken seriously as a scientist? Are scientists to toss away all shreds of ethics and responsibility? Should we falsify data? Hell even just data up on the spot? How about when fishing regulations come out that we don’t agree with should just go down to the harbor and sink all the boats are should work with regulators to make real change?
Again, Watson is not someone any serious scientist should idolize.
Posted by: Marco | November 4, 2007 7:57 AM
Take a look at our video with Mark Dowie at: http://www.shiftingbaselines.org/videos/index.html
He quotes Saul Alinsky who talked about, "Total Tactics." Which means different people respond to different things, so you need a spectrum of efforts. Paul Watson is part of that spectrum. Scientists are part of that spectrum. Al Gore, complete with his occassional mistakes and over-reaches, is part of that spectrum. The IPCC scientists with their dull, dry presentations that no lay person could ever sit through, are part of that spectrum.
What is counter-productive is the voice of people who say there is only one way to approach problems.
Also, I can assure you, you know very little about the persuasive powers of Paul Watson behind the scenes. There are a lot of powerful people who can't afford to be seen with him in public, but have great respect for him and listen to him behind the scenes (you'll just have to take my word for it). And that is called politics which is again a topic that scientists have little grasp of.
Posted by: Randy Olson | November 4, 2007 9:30 AM
"Whales have gone from steaks to soul in America and he is harnessing this new found flipper hugging to get his face in the press."
Watson, as an early member/co-founder of Greenpeace, was part of the culture that converted whales from steak to soul. Scientists, particularly those focusing on bioacoustics (such as Roger Payne and Chris Clark) also played into that mythology when they showed that whales communicated. If Watson was intent only on becoming a media whore, why not choose something like professional sports or politics?
Anyone who knows Paul Watson will attest to his compassion for whales. I think what is up for dispute is whether or not you agree with how he channels that compassion.
Posted by: Jennifer L. Jacquet | November 4, 2007 10:36 AM