It was a fluke incident?

Why save the whales? Let's save us!

Give me the money, I'll open a trust!

Peter von Nostrand: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 260x195]

That man knows a fluke when he sees one, even if he's not a marine biologist.

Well, since that Mexican cartel leader is going to serve the same amount of time, it seems fair: the thousand guys he's responsible for killing probably weigh the same as a couple live whales.

Sounds like the Feds are just being a Moby Dick.

♫♪ Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Don't do it. DON'T DO IT! ♫♪



/and dat's da name 'o dat tune

The penalty is extremely stiff considering that no damage was actually incurred by the whales.

Sometimes it makes sense to have draconian punishments to deter people from harming fragile ecosystems, but this is beyond the pale. If she does end up with the sentence the article mentioned, I hope someone with good sense will commute it.

I think they should be going after the Japanese whale hunting boats, who actually kill around 1000 whales a year. I think that does a bit more damage than somebody tossing some food to the whales.

Peter von Nostrand: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 260x195]

The sea was angry that day my friends, like an old man trying to return soup at a deli.

doglover:

Came for Futurama.... glad to see someone else did too.

/hates Mushu

RoxtarRyan: doglover:

Came for Futurama.... glad to see someone else did too.

/hates Mushu

What smells like freaking porpoises hork?

exatron: RoxtarRyan: doglover:

Came for Futurama.... glad to see someone else did too.

/hates Mushu

What smells like freaking porpoises hork?

God, I love that episode. They should've hit on what happens to Fry again in a later episode.

untoldforce: I think they should be going after the Japanese whale hunting boats, who actually kill around 1000 whales a year. I think that does a bit more damage than somebody tossing some food to the whales.

Or... culling the herd maintains a stable population so that the whales don't deplete the stocks of organisms which they rely on for food.

AverageAmericanGuy: The penalty is extremely stiff considering that no damage was actually incurred by the whales.

Sometimes it makes sense to have draconian punishments to deter people from harming fragile ecosystems, but this is beyond the pale. If she does end up with the sentence the article mentioned, I hope someone with good sense will commute it.

Put me on the jury and she'll walk free. I don't care if she was harpooning the whale. Whales have no rights.

untoldforce: I think they should be going after the Japanese whale hunting boats, who actually kill around 1000 whales a year. I think that does a bit more damage than somebody tossing some food to the whales.

just like on a simpsons episode, the seas will be fished empty before they realize the wisdom of letting the catch grow a few seasons to ensure sustainability

Maxc7001: How is this illegal?! I see the sign for "Man Feeding Whales Ahead" all the time!

That's for feeding land whales.

FunkOut: Fark Me To Tears: Oh God... Don't tell JJ Abrams about this... He'll wind up rebooting Star Trek IV...

"Thar be LENSE FLARES here!"

Well, double dumb ass on him.

The lens flare really screws with people on the LDS.

Your bathing suit is lumpy and you smell bad.

(whale biologist)

Fark Me To Tears: Oh God... Don't tell JJ Abrams about this... He'll wind up rebooting Star Trek IV...

"Thar be LENSE FLARES here!"

Reminds me of an amusing custom in the olden days of hand-cranked 35mm silent movies.

They used to refer to bits of flare in the glass elements of a lens as "lens lice".

She's a whale biologist. She's just calls'm like she sees'em.

Peter von Nostrand:

What is that, a titleist?

Lord Huggington: She's a whale biologist. She's just calls'm like she sees'em.

Callin'em

/felt weird typing that sentence.

Peter von Nostrand: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 260x195]

The sea was angry that day my friends, like an old man trying to return soup at a deli!

The breadcrumbs must be enormous.

"Jail's not so bad. You can make sangria in the terlet. Course, it's shank or be shanked."

AverageAmericanGuy: untoldforce: I think they should be going after the Japanese whale hunting boats, who actually kill around 1000 whales a year. I think that does a bit more damage than somebody tossing some food to the whales.

Or... culling the herd maintains a stable population so that the whales don't deplete the stocks of organisms which they rely on for food.

Which mightn't be necessary if we hadn't screwed their ecosystem to begin with.

farkingismybusiness: Why save the whales? Let's save us!
[www.outlookskates.com image 600x273]
Give me the money, I'll open a trust!

All they do is swim and spew.

Stupid whales.

untoldforce: I think they should be going after the Japanese whale hunting boats, who actually kill around 1000 whales a year. I think that does a bit more damage than somebody tossing some food to the whales.

God I hate that channel "Save the whales but kill snakes and gators".

The Marine Mammal Protection Act is a wonderful thing.

If you're within 100 yards of a whale, even if it's one that's been dead for a week and rotting apart, you're a criminal. If the whale swims over to you out of curiosity, you're a criminal. If you cut away fishing line or a net tangled around the whale, you're a criminal. The only time you can be near a whale and not be a criminal is if the whale is stranded on a beach.

Even scientists who specialize in cetacean study have been charged under the MMPA.

I suspect that someone who knows less about marine biology likes following the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law. Almost as bad as religion.

jabelar: Well, since that Mexican cartel leader is going to serve the same amount of time, it seems fair: the thousand guys he's responsible for killing probably weigh the same as a couple live whales.

We can now rest easier. The ocean waters will be safer!

Did no one rtfa? (I know, welcome to fark.....) The 20 year charge and hugest fine is for providing an edited video and lying about it....you know....obstruction and cover up.

The feeding charge "only" carries a 1 year sentence and $100,000 fine.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Did no one rtfa? (I know, welcome to fark.....) The 20 year charge and hugest fine is for providing an edited video and lying about it....you know....obstruction and cover up.

The feeding charge "only" carries a 1 year sentence and $100,000 fine.

If I was on the jury I'd still vote not guilty. The government lies to us all the time... turn about, and all that.

DrPainMD: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Did no one rtfa? (I know, welcome to fark.....) The 20 year charge and hugest fine is for providing an edited video and lying about it....you know....obstruction and cover up.

The feeding charge "only" carries a 1 year sentence and $100,000 fine.

If I was on the jury I'd still vote not guilty. The government lies to us all the time... turn about, and all that.

I'm sympathetic to this argument. There is definitely a lopsided relationship: The government can legally lie to you in the course of an investigation, but you can't legally do so.

Either both need to be legally required to tell the truth, or neither.