Sea Shepherd Conservation Society: Whaling Ship Deliberately 'Plowed' Into Our Boat (VIDEO

[G_j]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/06/sea-shepherd-conservation_n_412962.html


Sea Shepherd Conservation Society: Whaling Ship Deliberately 'Plowed' Into Our Boat (VIDEO)


First Posted: 01- 6-10 09:00 AM | Updated: 01- 6-10 09:24 AM

SYDNEY ? A conservation group's boat had its bow sheared off and was taking on water Wednesday after it was struck by a Japanese whaling ship in the frigid waters of Antarctica, the group said.

The boat's six crew members were safely transferred to another of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's vessels, the newly commissioned Bob Barker. The boat is named for the American game show host who donated $5 million to buy it.

The clash was the most serious in the past several years, during which the Sea Shepherd has sent vessels into far-southern waters to try to harass the Japanese fleet into ceasing its annual whale hunt.

Clashes using hand-thrown stink bombs, ropes meant to tangle propellers and high-tech sound equipment have been common in recent years, and crashes between ships have sometimes occurred.


..more..



http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/06-2


Published on Wednesday, January 6, 2010 by The Age (Australia)

Activists: 'We Now Have a Real Whale War on Our Hands'
Protest boat destroyed
by Andrew Darby

PROTESTERS say they will step up their ''war'' on Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean despite the loss of a front-line protest vessel yesterday in a dramatic collision with one of the whaling fleet.

The Ady Gil after being rammed. Photo: JoAnne McArthur/Sea Shepherd
The Sea Shepherd group said it had no intention of pulling out of the conflict after the $2 million protest trimaran Ady Gil had its bow sheared off in the collision with the whaling ship Shonan Maru No. 2.

"If they think that our remaining two ships will retreat from the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in the face of their extremism, they will be mistaken,'' said Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson. ''We now have a real whale war on our hands.''

..more..

[MercutioATC]

1. Horseshit.

By SSCS's own admission, the Ady Gill placed itself in the path of the Shonan Maru 2. The video shows that the Ady Gil moved forward, directly into the path of the Shonan Maru immediately before impact.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

5. As a child, I was frightened by a whale.

Seriously, I believe that whaling is a legitimate commercial enterprise. I also believe that these Japanese "research" ships are just whalers subverting the rules.

However, I absolutely condemn the vigilantism exhibited by the SSCS.

[BeFree]

8. So

What do you think the whales would support.....
Commercial enterprise or defense of their lives in whatever form it takes?

Don't you find it odd that in defense of our lives, we condone a vast military that has bombed the crap out of so many innocent people these last few years. Eh?

[MercutioATC]

10. I'd imagine tuna don't like fishermen very much, either.

Nor do pigs like farmers...


So what?

[BeFree]

38. Enjoy your tuna while it lasts...

...because they are over fished also. And I don't eat pigs, either.

But just go on hating the whales. It makes me feel good to know the SSCS is pissing you off. They are being quite successful if they can get you to pay attention.

[MercutioATC]

41. Thanks, I will.

They're yummy :)

[Chan790]

22. By definition, it cannot be a *legitimate* commercial enterprise.

As whaling is explicitly illegal. Legitimate means, among other things, legal; not approved-of-by-MercutioATC.

If you're saying though that you approve of whaling, I agree that is your opinion. Also, that I'd agree that whaling is a commercial enterprise...but so is selling heroin to 1st graders, production of kiddie porn and ivory poaching...none of which are legitimate.

[MercutioATC]

34. Not exactly.

Nations (such as Norway) who lodged protests to the 1986 whaling ban aren't bound by it. Japan also lodged an objection, but withdrew it after being threatened by the U.S.

Just to clean up the language, "Whaling, within scientifically-determined limits, should be a legitimate commercial enterprise."

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cetacea]

32. Someone needs to donate a sub.

[Larkspur]

28. As a child I was frightened of the Japanese

who did attack Pearl Harbor. I also had an uncle who flew for the US Navy during WW II and he hated the Japanese to the day he died because of their Kamikaze attacks.

However, as a child, I always loved whales and dolphins.

[Chan790]

52. My grandfather never forgave them.

Of the four sons of his parents, only he and my great-uncle whom he was estranged from (Great Uncle Charlie was a pacifist who refused to fight and was dishonorably-discharged. The last thing my grandfather ever said to him was "They should have hung you.", that was nearly 70 years ago. They're both dead now.) survived WWII. He, himself, was disqualified for service for unknown-to-me medical reasons. Apparently the Japanese took my Great Uncle John as a POW (He was an Army chaplain and Jesuit priest) and tortured him to death. I don't know the story of my other great-uncle other than he died somewhere in the South Pacific and they never returned the body...I don't even remember his name.

[Ladyhawk]

115. I like whales better than I like people.

I have many reasons and the list grows longer every day. I think you may have just added to that list.

I go whale watching as often as I can...haven't gone lately. No money. No health. No health care.

As a group, whales are one of the most intelligent animals on the planet.

I've seen blue whales, gray whales, humpbacks (my favorite mysticetes), long-beaked common dolphins, Risso's dolphins, Northern right whale dolphins, orcas and Pacific white-sided dolphins (my favorites).

I understand nature: beauty and brutality in equal measure. I've seen an orca eat a sea lion. (Technically, all dolphins and porpoises belong to the whale family. Technically, orcas are the largest dolphins.) I love sea lions. I love orcas. Orcas have to eat, too.

A whale scared you when you were little? Big whoop. People scare the hell out of me all the time. What are the odds of a whale killing me or hurting me, even if I were able to go out on the ocean every day? What are the odds of a person hurting me? It happens every day. What are the odds of a person killing me? They're already doing it by denying me health care.

Whales are not perfect. Sometimes they can be aggressive with one another and with people. On documentaries I've seen bottlenosed dolphins kill harbor porpoises for no apparent reason.

But...

They never bomb the shit out of random brown people.

They never give huge sums of money to corporations while ignoring the sick and poor.

They never write incredibly stupid and ignorant posts on Internet boards.

They have never deprived me of health care.

They have never befriended me, then stabbed me in the back.


Fuck...I think I like moss better than I like people.

[FBaggins]

6. Reality is not altered by which side you sympathize with

though it isn't uncommon for fanatics to think so.

[BeFree]

7. Reality?

Is it fanatic to believe that whales should not be hunted down and slaughtered?

[FBaggins]

9. That's correct... reality

Whether a ball is fumbled or the player's knee is down does not depend on whether I root for his team or his opponents'.

No... it isn't fanatic to believe that whales should be protected. It IS fanatic to put human lives at risk intentionally for TV coverage. Just as it's fanatic to fake being shot or any number of other games they have played.

People can argue whether the ends justify the means... but the motivation most certainly doesn't.

[BeFree]

13. OK

You think saving the whales is just for fame and glory via TV?

F all the volunteers who are motivated to protect the whales?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

29. Huh?

You associate anti-whaling actions with abortion clinic bombing?

You must be totally anti-war. Totally pacifist? Somehow I don't think so.

There comes a time that when all other avenues have closed that corporate death dealing must be counteracted. This is one of those cases. Real statements must be made and terror must be met with terror. All in all raising a hand in defense of the defenseless.

This is not anywhere near counteracting the personal decisions of having an abortion. This is an act against an organized, unethical and illegal slaughter of an endangered specie.

[FBaggins]

33. Both are parallel examples

Believing strongly in a cause does not make unacceptable actions suddenly acceptable.

You can take clinic bombings... or torture of "enemy combatants" or whatever you like.

Real statements must be made and terror must be met with terror

Thanks for proving my point.

[BeFree]

37. Enemy combatants?

Man, the lengths some people will go to to support the killing of whales is incredible. Try staying on the subject.

The whales are defenseless. So folks who are motivated to defend the whales take actions that are like fighting fire with fire.

Besides, your knee-jerk condemnation of the defenders while history has shown that the whalers are at fault the whole time proves your agenda to be on the side of the whalers. And your conflating of different subjects shows you to be failing.

[FBaggins]

40. Lol... as I said... at least VISIT reality on occasion.

I have no interest in supporting the killing of whales. I'm entirely opposed to it.

Like Greenpeace however, I think these guys go well beyond the bounds of reasonable action.

Besides, your knee-jerk condemnation of the defenders while history has shown that the whalers are at fault the whole time proves your agenda to be on the side of the whalers.

Lol... and that ridiculous statement proves that you haven't visited reality recently. Anyone who has watched the show can see that they make these life-endagering boneheaded moves all the time (as well as blatantly lie and fabricate evidence).

[BeFree]

48. Your bias is showing

You pretend to be all high and mighty, self-righteous and all that, but where is your opposition to the whalers? You mouth opposition but show total condemnation of the activists.

You ain't being real.

[FBaggins]

53. Lol... so now I MUST see the knee as down in order to be a fan?

You keep insisting that a bias for the whales must be evidenced in support for anything SeaShepard does.

I guess Greenpeace isn't a pro-whale organization any longer.

I can oppose the whalers all day long and STILL recognize ridiculously wrong-headed actions by others who oppose them.

[BeFree]

58. But you don't

You equate SS with abortion bombers and bushco illegal actions.
You are like Fox news.

These people are too brave for you, eh? Since they are way above you you have to try and take them down.

[FBaggins]

65. I "equate" irrational actions caused by too-fervent motivations

with OTHER irrational actions caused by too-fervent motivations.

No... they're not "too brave"... they're idiots.

Idiots who are HARMING the cause of saving whales. But hey! They get to be on TV... so I guess that makes it OK.

[BeFree]

75. Beck?

Is that you?

Harming the cause of saving whales? What would you know about that?

[FBaggins]

77. Not Beck... Greenpeace. Yes... HARMING the whales.

Disabling a ship at sea in the Antarctic, regardless of how much one may object to its activities, is not only a callous act of disregard for human life, it's courting an environmental disaster in one of the most fragile environments in the world.

Such tactics are not only dangerous to the whalers, they are dangerous to the cause of stopping Japanese whaling. Our political analysis is unequivocal: if Japanese whaling is to be stopped, it will be stopped by a domestic decision within the Japanese government to do so. That's why we have invested heavily in a Greenpeace office in Japan and efforts to speak directly to the Japanese public -- 70 percent of whom are unaware that whaling takes place in the Southern Ocean at all. A majority of those who are aware of the whaling programme oppose it. Support for whaling in Japan has been steadily falling for the last decade. Consumption of whale meat is in decline, the cost of the programme to taxpayers is being questioned by the business community, and the political costs of the programme have created opposition in the Foreign Affairs department in Japan. All of this progress could be undone by a nationalist backlash. By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end.

For the record, Watson has previously sided WITH the pro-whaling crowd AGAINST Greenpeace.

He's a nut. A nut with good intentions... but a nut. As is anyone who blindly believes his lies.

[BeFree]

84. Good

Watson is making Greenpeace - with it's billions of dollars - actually do something.

"..Japanese public -- 70 percent of whom are unaware that whaling takes place in the Southern Ocean at all."

Go SS. Make them sit up and take notice. The day a damned Japanese whaling ship sinks, is the day that the Japanese rise up and end the whaling once and for all.

Its called progress. And Watson will win.

You should be glad the only finger you raised is to shoot a bird at Watson. Because then you didn't have to be brave.

[FBaggins]

86. You obviously understand the Japanese little better than you understand reality

Sinking a japanese vessel (killing many civilians in the process) would turn them entirely against us.

You also continually confuse "stupid" with "brave". It's possible to be both... but Watson is most certainly the former. He's also a liar.

Though no doubt you consider dishonesty to be acceptable since their INTENTION is to save whales.

[BeFree]

90. Against us?

You and me ain't us. I support Watson. You don't. You ain't us.

If it takes sinking a Japanese vessel to get the remaining 70% of the Japanese people to stop the whaling, so be it. Greenpeace has been a failure. Watson will win. It will end. And it will end because of those brave individuals who support Watson. And not because of you.

[FBaggins]

93. "Us" meaning people who oppose whaling of endangered species

Your "invincible ignorance" aside. Sinking a Japanese ship does NOT make them more likely to favor the position of the people who sank the ship.

The Japanes, it seems, are far more rational than you and Watson.


And LOL at the ridiculous notion that not only is Watson "brave"... but you get some of that bravery rubbing off on you for supporting him.

[BeFree]

98. Japanese - rational?

They are violating laws meant to protect whales, and you call them rational?

The Japanese invaded many countries and bombed Pearl Harbor and we had to drop an atomic bomb on them to get them to stop fighting. It seems they only react to force.

Watson is a brave hero. Your digs on him are cowardly.

[FBaggins]

99. No not rational at all... only by comparison to your posts. :)

Watson is possibly brave (more like foolhardy and incompetant... but who can tell the difference from half a world away?)... but he is no hero.


They are violating laws meant to protect whales, and you call them rational?

And Watson is violating laws meant to protect humans. You not only think he's rational... but a hero.

[BeFree]

101. What humans?

Which humans have been harpooned? None.

Watson has put himself on the front lines. He deserves all of our well wishes against the criminal Japanese enterprise that flouts law and humane dignity.

Watson may be a bit irrational, but the Japanese are wholly irrational. F 'em.

[FBaggins]

104. The ships are remote piloted now?

Both his followers and the people on the whaling ships are endagered when idiots take these kinds of careless actions.

Not to mention the environmental damage that could occur.

Watson may be a bit irrational, but the Japanese are wholly irrational. F 'em

You bordered on racism earlier and got your hand smacked. You cannot indict an entire people for the actions of a few. Public opinion in Japan HAD been turning in the right direction... but yeah "F-em" right?

[BeFree]

105. Well

To be clear: the Japanese on the boats are the ones that I say F' em.

The 70% of people in the country are just ignorant. SS is gonna educate them.

Think of SS as cops on the water. The Japanese whalers are crooks running wild and SS is there to arrest them. Don't tell me... you are against cops, too?

[FBaggins]

107. Nice attempt at spin.

You were talking about the people you thought would change their minds once a ship was sunk... the people it took a nuke to convince in WWII.

Think of SS as cops on the water.

No thanks. Cops are better trained and have the authority to take action. Watson is barely a vigilante.

[Bonobo]

108. "we had to drop an atomic bomb on them to get them to stop fighting"

Poster wants to save whales -"precious angels of the sea" and apparently sees no problem with intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Wow.

[G_j]

39. here we go with the clinic bombings again...

of course, you wouldn't make comparisons to Gandhi, Rosa Parks or civil rights sit ins and civil disobedience.

[FBaggins]

45. I wouldn't make those comparisons because they ARE NOT comparable.

Gandhi/Parks/etc would have agreed with me.

This is IN NO WAY a non-violent protest.

Want examples that aren't on the other end of the political spectrum? That's easy. What about "peace" protestors who assault others? They give the rest of us a bad name.

As the Sea Sheperds give a bad name to anyone who opposes whaling.

[G_j]

64. "peace" protesters who assault others?

thanks, but I've never met one of those, because they don't really exist, except for provocateurs.
In all respect, that you would even say that, makes me doubt your 'liberal' credentials. Sorry.


Well then, I'll compare them to tree sitters, who climb old growth trees to prevent them from being cut down.

NOT to clinic bombers/murders, that is completely wrong.

[FBaggins]

67. Riiight... they don't exist.

They're RWingers infiltrating the ranks of peace protests to make us all look bad.

I totally see that now. < /saracsm>

Well then, I'll compare them to tree sitters, who climb old growth trees to prevent them from being cut down.

There's nothing wrong with tree-sitters... there is no comparison.

The comparison is to the people who SPIKE trees to endager the lives of those who cut them down.

[G_j]

78. that is simply a non starter

I've been taking part in peace protests since the Vietnam war.
How many have you been to? Have you actually witnessed these "assaults"?
:rofl:

[FBaggins]

83. I've been to plenty

Though not back to Vietnam.

And yes... sometimes people get violent. Very rarely, but it happens.

As I said before... I'm NOT talking about the rank and file. 99%+ of the anti "free trade" and/or anti-war supporters are rational in how their beliefs inform their actions.

But there ARE (on ALL sides of these debates) people who hold their positions SO strongly that they think ANY action is justified by their opposition's evil actions.

[G_j]

18. sports analogies

:thumbsdown:

anyway, there is a difference IMO, in being fanatic and responding to a dire emergency (the slaughter of whales)

[FBaggins]

24. A difference in degree... not in kind

As I said in the prior post... that's the same ridiculous defense that clinic bomber supporters make. They're "responding to a dire emergency (the slaughter of babies)" so any action is justified.

??? Do we really need to go into how nonsensical that is?

The sports analogy fits just fine. People see what they wish to see... not necessarily what is actually there.

[G_j]

35. You are comparing these activists to clinic bombers/murderers?

[FBaggins]

36. I'm comparing them to people who allow their bias to inform their reality

There are people who honestly oppose abortion... but 99+% of them would never consider killing a doctor. There are people who honestly oppose whaling... but 99% of them would consider these intentionally dangerous (to actual human life) actions to be unacceptable.

"They're doing something that I consider evil... therefore ANY action is justified" is simply not a rational position.

[Dappleganger]

44. I'm very anti-whaling

and think that Watson is wrong too.

[BeFree]

54. Nah

They are brave people doing things that will make a difference.

What is metal? Easily produced in a thousand smelters around the world, sacrificing a bit of metal is nothing.

The bravery of these people is all too rare.
The world needs more of this kind of bravery.

[Bonobo]

70. "Japs". You sound like a REAL progressive. Nice. Why not "Yellow Monkeys"?

[BeFree]

76. My bad

Shouldn't have shorthanded that. Japanese would be PC, eh?

Still, I refuse to intentionally buy anything made in Japan because of their support for the slaughter of the whales. Fuck 'em.

[tammywammy]

11. Check out this video

It's clear the Japanese turned to hit them.

http://player.video.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/#5A71eeOnsBN7McesFjztDjoc3OBw6lLz

[MercutioATC]

16. Seen it. It supports the other video (the Ady Gil moved directly into the path of the Shonan Maru)

Ships (like motorcycles and airplanes) "bank" when they turn. Had the Shonan Maru been turning to starboard, her starboard deck would have been lower than the port side. It isn't. (you can observe that she DOES turn to port, however, immediately after the collision...and her deck dips to port).

This fits with the other video showing the AdY Gill moving forward in the moments before the collision (not stationary as SSCS claims).

[Robb]

20. To be fair, it could be a long slow starboard turn

...compared to the sudden turn to port post-collision.

[MercutioATC]

26. With the angle the video was shot from, you're correct.

But we also know that the Ady Gil was moving slowly forward (INTO the path of the Shonan Maru) and that it rapidly accelerated immediately before the collision.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. If she wasn't turning to starboard why did her port side get revealed to the camera?

And then why does the starboard side get revealed to the camera when she goes back hard to port?


Answer: Because the whaling ship was making the turns and the camera in the OP had a relative "straight on" view of the incident.

Yes, the SS vessel was moving very slowly to camera right but she was either idling or drifting.

No matter which way you slice it, the fast-moving whaler steered to the idling or drifting SS vessel.

It's clear as day for anyone without an agenda or axe to grind.


(for the record: I got in a rather heated argument on the other side of this issue when the Steve Irwin rammed a whaler last year. The camera angles where very similar. I was proven correct when the TV show showed the goings on in the wheelhouse during the incident)

[MercutioATC]

51. Have you seen the problem with your logic yet?

Scenario #1: The Soshan Maru is traveling straight and the camera is at her 11:00 position. The camera will show the port side of the ship.

Scenario #2: The Soshan Maru is turning to starboard and the camera is at her 12:00 position. The camera will show the exact same view.


The only way to tell if the Soshan Maru was in a starboard turn from this angle is the slope of her deck...which isn't absolutely clear, either.

However, we can tell one thing from this video. The Soshan Maru (whether headed straight or in a slight, steady starboard turn) did NOT make any sudden turn toward the Ady Gil...and the other video clearly shows the Ady Gil accelerating forward, INTO the path of the Soshan Maru moments before the collision.

[FBaggins]

72. There really isn't any way to tell from that angle.

The motion of the bow in response to high seas is often a "corkscrew" of sorts. The video doesn't show enough time before the collision to tell what course change they may have attempted (OR what the safest decision would have been).

[Hassin Bin Sober]

74. No.

You are assuming only one turn. Your logic might make sense if there were only one turn ... and by "turn" I mean direction of the bow in relation to the camera.


The video opens with the whaler exposing her starboard side. This establishes the angle in relation to the camera. She was moving to port in relation to the SS vessel and camera. She then turns to starboard exposing her port side. And then HARD to port exposing her starboard side right before and during collision.

[MercutioATC]

79. The video does NOT open with the whaler showing her starboard side.

What video are YOU watching?

Her heading in relation to the camera is constant until she turns to port.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

87. Here:

http://player.video.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/#5A71eeOnsBN7McesFjztDjoc3OBw6lLz


You can see lettering on her starboard side and can almost see the riggings on the starboard all the way back to the stern...........untill it turns to starboard and exposes her port side.

[MercutioATC]

92. Do me a favor.

Watch the video (which DOES show the starboard side as you say) and then pause it.

Move the slider bar back to the beginning and start it again.


It cuts off the beginning part that shows the starboard side. My apologies.


So we DO have evidence of a turn to starboard. I'm not suggesting that indicates an intent to ram the Ady Gil...and I think the other video clearly shows the Gil accelerating directly under the Soshan Maru's bow, but your claim about this video showing a starboard turn was correct.

[FBaggins]

97. We really don't.

In those seas it's perfectly possible for the bow to appear to be moving to starboard in a turn to port. Had they given us just a few more seconds of video it would be clearer... but I think it's reasonable to doubt that the ship COULD jog so quickly from a turn in one direction to a turn in the other. They simply aren't that nimble.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

88. Here:

http://player.video.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/#5A71eeOnsBN7McesFjztDjoc3OBw6lLz

You can see lettering on the starboard and even some mid-ship rigging.

[yawnmaster]

124. Do we know that the boat taking that video was stationary? eom

[Hassin Bin Sober]

127. We do not know.

What we do know is the camera picks up three turns. Slight to port at the opening of the video, fairly hard to starboard - about 20-25 degrees to make contact, and finally pretty hard over to port again right before contact and with probably a little help from the "bump" . Evidenced by the fact we can see three turns, I would say the camera was moving to slightly to our right but mostly straight on.

[petronius]

130. Some of the other videos from the ICR ship do show the ship taking the SS video

It looks like the Barker is moving across the path of the Japanese ship, so the apparent turn to starboard could be a result of camera movement. I think the only turn we can be sure of is the turn to port by the Shohan after the collision...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. Yeah, this guy's like the Ashley Todd of the Sea.

[FBaggins]

94. Lol... you're pretty close.

Though it's just as likely that Todd is the Watson of the land... since Watson has been pulling these fake victim gambits for years.

The "I was shot in the chest but my 2nd graders' sheriff badge saved me" gambit was too precious for words.

[FBaggins]

95. Dupe

deleted

[rbixby]

102. I agree

This collision was definitely intentional on the party of the Ady Gil, they pushed the throttles at the last moment to come directly into the path of the other ship. They're just lucky that nobody was killed. I strongly disagree with this Japanese whaling, but using these kind of tactics does nothing to further their cause, and just think of all the pollutants that were released into the sea after the collision! Irresponsible and reckless is what I'd call it.

[S_E_Fudd]

111. Looks to me like the Japanese deliberately swerved..

Toward the Ady Gil...it is possible the Ady Gil throttled up in an attempt to move. It is obvious from the video the crew of the Ady Gill had not braced for an impact...

To assert the Ady Gil moved in front of the Japanese ship in order to get rammed is asinine...

[girl gone mad]

120. You sure waste a lot of time defending whalers.

Not sure why someone in Ohio would care so much for the Japanese whaling industry.

[TexasObserver]

125. Yes, pulling in front of a vessel underway is pretty stupid.

And it's pretty clear that the cause of the accident was negligence by the captain of the Ady Gil.

Whatever good motives they may have had, running out in front of a larger vessel under power is a form of chicken that one can lose. The Ady Gil lost this game of chicken. I doubt insurers for either vessel will pay the Ady Gil on this claim.

[Lex]

2. For background, read this:

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-100105-1.html

[MineralMan]

3. I watched the video several times.

The Sea Shepherd boat clearly accelerated into the Japanese ship. It was idling, then it went to full power and rammed the Japanese ship. I do not support whaling in any way, but the people on the Sea Shepherd boat could have easily avoided this collision. Rather than doing that, they forced the collision. In addition, the crew was topside in anticipation of the collision well before it occurred.

Anyone familiar with boats can clearly see the increased thrust pattern prior to the collision.

The issue is not whaling in this collision. The collision was caused deliberately. That, in itself is a violation of the laws of the sea.

[tammywammy]

12. See the video in post #11 n/t

[Robb]

14. Too far away to be clear.

May I suggest viewing this video? It is close enough to see prop wash behind the Ady in the last moments.

It was shaping up to be a near miss, perhaps a prop fouling attempt. The Japanese clearly thought it would be a boarding attempt, judging by the LRAD and fire hoses.

But the Ady's pilot, either deliberately or accidentally, throttles up while in forward gear. And boom.

[tammywammy]

17. And the video I posted shows the Japanese ship turning toward the Ady

If the LRAD impairs people with sound, why would the Japanese then turn toward them? And if they suspected they were going to be boarded (:eyes:) then why did they turn toward them? How were they going to be boarded while the LRAD and cannons were being used?

[Robb]

19. It shows no such thing.

First of all, in every encounter recently, the Japanese have run hoses and LRADs at whichever SS boat is closest. That's nothing new. They want them gone.

But your video does not show the whaler changing course. At best the whaler was continuing a starboard turn -- arguably a confusing maneuver, I'll meet you there on that.

Still, the video I linked to shows does show the Ady Gil wasn't going to be struck until it throttled up -- intentionally or accidentally.

[tammywammy]

21. You have presented an interesting take

I'm not saying I agree, but we'll just leave it at that.

[Larkspur]

23. Yes it does show the Japanese whaling vessal intentionally turning into the Ady Gil

The Japanaese ship could have turned toward port or run away from the Ady Gil if it thought it was to be boarded or its prop fouled. The Japanese could have gotten away from the Gil but it CHOSE not to.

[FBaggins]

27. It really doesn't.

Ships that size simply don't respond to helm controls that quickly.

Besides... it's ridiculous to intentionally put your vessel in front of another and claim "they COULD have turned away"

[Robb]

30. To be fair, there was no reason to turn to port.

There was not going to be a collision. No one on the whaler thought so -- there was no collision alarm sounding, for example. The Ady Gil wasn't in good position for a prop fouling, either.

There wasn't going to be a collision until the Ady Gil throttled up. Again, I'm not willing to dismiss the idea that the pilot believed he was in reverse and was intent on backing out of range of the fire hoses. But the collision would not have occurred had the Ady Gil actually remained stationary.

[MercutioATC]

31. The Shonan Maru has a speed of 12 knots. The Ady Gil, 45 knots.

The Shonan Maru did NOT have the option of running away.

That said, there is clear video evidence of the Ady Gil accelerating forward...INTO the path of the Shonan Maqru...immediately before the collision. No 450-ton ship built for whaling is going to be able to outmaneuver an 18-ton speedboat.

[Taitertots]

47. The Gil rammed them

The prop wash is clearly visible from the whalers video. It is without question that they rammed the whalers ship.

[BeFree]

50. Good

They are truly brave people. Now maybe the rest of the world will take notice?

[MercutioATC]

55. These are truly STUPID people.

Ramming a 450-ton steel-hulled whaler with an 18-ton carbon fiber and kevlar speedboat? Stupid.

For the record, I think Robb's proposition may be correct. The pilot of the Gil panicked and applied the throttles while still moving forward rather than reversing the jets.

[BeFree]

60. Nah

Truly stupid is showing support for the whalers. And second guessing those on the front lines. I guess their bravery is just too much for you to imagine.

[MercutioATC]

69. How was trashing a $1.5M boat a "brave" act?

There was no damage to the Soshan Maru, they endangered the lives of their crew, and video evidence makes it impossible to taske their claims that they were rammed seriously.

To be clear, I don't support either side...but this was stupid, not brave.

[FBaggins]

61. I doubt they HAVE much of a "reverse"

The vessel simply isn't designed for those kinds of maneuvers (IIRC, they ran into more than one object on their circumnavigation).

This is either the result of stupidity or was intentional.

[Taitertots]

59. Brave? he is a liar

Putting all those people's lives in danger for no good reason. Then telling lies about it because they are huge cowards.

[FBaggins]

62. The two aren't contradictory.

He's almost certainly brave AND a liar.

[BeFree]

63. Jump much?

You are so pro whaler that you jump to conclusions?
Does it make you feel big to do so? What is lacking in your life that makes you do such things?

[Taitertots]

71. There is no jump to make

The video clearly shows they rammed the whalers boat. There is nothing to jump to, it is clear as day.

Then knowing the truth and saying something else makes them liars.

[FBaggins]

73. We must hope that the rest of the world does NOT take notice.

More whales will be killed because of this than could possible have been saved.

[S_E_Fudd]

114. Your contention then...

Is that the captain of the Ady Gil deliberarely rammed a much larger ship, knowing it would destroy their multi million dollar boat, leaving Sea Shepherd short handed for the rest of the season...and oh yes, forgot to warn his own crew to brace for impact...?

What is clear is that the Japanese ship swerved toward the Ady Gil while she was idling. It is possible the Ady Gil throttled up at the last minute to try and get out of the way...but the collision was clearly instigated by the Japanese...who have nothing to fear in a legal sense as it is obvious Australia is not going to do anything to restrict thier illegal whaling activities

[Taitertots]

43. What was he doing in front of them in the first place?

What utter bullshit. He got exactly what he was asking for.

Does whaling threaten the species with extinction?
Does whaling cause excessive trauma to the animal before killing it?

I believe the answers to both questions is no. If someone has data showing the whalers are threatening the species than I would really like to hear it, and it would change my mind.

[FBaggins]

46. I believe the answer to both questions is "Yes"

Yet it's still clear that this does not justify ANY action we wish to take to oppose it.

[Taitertots]

49. Any support for that conclusion?

I can't exactly just take your word for it.

[FBaggins]

57. Should I care?

I'm not interested in convincing you. "Excessive suffering" is a judgement call, not a fact that can be proven.

I just answered your questions. I believe (but don't care whether you do) that the answers are "yes" to both... but still think these actions are ridiculously wrongheaded.

[Taitertots]

66. You are free to have that opinion

Don't expect me to care what you have to say if you can't even be bothered to defend your opinions.

Well I guess then you would risk having the basis for your opinions questioned. I must be wrong to think people want to discuss stuff like that on a discussion board.

[Chan790]

68. Well, let me see.

You mean other than the fact they're hunting fin whales which ARE an internationally-protected endangered species, a fact completely-apart from their inclusion in the commercial whaling ban?

Nope. (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/finwhale.htm)

You mean other than chasing them to the point of exhaustion then shooting them with an exploding harpoon and letting them exsanguinate?

Nope. (I can get you video if you'd like...it's disgusting beyond all belief.)

Oh wait, those are prima facie proof you're incorrect.

Is whaling illegal?

Yes, unless being performed for scientific research.

How many studies, reports or experiment-data have been published by the Norwegians and Japanese since the whaling ban took effect over 20 years ago?

0. Nope, nada, zilch, not-a-one, none. Zero.

[G_j]

80. +1000

[Taitertots]

81. Don't they hunt minke whales?

I have been under the impression that they are hunting minke whales, which are not at risk of extinction.


You mean follow them around for a while and destroy the brain with a cannon. I'm fairly certain quickly destroying an animals brain is just about the fastest and most painless way to die.

[FBaggins]

85. They hunt both Minke and Fin whales.

The fin whale population is variously estimated to have fallen from about a million to about three thousand (in the antarctic)over the last century (almost entirely due to whaling).

It cannot be denied that killing even one places the species in additional danger.

Minke whales are ALSO on the endangered list at a "less endangered" (i.e., "threatened") level. The same argument can reasonably be made.

Yes, a shot to the brain is a common means of killing animals... but the shot in this case comes AFTER "following them around" with a harpoon in their side while bleeding out. Hardly fair to describe that as "painless".

[Ignis]

96. Oh, don't let facts get in the way of a good SSCS hating!

You could prove that Japan just killed the last whale of a certain species, and some people would still find some way to justify their actions.

[Cetacea]

128. Why isn't Japan respecting the moratorium?

Every other country is with a few exceptions. And yes, whales feel excessive pain and trauma when dying, especially if there is a calf involved.

[hughee99]

56. What's the big deal?

A few years back when the Sea Shepherd announced it was planning to ram whaling ships with it's new converted Coast Guard cutter, a lot of people didn't seem to have a problem with it. I'm still not sure from the videos who hit who or if one party intentionally drifted in front of the other for the purposes of being hit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Yeah, a lot of hypocrites on this issue.

I wonder how much the batboat cost them in donations.

[hughee99]

91. I'm sure they did a cost/benefit analysis on this

How much would it cost to fix/replace vs. how much they can project in new donations by putting out the video of them "getting rammed".

[TheMightyFavog]

100. Please don't let it get to the point where the JMSDF gets involved.

If that happened things would get very ugly, very quickly.

[BeFree]

103. Bring 'em on.

Whatever it takes to get the Japanese people to be made aware of the criminal activities. Whatever it takes. Lets hope it doesn't go so far, but if it does......

[FBaggins]

106. Even if you were right (and you aren't)...

Though might does not make right... it's even more foolish to think that right makes might.

You've expressed a desire that they actually sink one of the Japanese ships. International maritime law wouldn't even blink at the JMSDF retaliating with deadly force.

Buteric acid vs. Type 90 SSMs.

"Bring 'em on" in that case would be the height of stupidity.

[11 Bravo]

116. Aww, c'mon and sack up!

Toss another log on the fireplace, type "Bring it on", (Hell, if you're a real stud, type it in all caps!), and then call for someone thousands of miles away to do something which could very easily cost them their life.

[MineralMan]

109. It doesn't appear to me that the Japanese ship was actively engaged

in hunting a whale at the time of this event. There may well be a strong case here against the anti-whalers. If they, indeed, deliberately rammed the whaler, then they are completely in the wrong under the law. One might even be able to make a piracy case against them, although that would be unlikely, since their carbon fiber boat couldn't really do any damage to the whaler, nor could it seriously impede its progress.

The international laws of the seas have very little to do with whaling. They're about ship movements and the right of a vessel to proceed in international waters.

The person in command of that bat boat is clearly an idiot, in terms of operating a vessel. He lost this one, and his vessel, due to his failure to follow the common laws of vessel operation in those conditions.

I'd like very much to see whaling end altogether, but I cannot support these actions.

[FBaggins]

112. It's hard to say that they "deliberately rammed" the whaler

They did gun the engines at the last moment and that MAY have caused (or certainly contributed to) the collision, but the whaler was maneuvering and the seas were running high... it may have been a poorly executed attempt to get out of the way.

Where they are culpable is in intentionally placing their vessel in the other's path which caused an unsafe situation. This has happened a number of times in previous years and I've always wondered WHAT I would have done if in command of the other vessel. You can't figure out where these guys are going next... and it doesn't look like THEY know either.

[MineralMan]

113. True enough. When a vessel doesn't follow the rules,

it's impossible for another vessel to predict its course. And this bat boat definitely is not following the rules in any way.

[TheMightyFavog]

110. Atago Class vs. Sea Shepherd:

Atago Class Guided Missile Destroyer (Essentially a modified Arliegh Burke Class ship)



Max Speed: approx 30 kts

Armament:
• 8 x SSM-1B Ship-to-Ship Missiles
• SM-2MR Standard Surface to Air Missile
• ASROC anti-submarine rocket
• 1 x 5 inch (127 mm)/62 cal Mk.45 mod 4 lightweight gun
• 2 x 20 mm Phalanx Close In Weapon System
• 2 x HOS302 triple torpedo tubes
(6 x Mk-46 or type73 torpedoes)
Unknown number of Special Boarding Unit members

Aircraft:
1 SH-60 helicopter

vs.

MV Sea Shepherd

Top Speed: 16.5 kts

Armament: None

Aircraft: none

MV Ady Gil

Top Speed 45 kts

Armament: None

Aircraft: None


My money'd be on the JMSDF in that kind of encounter

[sudopod]

118. PROTIP

No one from Japan is going to sink a ship full of unarmed American protesters, just as we would never sink a ship full of unarmed Chinese protesters.

Grow the fuck up.

[FBaggins]

121. Do try to pay attention please

The posts were in response to someone who wanted to sink one of the Japanese ships and displayed phony eBravery when it was mentioned that they might send a military vessel.

There is no reason to assume that the Japanese would fail to use force against de-facto pirates intentionally sinking one of their ships.

[Chan790]

117. They cannot.

The area is subject to a number of international treaties regarding presence of military vessels and armaments, an extension of same-such treaties regarding Antarctica itself. (In fact, the Japanese were quietly warned that deployment of LRAD again this year would be considered violative.) Further it's the position of the Australian government that presence of foreign military craft will be considered an act of war, something similar to the US policy qua the Monroe Doctrine. The Aussies have by general-consent been entrusted with deployment of limited quasi-military technologies to assist ships and police these waters in a capacity not unlike that of the US Coast Guard domestically...it's in everybody's interests that piracy not set in on a remote corner of the globe filled with key shipping routes.

Beyond that, it's the Wild West with the Aussies playing sheriff, backed by the biggest gun on the block in the form of Anzac frigates and ESSM. The Australians have never made a secret that they don't want the Japanese there, they just aren't allowed to keep them out without a cause...a JMSDF deployment would be that cause and the RAN is a much-scarier force.

[FBaggins]

122. Much of that is true...

...if overly hypothetical (SSs aren't going to intentionally sink a japanese ship)

But the "RAN is a much-scarier force" is simply incorrect. I'm a big fan of the RAN... but the JMSDF is a significantly more capable naval force.

Roughly a dozen frigates and half that many subs (plus patrol craft and support vessels) isn't much of a match for 50+ frigates and (mostly) destroyers... as well as twenty subs.

[SoCalDem]

119. Bob Barker's donation may end up in Davy Jones' Locker

I just wish that in the 21st Century, SOMEONE...SOMEHOW could make "whaling" illegal :grr:

[Unrepentant Fenian]

123. Fair play to the Sea Shepherd...

Fair play to the Sea Shepherd for actually doing something instead of just pissing and moaning about it! Most people are self righteous talkers, the Shepherd crew are true activists!

[MercutioATC]

126. Actually, it was the crew of the Ady Gill...

...and all they "did" was trash a $1.5M boat.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

129. Next time maybe they'll buy a boat that's a little bigger.

Doesn't make sense to pay $5M for a small fast boat if you're just going to stand still in front of larger boats.