Japanese Whaling Ship Collides with Protesters (or vice versa)

[n2doc]

By J. Travis Smith Feb 04, 2014 01:15 PM EST

A Japanese whaling ship and an anti-whaling protest boat collided on Sunday, with both sides blaming each other for the crash. The Japanese vessel (left) and an anti-whaling protest boat collided Sunday off the coast of Antarctica. No one was injured. (Photo : The Institute of Cetacean Research)

A Japanese whaling ship and an anti-whaling protest boat collided off the coast of Antarctica on Sunday, with both sides blaming each other for the crash.

The Sea Shepherd, which tries to harass the Japanese whaling fleet into turning back to shore each year, said the whaling vessels spent hours dragging steel cables across the bows of the Sea Shepherd's ships in an attempt to damage their fleet, The Associated Press reported. Soon after, Japan's Yushin Maru No. 3 struck the Bob Barker, one of Sea Shepherd's fleet named after the former "The Price is Right" game show host. Barker, 90, is a prominent animal rights activist.

Peter Hammarstedt said that damage was done to the Bob Barker's bow and anchor, in an interview with the AP. "It was an unprovoked attack and they did so ruthlessly."

more

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5876/20140204/japanese-whaling-ship-collides-protesters-whale-bob-barker-antarctica.htm

[clarice]

1. Wouldn't a review of the sonar log show who did what? nt

[ZombieHorde]

2. I know nothing about sonar logs.

Is this something ships have? Is it usually for fishing/whaling? Would both ships have a sonar log?

[clarice]

3. I'm not really sure...

I don't even know if that is the correct term, but I assumed that someone
keeps a log of ship movements, kinda like air traffic controllers. Could be wrong.

[petronius]

19. You're thinking of radar - sonar typically is for underwater objects

And I really doubt there's anyone watching all the way out there, or that the ships are recording their radar data. Probably lots of video, however - I'm pretty sure we'll all be able to prove from the film that one or the other or both or neither was at fault...

[Demo_Chris]

4. Eventually the Japanese will start sinking these clowns...

I am astonished they haven't done so already.

[Larkspur]

5. How much whale meath do you eat?

The Japanese whalers are poachers and thugs.

[clarice]

6. +1,000 nt.

[NM_Birder]

9. you didn't read it either did you ?

the Japanese are not in violation of the treaty.

[NM_Birder]

7. The Japanese have an exception to the treaty allowing them

to harvest the whales.

I'm guessing you did not read the article ?

[clarice]

10. Doesn't make it right. nt

[NM_Birder]

12. doesn't make them poachers nor thugs.

[redgreenandblue]

53. They certainly are thugs, since they murder whales.

[rustydog]

40. But, since they have the legal right to do this and since their ships are under attack

They can protect themselves. They can defend their ships and crew and if it costs the protesters, who are engaged in illegal activity, then so be it.

[Texasgal]

11. Why would they need 1000 whales

for research?

[NM_Birder]

13. the treaty was approved.....

and approved without DU's approval, kooky huh ?

[Texasgal]

14. Well that didn't answer my question at all

but okay.

[NM_Birder]

18. I am not on any research team with the Japanese

I could venture a guess, but what difference would that make ? They are not breaking any laws.

the Japaneses are not in violation of the treaty, regardless what anybody's opinion of the agreement. I would not blame them for sinking the "Bob Barker".

[Texasgal]

21. I don't care if they are not "breaking the law"

Sometimes humanity should win.

I hope the Bob Barker stops the whalers this year. I hope it's a miserable year for their "research" .

[NM_Birder]

24. I took a quick look at what the IWC is,

and basically it's a good idea, but has no authority.

I notice the Bob Barker doesn't monkey around with the Soviet ships. The Soviets hold the same position as the Japanese regarding the IWC "treaty".

Harassing the Japanese ships will eventually get... 1) enough attention to effect change -or- 2) get someone killed

[Texasgal]

25. Are the soviets killing 1000 whales a year?

The Sea Shepherd has garnered enough attention already and will continue to do so. In 2011 Japan whalers only managed to get a little over a hundred whales.

Many younger Japanese do not eat whale meat. It's becoming more and more passe'.

here is a link overview regarding international law. http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuswhalelaws.htm

[NM_Birder]

26. well.......

per the article......according to the AP......the Japanese are planning on killing 1000 whales. Are you even sure that number is correct ?

problem solved...less demand will be the reason the practice slows down. That is where the victory is to be made, with the people consuming the whales, not with ramming a vessel in the open ocean.

[NM_Birder]

27. I read thru your link,

maybe the Sea Sheppard should switch to trucks and ram the building the next time the IWC meets. They meet every year, and that would get a whole lot more attention.

[AgingAmerican]

43. There is no research

Zero research papers have been produced by the Japanese.

The 'research' ships process and can the whale meat.

They are in violation of many treaties, including whaling within the Antarctic whale sanctuary.

Why do you hate the planet?

[NM_Birder]

55. which treaties ?

[AgingAmerican]

56. The global moratorium on whaling

...for starters.

[NM_Birder]

57. Still not entirely sure if Japan is even a member of the IWC ?

There are imbedded clauses in the whaling moratoriums that allow for Japan to harvest whales.

[AgingAmerican]

58. No there aren't

There are clauses allowing for research. Also, Japan has repeatedly been caught whaling in the Antarctic whaling sanctuary.

[NM_Birder]

59. I'm learning a lot more about whaling and the moratoriums than I expected.

I'm no sure why I can't link to the moratorium, but it's a pretty interesting read.

There is more to it than these little snippets, .......it's worth a read. these are just a few notes, it's more complicated than most think.

1991: Scientific Committee submitted that 761,000 Minke whales in the Antarctic waters
suggested that up to 2000 could be harvested annually without disturbing the population.

IWC Plenary Committee voted to maintain moratorium.

1994: Acting on the recommendations of the Scientific Committee, IWC adopted a computerized formula, the RMP "revised management process" for allowable numbers of some whale species to be harvested, but did not implement the adopted formula, arguing that allowable catches had not been adequately evaluated. The moratorium was not lifted, because the IWC noted a need to agree on standards for data, inspections and monitoring. An RMS, "revised management scheme" along with the RMP is proving to be all but impossible to agree on, and with the Annual meeting, Bi annual meeting and lack of coordination, it seems to have just stalled on the 50 yard line. "YES" and "NO" to Minke harvest numbers.

Japan, Russia, Iceland, Peru, Norway, Italy, Mexico and New Zealand are all involved in various levels of rejection of the IWC protocols. And with the IWC protocols not being very clear in the first place, both Japan and the IWC are correct in their interpretations of the rules, which is why a "research" vessel is allowed to harvest whales, AND asked not to let the meat go to waste. A little blindness and slight of hand is what's going on from both sides.

It's more complicated than it should be, and it's a lot less clear than it could have been. Japan is not right to harvest the whales, yet at the same time they are not wrong, that is why the only people disrupting them are the Shea Shepard vessels ramming into them. At some point, someone is going to be killed, or a ship will be sunk, with no clear path to who was right and who was wrong.

I've heard about the whaling and Sea Sheppard for years but never really researched it, there is a lot more to this than is being explained, it's got my interest so I'll call the thread a "win".

[FBaggins]

62. That's simply wrong.

The treaty exists not to ban all whaling, but to allow whale populations to recover to the point where commercial whaling can resume. We may not like it, but that's absolutely the case. The "research" covered in the treaty includes things like operating factory ships and killing whales and to what extent whales can be slaughtered without "overfishing" them. The sole authority allowed to decide whether the whaling can take place (and whether it's "research&quot is the country the whalers come from. They're also the only ones that are allowed to set how many whales can be taken.

IOW... the "clauses allowing for research" are explicit in what that includes. There's no flexibility for us to say "that doesn't look like research to me".

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. Are you going to say, with a straight face, that the whalers are doing "research" ....

... on the thousand whales they kill every year?

Seriously?

[Texasgal]

17. Yeah, research with

canneries right on board the ships.

[NM_Birder]

20. No, I'll say correctly...

that they are NOT violating the treaty, and if the treaty was approved I would say with a straight face that they are NOT in violation.


seriously.

[AgingAmerican]

60. So you believe they are harvesting them for research purposes??

And you say this with a 'straight face'?

[NM_Birder]

61. read my other answer, to your last post.

the thread has peaked my interest in the moratoriums, it's not as simple as it should or could have been.

Japan is wrong, yet not really.... according to the IWC protocols. They are allowed to harvest for "research" but not allowed to waste the meat, seemingly an authorized bank robbery sort of thing. kind like saying you can steal cars to research tire wear patterns, but don't waste the cars, go ahead and sell the parts.

Pretty interesting, and not at all as simple as it seems.
No they are not harvesting them for "research", but they are allowed to because the protocols are unclear and contradictory.

Bowing out before this turns to just an argument, me and my "straight face" are going to keep reading about it, I encourage all to do that. Again, this is not as simple as a few well clipped notes, which is why not even Australia is out contesting the Japanese, the Japanese are right, wrong, and confused all at the same time and much like the IWC.

[FBaggins]

65. It doesn't matter what we believe

Read the actual convention.

Article VIII makes clear what is allowable as "research"... explicitly including killing/taking/treating/selling the whales... and paragraph IV says "Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all practicable measures to obtain such data."

The convention treats whales as an overfished resource that needs to recover for the purpose of more fishing... it doesn't exist to protect magificent species from harm.

[FBaggins]

28. Yep... it just isn't the type of research you expect

They're trying to reopen the seas to commercial whaling. Part of that is demonstrating that the population of whales supports the reopening.

[indie9197]

16. In 1986 the IWC issued a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986.

Japan objected to the moratorium and issued themselves a "permit" to kill whales for scientific study. In my opinion, they do not have a legal right to kill whales.

[NM_Birder]

22. Your post, made me really curious about the moratorium

It's worth a read. The IWC essentially has no authority regarding anything, and is more or less voluntary membership.

I'm not even sure there is anything close to an enforceable treaty, the IWC has no actual authority over anything is what is tells me.

[Demo_Chris]

8. None, no they are not, and how do you know they are thugs?

[MoonRiver]

34. They are soulless murderers!

[CreekDog]

33. Clowns? WTF

f---ed up.

[Demo_Chris]

35. Seems accurate to me. The difference is that in real life...

In real life clowns are professionals who practice for years to perfect their art. Sea Shepherd is a bunch of kids led by a criminally negligent jackass, who WILL eventually manage to get a bunch of innocent people killed. If they were only risking their own lives that would be one thing, but they are not.

In my opinion the Japanese government would be well within their rights to board and arrest these 'pirates' -- or to simply sink them on sight.

[CreekDog]

36. who is the criminally negligent jackass?

name please.

[Demo_Chris]

41. I was thinking Paul Watson, but any of their leaders will do. nt

[CreekDog]

48. he's not with Sea Shepherd anymore

try to keep up.

[LanternWaste]

63. I've read that blanket condemnations of that which we know little about is due mainly...

I've read that blanket condemnations of that which we know little about is due mainly to our desire to dress our dogmatic ignorance in the patina of cleverness ( Baldassare Castiglione).

However, I'm quite sure you'll rationalize to yourself (if not others) why it's not true in your specific case, and that you posess any and all relevant information for this scenario (except names, crew rosters, purpose, agenda, etc...)

[Demo_Chris]

66. I don't need the captain's name to condemn gross negligence. nt

[flvegan]

39. Check your history. Only, and I say ONLY the respect for life keeps the whalers

shiny side up, decks dry in port.

Who sinks who. The list is long.

[TheMightyFavog]

42. Nah I'd expect them to unleash the Special Boarding Unit on them.

I'm surprised the Japanese government hasn't packed one of those ships with JMSDF's SBU teams for such an occasion.

[Xyzse]

23. Looking at the Video...

Even if I don't agree with what the Japanese do in regards to whaling.
The Sea Shepherd did the ramming as they hit them on the side from behind.

I can applaud their right of civil disobedience, but I do think they will have to pay damages.

[FBaggins]

29. Generally I agree.

I'm no fan of the SS, and they're in no position to accuse anyone else of acting "reckless" at sea...

... but we need to keep in mind that the camera is aboard the japanese vessel. If it turned suddenly to port while the SS continued on... the relative motion on camera could very well look this way.

Given their track record, I wouldn't assume this... but there is another video from (I think) the same day that shows the japanese harpoon vessels cutting them off in just that fashion more than once.

[Xyzse]

30. Wait, really? I thought the video I saw was from the SS

Since the Ship being hit from the side has the "S"


The Japanese Boat on the original picture is on the left, which is the one with the "S".

Am I mistaken?

[FBaggins]

31. My apologies

The one I watched was the one that produced the lower image.

Looking at both, it seems clear that this is SS's fault.

[Xyzse]

32. Not a problem. I could get easily confused.

[CreekDog]

37. And as soon as the Japanese comply with international whaling regulations and treaties

the SS should pay the damages.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

45. unless i am wrong they are in compliance

I just wish the IWC would do their bloody job, that could actually force the Japanese to lower the number of whales they kill(admittedly though it could also result in more whaling being permitted which is why i guess they are NOT doing their job)

[CreekDog]

46. no they aren't.

"research" bullshit.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

47. oh the 'research' is most likely bullshit for the most part

i will agree to that, but it does not change the fact that they have that fig leaf of legality and are acting in accordance with IWC rules

Also as noted, they would not require that fig leaf if the IWC had not been twisting its purpose(if you were thinking about the sale of the whale meat even that is within IWC regulations as it specifically require that whale meat obtained by scientific whaling not go to waste.)

[CreekDog]

49. if it's bullshit, then it's not legal

[Bodhi BloodWave]

50. its arguable

as said, its in compliance with IWC regulations so its legit, even i who support whaling though have some serious doubts about the 'research' being done by Japan.(there might be some, i just doubt its anything to relevant or new)

As I've said though, a whole lot of problems would be solved if the IWC would just do its job(thankfully Norway objected to the moratorium thus opted out of it so we are not bound by it)

[FBaggins]

51. Of course they are

You simply misunderstand the convention.

We would all love to believe that the treaty was a recognition of how magnificent cetacean life was and an international agreement that we should never kill them again (thus making whaling a violation of international law)...

... but that simply isn't the case. The treaty treats whales as if they were fish species that had been decimated by overfishing... and explicitly exists to allow those species to breed to the point where they can be fished again. Japan has come very close on more than one occasion to convincing the other nations that commercial fishing can resume.

The "research" they're doing isn't "hey... let's learn more about these great creatures!"... it's "let's prove that there are enough whales around and they're breeding fast enough that fishing can resume". That kind of "research" is entirely within the treaty.

A parallel would be if an environmental protection agency here in the states were to ban fishing for a certain type of salmon in a given river because the population was in collapse. That wouldn't change the fact that the government would periodically hire fishermen to go in and catch those salmon... so that they could determine whether stocks were rebounding to the point where the fishery could reopen.

We may not like what they're doing... but the law is definitely on their side.

[sakabatou]

38. Illegal Japanese whaling vessel vs. a possible illegal ramming

Though the ramming could be from either side. Didn't this happen before?

[NYC_SKP]

44. This has happened several times. These are avoidable collisions.

Technically, both parties are partly to blame because each has breached the rules of safe navigation.

So, it becomes a political football.

In this particular incident, the whaling vessel seems to have taken a turn to port that resulted in the collision, but the SS vessel's skipper put the ship, and the crew, in harm's way.

[redgreenandblue]

54. They are avoidable by refraining from whaling.

[LanternWaste]

64. Much as when we "put" ourselves into the NSA's surveillance protocols merely by calling family membe

Much as when we "put" ourselves into the NSA's surveillance protocols merely by calling family members...

[Justitia]

52. Fuck the barbaric whale poachers! Their slaughter needs to be stopped.

From the video I saw, the Whale killers (smaller ship) turned into the larger Sea Shepherd ship - an act of aggression.

Fuck those killers, I hope their ships sink!

Commercial whale hunting is illegal, for good reason. 🐬🐳🐋 😩😰