Sea Shepherd Sideswipes Japanese Whaling Supply Ship (w/ 'can opener')

[Barrett808]

Sea Shepherd Sideswipes Japanese Whaling Supply Ship
Sea Shepherd News
News Releases
01/08/2006

At 0030 Hours GMT (1930 EST Hours Jan 8, 2006): The flagship of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, the Farley Mowat, continues to chase the outlaw Japanese whaling fleet out of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary after sideswiping the Japanese whaling supply ship Oriental Bluebird.

Captain Paul Watson ordered the Japanese owned Panamanian ship Oriental Bluebird to leave the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. The Japanese supply ship was waiting to rendezvous with the Nisshin Maru to continue the off-loading of whale meat for transport back to Japan.

“I informed the Oriental Bluebird that I was acting under the authority of the United Nations World Charter for Nature to uphold international conservation regulations prohibiting the slaughter of whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. When they refused, we backed up the message by slamming our starboard hull against their starboard hull.”

There was no damage apparent to either ship aside from a long scratch along the hull of the Oriental Bluebird caused by a device attached to the Farley Mowat’s hull called the “can opener.” The blow was meant as a warning to convey the seriousness of our order for them to leave the area and to stop assisting with the illegal slaughter of whales.

After the collision, the Oriental Bluebird began running with the Farley Mowat in pursuit. Farley Mowat First Officer Alex Cornelissen reported. “We are not down here to protest whaling. We are here to uphold international conservation law. This ship is assisting an illegal operation and thus has no business in the whale sanctuary.”

On the stern of the Oriental Bluebird are the words “whale meat” painted on the ship by Greenpeace activists yesterday. Says Cornelissen, “Greenpeace tagged the ship yesterday and we keyed it today.”

The Oriental Bluebird, now referred to as the S.S. Whale Meat, is desperately trying to rendezvous with the Nisshin Maru. Sea Shepherd believes that the number of whales that the Japanese are taking exceeds the carrying capacity of the factory ship and that it is essential for the Nisshin Maru to offload whale meat in order to continue. There is simply not enough room on the Nisshin Maru for 935 piked (minke) whales and 10 fin whales.

The Oriental Bluebird flies a flag of convenience, registered in Panama, and is operated by New Shipping Kaisha Ltd, Tokyo, Japan. The ship, formerly known as the Hiyo Maru, is a fleet replenishment vessel built in 1979. It is a double-hulled ship, approved for carrying oil as cargo, and is 143 meters long with a dead-weight of 9,751 tons. The Oriental Bluebird is listed as a supply ship for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in a report titled “Flags of Convenience, Transshipment, Resupply and At-Sea Infrastructure In Relation To IUU Fishing” prepared in 2004 by International Oceans Network for the World Wildlife Fund.

Sea Shepherd believes that harassing the Oriental Bluebird is a tactic that can delay their illegal whaling operations. The Oriental Bluebird is no innocent bystander. It is very much a participant in this pirate whaling operation by Japan.

http://seashepherd.org/news/media_060108_1.html

[LeftyMom]

1. .

:woohoo:

[Richard D]

2. A few dozen people like Captain Watson . . .

. . . and the world would be a much different place.

[Skip Intro]

3. Thank God for people and groups like this.

I love environmental/animal rights activists!

[benburch]

4. I hope next time they sink it.

I wonder how much old torpedos go for on the international arms market?

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

5. Somebody has to take on the job of enforcement-actual military would work

People are amazing as far as what they will do if they think no one is watching--
There needs to be extensive monitoring of all environmentally protected areas of the world.

What if UN troops could be assigned to patrol and escort private groups like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherds ?--Then military muscle could be used to warn these greedy bastards to get their poaching paws out of protected waters...if they failed to honor the boundaries then the stubborn poachers could all take a nice icy swim home after their vessel suddenly is hit and goes down.

problem solved

[Kagemusha]

7. And Bush's acting in the UN's name vs. Iraq is better than this how?

I've tried hard not to respond to this thread, but calls for piracy and terrorism on the high seas and then "UN troops" going to war on Greenpeace's behalf to enforce environmental law, I'm sorry - the second is pure fantasy and at any rate, military service on behalf of private organizations who, if you haven't noticed, make up what is legal or not as they go along while citing authority they do not possess. As for the first... good god, people, how badly do you want to justify the Bush administration's espionage against environmental groups, the stuff that ensnares peace activists like the Quakers as well?

I hate to break it to you people but what Japan is doing is technically legal. And technically is all that matters. Sea Shepherds has no more right to "key" a ship on the high seas because it damn well pleases than any of you reading this have a right to call yourselves FBI agents and break into your neighbor's house without a warrant (and that's even if you ARE an FBI agent, let alone if you are not). Sea Shepherds can cry the superiority of natural law or the morality of its case all it wants, but its citation of UN authority to do this is even more spurious than President Bush's signing statements, his claims of plenary executive authority during a time of war, and his claim that he can defend the UN whether the UN likes it or not. At least he heads a sovereign country with an elected government. Sea Shepherds, most certainly, does not.

I realize I'm gonna get flamed to hell. So be it. I won't stand for this nonsense in North America; I won't stand for it in Antarctica either.

[LeftyMom]

10. He's violating international law

Sea Shepherd is trying to uphold it.

To be prefectly honest I'd support what they were doing even if it were grossly illegal, simply because it's the right thing to do and our planet isn't in the sort of shape where we can sit and quibble about legalities. The law is on thier side on this one, though.

[Kagemusha]

11. Private ships cannot enforce international law BY BREAKING IT

And it's good that you would support this even if it were grossly illegal.

BECAUSE IT IS.

[Barrett808]

13. Is there a point at which you would support actions like these?

Say these were the last humpbacks (who are on the menu for 2007) in the oceans, and Japan is about to slaughter them to extinction.

Would you support "vigilantism" then?

[Kagemusha]

15. I never said vigilantism. Because the word is far too weak.

I said, criminality. I said, impersonation of law enforcement. I said, private military action. Those things are wrong. Full stop.

I did not think a reasonably intelligent human being needed to be told that ramming another ship on the high seas is probably illegal. And why do I say so? Because not six hours ago I read all sorts of whining about a Greenpeace ship having been illegally rammed by a Japanese factory ship.

But nevermind that.

One poster above was talking about SINKING SHIPS WITH ****TORPEDOES****.

Another was talking about getting warships to SINK AND DESTROY CIVILIAN FISHING VESSELS.

And you don't understand why I am just a little ticked off? Why I see that kind of talk as going way, WAY beyond the "vigilantism" you put in quotation marks above? I assume in good grace you read the rest of the posts before replying to me.

For the record, I don't support the argument that just because the US might be struck by another terror attack that this justifies the President unilaterally voiding all parts of the Constitution except those which give him authority to wage war and to institute martial law for as long as he pleases. That is ursurping power that is not his to take. And the power to "key" vessels is not the Sea Shepherd's to take. And the UN has certainly not given it such power.

So take my advice, and understand this: if this is about breaking the damn law, then say so. Say it's right. Say it's necessary. Don't hide behind pieces of paper which do NOT authorize breaking the law of the sea by willfully causing damage to vessels. Don't hide behind some idea that this is a gray area of the law where good people can differ on interpretations. It isn't. Stand up and be proud of the criminality. It is much more honest that way.

[Barrett808]

47. "Be proud of the criminality" -- the foundation of a "necessity defense"?

Interesting angle, could work.

Sea Shepherd has never been convicted of crimes on the high seas. Wonder if they've ever used this defense.

[The Stranger]

62. It is not illegal for private parties to enforce the law.

If the criminal whalers have a problem, let them contact the authorities.

[northzax]

78. er, for the most part, yes, it actually is

illegal for private parties to use force to enforce the law.

[flvegan]

115. Not in this case. Not in these waters.

[LeftyMom]

14. I'm all for direct action in defense of the planet and it's animals

legal or no. They have a pretty good idea of thier legal footing, but even if it were much more precarious (as with the past sabotage and sinking of whaling ships, mentioned on the other thread) they'd still be out there because the whales need all the help they can get.

Direct action is a beautiful thing.

[Kagemusha]

16. I stand my position. Unlawful force is wrong. Govt or civilians

Because I know if I supported civilians' right to conduct attacks - which is what sabotage and sinking of whaling ships is - I could never oppose government abuse of unlawful power at home with any shred of credibility or sense of justice.

You want to stop whaling? Change the damn law. It was done before.

[LeftyMom]

17. What they're doing is against the law now

I believe in protest. I believe in civil disobedience. I believe in direct action. I believe in doing the right thing, even if it's against the law. Last I knew these were widely accepted liberal ideas. :shrug:

[Kagemusha]

18. Doing the "right thing" against the law is a big Neocon idea.

Notice the talk about NSA wiretaps against US residents without warrants? That's doing the "right thing" even if it's against the law according to the people running the US government right now.

I've said Greenpeace and Sea Shepherds are no better and I stand right by that.

[LeftyMom]

19. Please.

They know damned well they're doing something wrong, but they're selfish bastards who don't give a shit. They benefit. Do the people volunteering for SSCS and Greenpeace benefit unduly from the risk they take on?

Surely you see the distinction.

[The Stranger]

63. Wrong. The analogy would be someone stopping the NSA from criminally

tapping people's communications. And there would be nothing wrong with stopping the NSA from doing that.

[BrendaStarr]

67. Kagemusha, your name is very interesting

Do you have a special affinity for "shadow warriors" (the plural of the English equivalent of the Japanese "Kagemusha")?

[Kagemusha]

72. It means I don't want my employer associated with anything I write.

As I wrote, I *do* oppose a lot of conservative policies, but I work for a company that takes no political positions that I am aware of; therefore, I use a pen name to keep my political opinions strictly my own. The connotation is no deeper than that of a look-alike or body double who exists to take a bullet on behalf of the real thing.

I mean, I've never tried whale meat in my life or worn any seal fur or anything like that. I just have my limits when I see people leaping off the deep end and creating an unfortunate moral equivalence with the sort of 'because I say so' bending and breaking of international law that so many people here oppose as a matter of course, and that I oppose on a matter of principle.

[Ben Ceremos]

26. But defensive force

is not. Kagemusha is splitting legalistic hairs and the truth is slipping through his fingers. Your arguments are invalid as the death of the planet trumps nearly all human interests. Kagemusha, your opinions are reactionary and serve to obfuscate rather than clarify. Law has failed when governors are bought and sold by the multi-nationals. All the living creatures on this planet need to become fierce and intolerant of mechanistic/nature interfaces. Profit may come before people in your world, Kagemusha, but in my world pragmatic action to defend life is always justified and stronger still, required. By the way, the law was changed and the very institutions you support with your legalistic arguments worked to remove the protections they instituted at 'our' request. I don't remember asking my reps to change this law to permit Japanese whaling or any whaling for that matter. Your arguments don't hold water and the future should be determined by the actions of Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace. (Kagemusha, the warrior, or his fisherman cousin, Kagemusha the whaler?)

[northzax]

30. are you using a laptop to view this?

do you own a laptop or a cell phone? anything with a lithium battery? if so, you are actively participating in the extinction of Mountain Gorillas. Congratulations. Unless you live a unabomber existence in the woods somewhere, you are doing more damage than this small fleet. Can I shoot out the lights in your house to prevent you from using carbon-based fuels? how about ramming your car to stop the consumption of gasoline? pummel you for purchasing non-organic foods or clothing? or does the 'direct action' and violence only apply to people you don't agree with?

Don't link Greenpeace to this action, by the way, they have never rammed a vessel, Greenpeace, as their name states, does not use violence, and this was violence. As I mentioned, I know most of the people involved in this, and the Greenpeace people are not happy with the Farley Mowat.

[bananas]

40. Sea Shepherd is acting fully within the law, so stop complaining.

[wordpix]

86. me, too. I'm sending Sea Shepard a donation

[LeftyMom]

87. Good for you.

I sent them a little bit last night. I'd meant to for a while, but some pro-whaling posts on another thread were the thing that got me pissed off enough to pull my bank card out and do it. :)

[The Stranger]

61. SOMEONE MUST ENFORCE THE LAW.

Lead, follow or get the fuck out of the way.

[Joe Chi Minh]

85. Just an attempt at a citizen's arrest, Kag!

[anotherdrew]

97. there IS NO DAMN LAW when no one enforces it.

Taking porivate action is the only route posisble, who else is going to do it?

[northzax]

22. actually, the Japanese Fleet is NOT violating international law

the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is administrated under the auspices of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) the IWC allows the Japanese (and the Norwegians, and certain indigenous peoples, including in Washington State, Japan and Alaska) to harvest specific numbers of specific species of whales, including in the SOWS for research purposes. this includes Minke whales (the Japanese quota this year is 935 Minke) and Fin Whales (quota: 10) Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd (and don't get me started on Sea Shepherd) are doing what they do, which is fine, they have every right to follow the Japanese fleet and even harrass them, but they don't have the right to ram anyone. One more reason to ignore Sea Shepherd (you'll notice that the Arctic Sunrise was hit by a ship in the fleet, not vice versa)

You can argue that it's immoral, that the Japanese are using legal technicalities to continue a barbaric practice or that Japan and Norway manipulate the IWC, (the latter two are certainly true, the first is a matter of opinion) but it ain't illegal under any law currently in force.

oh, and to demonstrate my bonafides on this one, I have attended IWC meetings as a delegate representing the environmental position. I have sailed on the Arctic Sunrise. I actually know all these people, personally. You can argue, as Greenpeace does, that this is 'commercial whaling' but it is funded through Japanse research funds, so technically it's legally research.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

20. Let's hope those who think like you aren't n charge of anything important

To rephrase, let's hope people who share your opinion aren't in charge of any important decision making that may affect the world.
How one can parallel the tactics of those who would protect the environment with the tactics of the Greedy _Bush regime and their "spying" on Americans / their illegal invasion and conquest of other countries for natural resources is beyond sanity--
It's twisted logic.

Personally, my "opinion" is that Greenpeace and Sea Shepherds would do the world a favor to blow the living shit out of any entrepreneurial "killing" expedition that ignores boundaries and kills endangered wildlife--forget the U.N.!!!


If someone doesn't protect, and I mean actually "protect", the wildlife, the environment, and the food chain from those who would exploit it for "profit", then we face grave consequences that will affect each and every one of us.
The food chain goes and we ALL die.--no fear tactics here--just 5th grade science class-just very elementary basic cold facts-

Wildlife and the environment must be carefully managed in a world full of desperate people who would exploit without hesitation.
We lose the rainforest, we lose our oxygen, and our water supply--We lose the ocean and we lose everything--Remember it doesn't happen all at once but once it happens it cannot be remedied.

The rules WILL be changing on a planet with 6.4 billion people on it-
completely new set of rules-We can no longer consider the oceans inexhaustible sources to be hunted and "harvested" any more than we can our wildlife on land.

If some people have the foresight to prevent these greedy exploitations from destroying us all then more power to them and those who support them.
If things continue as they are, more and more aware individuals with the insight to realize the consequences of doing nothing-(educated and sane people) will probably have to put their lives on the line in order to save our planet from self-indulgent greedy close minded exploiters and destroyers.---

This is as serious as it gets.

[Ben Ceremos]

25. We all possess the authority

to protect the planet. I live here too, so I can rightfully prevent the destruction of my habitat and , since all habitat is actually the planet, I can fight to save the planet with the same authority I would use to defend my nation, my people and my family. Laws are made to be obeyed, when broken, we can ill afford to wait until some legal body somewhere determines that the corporate interests are lesser than the interests of the entire planet. I will gladly oppose those who do not respect the environmental laws, int'l. treaties and are motivated only by greed. Kudos to Greenpeace and Sea Shepherds!!!

Furthemore, civil disobedience is a valid form of protest to get the bad laws changed or scrapped. Frankly, what you want or don't want to happen in North America or Antarctica is irrelevant, and as far as elected leaders, I beg to differ. They are all bought before they start their term of office. Now is the time for global civil disobedience! The law is an ass, sir!

[LivingInTheBubble]

54. This is not Iraq - get back to me when they are killing people. NT

[HuckleB]

168. No flames.

Just reality checks. Bush ignored the UN. This group is following UN Charter, as it is laid out.

There is no comparison.

[Barrett808]

6. Sea Shepherd blog:

http://seashepherd.org/whales/blog/whales_blog_001.html

[Igel]

8. Apparently this is good vigilantism, not bad vigilantism.

Nice to see there's no principles actually saying taking the law--as we and those we support define it--into our own hands is wrong.

[Barrett808]

9. United Nations World Charter for Nature

Sea Shepherd is guided by the UN Charter World Charter for Nature and cites Section 21 under the heading of Implementations as the Society’s authority to act on behalf of international conservation law.

21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and consultations

(b) Establish standards for products and other manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction

...

24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter, acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.

http://seashepherd.org/about-mandate.html

[Igel]

102. In many respects, I assume

ALF could say the same.

I notice, of course, that they decreed the crews of the vessels under arrest and made efforts to impound them. Or, conversely, deface and damage, with no claims as to actually enforcing things.

International law is a squirrelly area, and it's unclear that what they're doing is, strictly speaking (not polemically or ideologically speaking), illegal. It's easy to find things that support one's view in isolation. It's rather harder to make the case ironclad, given the structure of many agreements.

And while you didn't say it, the "sink the vessels" comment above is disturbing.

[Bonobo]

12. Voice of Reason. Thank goodness. Might=Right=Wrong

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

21. define "LAW"--define "Vigilantism"-Whose "LAW"? humanity cannot justify

We cannot justify our own destruction ! ,---no matter what country, group of countries, no G8,
can justify the destruction of our planet piece by piece for profit.

The food chain goes we all die---period ! end of story !
--regardless of the law of any "country".


The Laws of the Universe TRUMP any laws we as humans may create in order to justify "indulging" ourselves at the cost of the food chain and the environment.

Some who are in touch with and understand the consequences of environmental devastation will see fit to aid and protect Mother Nature regardless of public opinion and, for all of our sakes, let's hope they succeed in doing so.

[northzax]

23. do you actually know anything about Minke Whales?

there are estimated to be over 800,000 of them in the Sothern Ocean, they are more common than at the height of commercial whaling in the middle of the 20th century. They compete directly with larger, endangered species of whales for food, including Grey whales, Blue whales and Humpback whales. Their breeding rate far exceeds the small number harvested every year (under 1500 globally.) Despite ten years of this level of harvesting, the population is continuing to grow, even, perhaps, leading to a slower rate in the growth of larger whale species.

Why, in all honesty, should Minke whales be any different from Tuna, Salmon, Bluefish, Striped Bass, or any other marine species that may be sustainably harvested? (some Tuna species are, some aren't, of course) Why?

[RebelOne]

28. They are different from tuna, salmon, bluefish, etc.

They are not fish, they are mammals!!!

[northzax]

29. so are cows, deer, sheep, goats, guinea pigs, hamsters...

...all of which are eaten regularly around the planet, what's the realistic distinction? If they aren't endangered, if the species is sustainable in the wild, why make a distinction between mammals and non-mammals?

[Kagemusha]

43. I doubt the argument will convince anyone. Take seals...

I've been privileged enough to hear about how the Eastern Canadian seal population has just completely boomed in recent years, numbers hugely out of proportion to their historical levels. It may surprise some that seals eat cod, a type of fish which has been overfished and which further fishing of is generally banned now I do believe. So that many seals leads to some extent to keeping those cod stocks down. The natural predators (example: Orcas) will take a long time to catch up, if ever. The population is vastly above the level required for sustainability.

So what is everyone constantly arguing about? HOW DARE YOU KILL A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CUTE LITTLE SEALS.

Let's say you took the pelt issue aside and just oh, killed half a million of them and threw the carcasses into the sea. There might be an ecological justification for doing so. But no, the response is, 'Well you don't KNOW there are that many seals, the studies are in dispute!' Frankly, a million seals here, a million seals there, soon enough you're talking about a lot of well fed, breeding seals. A hundred thousand or two off isn't going to change the basic facts a lot when there's 7 million. (There may not be now, but during the initial boom they were estimated to reach that level once, which is an astounding number historically speaking.)

So as I said. I doubt this argument about Minke whales will convince anyone either.

[Number9Dream]

50. False propaganda from sealing industry

The Canadian government and sealing industry have, at various times, tried to claim that the harp seal population has "tripled" over the past three decades, or that the harp seal population is "exploding," or that seals are overpopulated. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the 1950s and 1960s, over-hunting wiped out close to two-thirds of the harp seal population. By 1974, the population was considered to be in serious trouble, and senior government scientists recommended the commercial hunt be suspended for at least ten years.

snip - However, according to the last survey conducted by the Canadian government in 1999, the harp seal population stopped recovering in 1996 (when the commercial seal hunt was reintroduced) and began to decline. With more than a million seal pups killed over the past three years alone, we can only wonder what the impact will be on the harp seal population over the coming years.


http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/protect_seals/facts_about_the_canadian_seal_hunt.html

[Kagemusha]

68. Um, even if all your numbers are 100% correct, effect = nothing

333,000 killed by man per year should have a negligible effect on a healthy harp seal population. For that matter you're saying in your own reply that the government's claim was that the population WAS exploding - compared to its once-overhunted, in-need-of-protection status - until it reached a plateau. And frankly, 1999 was around the last time I heard anything firm on this issue, numbers-wise, whatsoever, so it seems my recollection is correct.

If you noticed, if you divide the seal population of say, 1940, by 3, and then multiply it by 3, you get back to the original mature population size. Which is exactly what my impression was.

I find it insulting that environmentalists don't appreciate that seals' natural predators have not rebounded the way the seals themselves have because they take more time to recover from population loss - a basic environmental fact, and a good reason to treat the environment with care.

As for this "we can only wonder" stuff... give me a break. This issue is about killing even one seal pup being one too many. That's why there's a two-prong strategy: malign government numbers and not offer anything in return but "we can only wonder". I got sick of that approach a decade ago and nothing's happened since to make me question it.

And do you want to know why? (Probably not, but I'll tell you anyway.) Because environmentalists cannot be bothered to put together their own estimates of how many harp seals or Minke whales there are. That "fact sheet" also failed to mention exactly how many seals were killed yearly during the overhunting period (probably because any official figures woefully undercounted seal deaths, which is just bad management).

If this was about controlling the population, it'd be a whole different argument. But this is about seal pelts vs. "how dare you kill even one of these seals!" so in the end, neither the fishermen nor the environmentalists really care about the numbers. I just happen to because I have a scientific mind and see maintaining a healthy population as a good thing. This "there's no evidence" stuff... why isn't there any evidence? If it's because environmentalists don't want any, then I have no use for them.

There are many worthy and legitimate environmental causes for me to support.

[flvegan]

41. Isn't that number from the Institute of Cetacean Research?

Aren't they the ones suggesting that the population is that large? There's been independent scientific research that suggests that this isn't true.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

44. when's the last time you bought a tin of Whale mammal meat?

who cares how many Minkes there are !!
We are not at liberty to kill whales in protected sanctuaries--period

Also, remember all they did was to interfere--interfering with a ship's rendezvous isn't illegal-
-annoying --hopefully enough to send them back to port-

So more power to caretakers of this planet and destruction to those who plunder earth's resources with reckless disregard for boundaries.

[One_Life_To_Give]

49. Actually admitting to a Intentional Collision

I beleive that qualifies as an act of piracy on the high seas.

[Ben Ceremos]

27. If patiently waiting

would restore the dead species to the world, then I would wait. Good or bad vigilantism is a crock. This is required direct action in defense of our planet and is also solidarity with the living system that is our home. Damn the illegal, bribe-driven legislative aura that supports this certain destruction. Resistance is essential and laws be damned if they are only menat to apply to the person and not the corporation. Sorry but these "luxurious" principles are a luxury at this time, or maybe you haven't noticed that the world is in crisis?

[Pachamama]

24. Paul Watson is a good man.....

I salute the good Captain and thank him and his crew for their work to save this planet from the poachers...One whale at a time....

:hug:

[northzax]

31. except they aren't poachers.

There is a legal regime established (the same regime that ended large scale whaling, and saved many species from extinction) Poaching, by definition, involves the hunting of animals outside the law, this is not outside the law.

You would have no real objection to me coming to your house and ramming your car to prevent you using polluting fossil fuels to run it? Same thing.

[Pachamama]

32. They are technically "poaching"...you see, the Japanese are trying to get

around the legal guidelines set for whaling for food. The Japanese found a little legal "loophole" that allows killing whales for "research"...problem with this little action of their "research" is that the dead whales are being hauled to the factory ships and cut up and are ending up on the plates of Japanese.

They are poachers. And your example of ramming my car to prevent me from using polluting fossil fuels to run it is a really poor example of trying to claim my comment is invalid. Try a better one next time. Sounds like you are okay with these "researchers from Japan"?

[northzax]

33. and it's not 'commcercial'

since the hunt loses money every year. And yes, the reasearchers do, in fact, actually publish research papers on the subject. It may be a fairly weak pretense, but it's not a hunt that does any real damage ecologically (a higher percentage of the world's cows are slaughtered every year for food) so it certainly doesn't rise to the level of needing violence to stop. So no, given that there are dozens of marine species that are actually endangered, instead of increasing in population (and, in all probability, reducing the growth rates of other species) I'm not all that concerned about the hunting of 800 of the million+ minke whales every year.

the use of fossil fuels in a single family car, which is patently avoidable, if you are willing to do it, cause more damage every year than the hunting of a small number of a successful species. The use of fossil fuels kills humans. And, ironically, endangers Minke Whales down the road as their food sources go extinct due to global warming. So no, if you run a car on fossil fuels, you are just as guilty, I reserve the right to vandalize your car to stop you from doing so. you use your car for convenience sake only, at least someone eats the whales.

[LeftyMom]

42. commerce is defined as the buying and selling of goods on a large scale

Much commerce (including a great deal of agriculture in this country) would lose money without subsidies (the Japanese govt buys up whale meat at inflated prices for school meals, amongst other things.) It's still commerce.

Really, nobody's eating whale to survive. They're just as wasted and dead as they would be if left on some beach to rot. That somebody stuffs a slab of whale carcass down thier greedy maw doesn't make this in any way excusable.

[northzax]

76. I sure hope you're a vegan

if you aren't walking the walk, then get off your high horse. Noone needs any sort of meat to 'survive' let alone leather, feathers or wool. I assume you are wearing only organic cotton clothing, from head to toe, otherwise, frankly, you are a hypocrite on this matter.

[LeftyMom]

77. Damn good thing I am a vegan.

I love when people call me out on that. :D

Organic cotton clothing is a bit out of my budget (I simply can't afford $8 socks or $45 t shirts.) I stick to used stuff as much as I practically can to minimize my impact, clothing-wise.

Is that walking the walk enough for you?

[northzax]

80. good on the food

and working on your impact. I personally, eat meat and wear leather, although I buy organic as often as possible. Given that, I can't complain about someone eating whales, any more that I would listen if someone in India complained about me eating cows. So that's how I avoid hypocrisy.

[LeftyMom]

84. One nice thing about being vegan

I'm fairly immune to that argument, since I'm as disturbed by and vocal about cow or chicken consumption (and the dramatic environmental impact of those acts) as I am about whaling.

[psychopomp]

48. Thank you for presenting a level-headed analysis of the situation

People eat animals. So, what else is new? This species seems to be thriving.

[roguevalley]

34. BRAVO!

I love these guys more than I can articulate.

[phrenzy]

35. Eco-Terrorists?

Frightening the amount of 'ends-justify means' Bush-like reasoning here.

"We don't have to obey the law because the law doesn't take into consideration the safety of the eco-system!"

I guess was taking 'direct action' when he decided to wiretap 'potential terrorists'

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

45. Nice TRY ! Protectors equal Exploiters--yeah--in your dreams maybe!!!!

get real !

did you even read what occured?

http://seashepherd.org/news/media_060108_1.html

[The Stranger]

64. Enforcing the law is not breaking the law.

If the criminal whalers have a problem, let them go to the authorities.

[xchrom]

36. good!

i have no problem with japan being very directly confronted on this.

and yes, it's ugly.

but not uglier than hunting whales period.

[depakid]

37. Outstanding

Now, if I were in charge- there'd be worldwide agreements about dwindling fisheries- and the US Navy would be sinking vessels that didn't comply.

All hands off the ship- strip it of its valuable equipment- and to bottom she goes.

Period. End of story.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

46. AGREE--and that will have to be how it is in the future

if we intend to preserve and protect what's left of this earth for future generations.

[flvegan]

38. Heroic actions, Sea Shepherd.

Someone has to uphold the law. Sometimes force is necessary. Cops ram cars to stop them, no difference here, to me.

It is Japan that is violating international conservation law. The following list summarizes their violations:

1. The Japanese are whaling in violation of the International Whaling Commission's global moratorium on commercial whaling. The IWC scientific committee does not recognize this bogus research that the Japanese are using as an excuse.

2. The Japanese are killing whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary for whales.

3. The Japanese are killing whales unlawfully in the Australian Antarctic Territory

4. The Japanese are targeting fin whales this year and humpback whales next year. These are endangered species and thus this is a violation of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

5. The Japanese are in violation of IWC regulation 19. (a) The IWC regulations in the Schedule to the Convention forbid the use of factory ships to process any protected stock: 19. (a) It is forbidden to use a factory ship or a land station for the purpose of treating any whales which are classified as Protection Stocks in paragraph 10. Paragraph 10(c) provides a definition of Protection Stocks and states that Protection Stocks are listed in the Tables of the Schedule. Table 1 lists all the baleen whales, including minke, fin and humpback whales and states that all of them are Protection Stocks.

6. In addition the IWC regulations specifically ban the use of factory ships to process any whales except minke whales: Paragraph 10(d) provides: (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10 there shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships. This moratorium applies to sperm whales, killer whales and baleen whales, except minke whales.

[northzax]

75. since when is Sea Shepherd the Police?

a few of your points are debatable, 5+6 are irrelevant, since the whales being hunted are Minke Whales, and not protected. The agreement to allow limited research whaling was the compromise that allowed the moratorium on commercial whaling to take effect, it gave the Japanese government the political cover it needed to stop the mass slaughter of endangered species. that's not a bad compromise.

some other points: if the fleet is taking marine species from Australian waters, let the Australians deal with it, I'm pretty sure they have a navy, and it's one that has been used, in the past, to stop poaching, google the "Lena" "Vogla" and "Arivsa" for pirate fishers stopped, outside Australian national waters in the past five years.

And since the Farley Mowat is a private vessel, not one chartered or licensed by any government to pursue pirate fishers or whalers, the cop analogy doesn't work. Unless I, as a private citizen, can run you off the road for breaking the law as well?

[Barrett808]

79. Endangered fin whales are being targeted this year

Next year, endangered humpback whales are on the menu.

[northzax]

81. well technically, Finbacks are "threatened' not endangered

and I would oppose the culling of Humpback populations at this time.

[Barrett808]

82. Whale, finback -- Current Status: Endangered

Whale, finback
Balaenoptera physalus
Family: Balaenopteridae
Group: Mammals

Current Status: Endangered (see below)


Status Details regarding information on Recovery Plans, Special Rules and Critical Habitat for specific designations.
Federal Register documents that apply to the Finback whale.
Conservation Plans (Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements) in which Finback whale occurrence has been recorded.
Petitions received on the Finback whale.
USFWS Refuges on which the Finback whale is reported.
Virtual Newsroom
Current News Releases
NatureServe Explorer Species Reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Status Details

Endangered

The Finback whale was first listed on June 02, 1970. It is currently designated as Endangered in the Entire Range. Within the area covered by this listing, this species is known to occur in: Alaska, Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Virgin Islands. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is the lead region for this entity.

http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/SpeciesProfile?spcode=A02O

[flvegan]

89. Since

this, it would appear:

The United Nations World Charter for Nature states in Section 21:

States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall…:

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature, and the protection of the environment;
(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdiction , or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
(e) safeguard and conserver nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

And finally, Section 24 states:

Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present charter are met.


The Australian govt has been asked to send a vessel to monitor the actions in their territory. They've since refused.

I probably don't have to tell you that your analogy is fairly senseless. The law in America pertaining to citizens in automobiles is quite different compared to international law pertaining to the open sea.

[northzax]

90. I will donate $50 to DU

when you cite the legal precedent for the UN Charter for the Protection of Nature taking legal precedence over UNCLOS. Or IWC. It's strange, really, all I hear are "they are hunting whales in the Sanctuary" well, the Sanctuary was established by IWC. And IWC gave permission for this hunt to happen.

let me repeat that very slowly for you. The UN granted the regulation of whaling to IWC. The CPRN no longer applies, since IWC has the authority to regulate the matter. IWC gave permission for this, therefore it is legal. GReenpeace uses non-violent methods of protest, Sea Shepherd uses more, shall we say, direct methods.

And yes, by the way, since the Farley Mowat is flagged in Canada, which has ratified UNCLOS, deliberatly ramming another vessel at sea is just as illegal as me deliberatly ramming your car. would you care for me to cite chapter and verse of UNCLOS to you? Sea Shepherd has put Canada in the position of being forced to hold the Captain, upon return to Canada, for trial. These are international treaty obligations, not to be taken lightly.

[flvegan]

96. I'll go on the word

of Capt. Watson, who's far more experienced and better versed in the legality of what he's doing than either of us could ever claim to be.

When Watson/Sea Shepherd are charged, brought to trial and convicted of your allegations of "illegal" I guess I'll have to at least begin listening to you.

Until then...

[northzax]

100. and I'll go on the word of the attorneys I know

one of whom helped draft UNCLOS.

do you know the story of why Watson left Greenpeace in the first place? because Greenpeace did not want to engage in anything more than non-violent protest.

There is not a serious international lawyer who will argue that the intentional ramming of another vessel is not a violation of UNCLOS. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Canadian lawyer, not retained by Sea Shepherd, who would argue that this is not a violation of Canadian Maritime law. You simply do not ram other vessels or deliberately damage them. It doesn't happen. Captain Watson is not, as far as I am aware, an attorney, and his reputation is such that he is basically radioactive with every other envrionmental group in the world.

See, the whole thing about civil disobediance is that you recognize you are breaking the law, and pay the penalties for doing so. It's why Greenpeace pays the bail and fines incurred by its activists. Captain Watson acts above the law, because he believes what he is doing is right. That's not how civil disobediance works.

Tell me, if the ramming had led to the death of someone on the whaling vessel, would you still be so blase about it?

[flvegan]

101. I guess I should be impressed

but I'm not. Sorry. I guess as a counter, I'd go on the silence of the judges that could impose an Order upon Watson, but haven't.

From what I understand, there were a number of reasons for Watson leaving Greenpeace.

I'll take your word on the points you've made about the retaining of an attorney that would argue as you've said, considering that to make that post, you must have spoken with all of them. Why hasn't he been charged, then? Surely there's precedent for the Australian or Japanese (or UN governing authority) that would be calling for his head. Maybe also because there probably isn't a lawyer that would recommend it. Discovery is a real bitch in cases like this.

Had the sideswipe (not ramming, as it was the whaling vessel that did the only ramming, and to The Arctic Sunrise) resulted in death or injury of a whaler (or anyone, but for the sake of your post, we'll stay in line) would I be so blase? Absolutely not. I don't think I'm blase to begin with, rather I'm vehemently in support of SSCS. However, had someone been hurt, I'd condemn the action. That said, obviously Capt. Watson is a very capable individual, and since nobody was hurt, I can't and won't feel the least bit sorry about it.

[northzax]

103. ok then

I don't see how you could codemn an action that resulted in injury and not condemn the same action that didn't result in injury. Either the Farley Mowat was legally allowed to ram the whaling vessel, or she wasn't. The end result of damage to the other vessel is, frankly, irrelevant. If I am allowed to shoot you, then I am fine whether or not you die, since the action was justified. If I am in the right to hit you with my fist, then whether or not that blow hurts you permanently is irrelevant, my action was justified, what happens to you is not my fault. That's the problem with using violence as a form of protest.

By the way, you know that Watson was been convicted, in Norway, of sinking a whaling vessel? And that Japan has asked the US government to extradite Watson to face charges stemming from eariler incidents? He has a track record of sinking ships, and sinking ships at sea leads to people dying. No mariner would ever expose someone to that, outside of war time. Sea Shepherd has scuttled ships in Iceland, how is that better than the French scuttling the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland?

[flvegan]

106. Well, in response

You don't need to see how I can condemn one and not another. Nobody was hurt, and the ship, a double-hulled vessel certified for oil transport wasn't injured so much either. I don't see how you can support whaling as you do. As for anyone being "legally allowed" I tell you what, when you're a judge with jurisdiction in the issue (or I am for that matter) we can talk legality, as it's really just not a point right now. If you hit me with your fist, you would be charged with battery. If you hit my car with your fist, and did damage, wrongly perpetrated, you might be charged with malicious property damage. See, I'm not a ship, nor a car, so your analogy about you, physically hitting me, is, well...stupid...and would be regretful on your part.

As for Watson's convictions in other whaling countries, I care little. Considering that the US hasn't seen fit to extradite him speaks quite a bit. As for sinking ships at sea, the only time I can recall the good Captain even coming close to same was with The Sierra which was near dock and not sunk. Who died...please remind me? I am fully versed in Capt. Watson's charges (and overwhelming lack of convictions as to same).

The French scuttling The Rainbow Warrior against the trashing of Icelanding vessels via seacock is easily the most inane comparison I've seen on DU lately. Oh, wait...next you'll drag Coronado out of the closet as a terrorist. Go ahead, it's been at least a week since that's been done.

Ramming speed, with no apologies. Oh, and if it were violent, The Farley Mowat, with her concrete laden hull, likely could have sent the whaler to the bottom of the sea. Not the case. A message.

Hey, defend the whalers all you want. I side with those in defense of those that can't otherwise defend.

Sealing on the ice floes north of the US will be taking place soon. Be sure to come back and defend that, as well.

[northzax]

113. so let me get this straight

If I hit your car and cause damage, it's malicious property damage, but if I ram your ship, it's all good? maybe I'm obtuse, but they both seem to be intentional damage of someone else's property. Please be so kind as to explain the fine point of law that makes the first one a crime and the second not.

[flvegan]

119. Jurisdiction and the laws that designate same.

You're the one with all the lawyer pals, ask them what that means.

You hit my car on an American road, governed by American law...do I need to go further, or do you get it now? The "fine point" is law, governance and enforcement. Let's talk intent, shall we? Reason, perception...you still with me? Intent...all you've done is ram my car. Why? Just because? Be specific. It helps in discussions like this.

Besides, all those finer points aside...let's say that there is no difference, okay? Let's say that it's the very same thing...

I double...no, triple dog dare the monkeyfucks on one of the Japanese whalers to come forth after a ramming (which, poster, btw hasn't happened). Let's just let the courts sort that one out, mmmkay.

Let's start with the process of Discovery. I'll need many of your documents, procedures, sources of funding, scientific evaluations, etc to go through before we get to court. Do be patient, okay?

Let me break this down to a 3rd grade level...

Let's just say we're in cars (since you insist upon that forum). You're driving erratically, puposely running down dogs on sidewalks, in parking lots, on leashes walked by their people. I see this. Yes, I will call 911 from my phone, and then I'll do whatever I can to disable your ability to continue same. I'll ram you, t-bone you, find you at a stoplight and waste all 4 tires (and probably put something through your windshield). I'll pull you from that car and nonviolently detain you...until you lash out at me. Might I be arrested? Sure. I've got a good...no, great lawyer. Will a jury find fault with what I did? Not likely.

Plus, in Florida anyway, a person in commission of a felony, that's likely to commit a felony again, or otherwise endangering others, is ripe for the picking.

Other states have Good Samaritan laws, and I'd be hard-pressed to be convicted in the same scenario.

[northzax]

149. True, as a US citizen

it is not actually clear whether or not UNCLOS applies to Watson. The problem is, the Farley Mowat is flagged in Canada. Which has ratified UNCLOS, making it the law of the land. You do understand the concept of international treaties, don't you? and maritime Jurisdiction? A US flagged vessel is subject to US law in international waters. a Panamanian vessel is subject to Panamanian Law when in international waters. Which is precisely why cruise ships register in places like Panama, even if their actual home port is Miami.

Jurisdiction, in the Southern Ocean, belongs to three bodies, depending on the activity taking place. Terrestrial activities south of 60 are subject to the Antartic Treaty of 1969. Fishing is subject to CCAMLR (the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living resources) and Whaling is subject to the International Whaling Commission. Activities that don't meet any of these standards are subject, if the nation has ratified it, UNCLOS, which covers the high seas not subject to other treaty.

a better third grade analogy would be t-boning someong hunting deer on public land, with a permit to do so. After all, I'm sure that the deliberate killing or injuring of a dog is illegal uinder Florida law unless you have a license (read a veteranarian) and good reason to do so. Could you, say, t-bone a veterinarian on the way to the pound to euthanise stray animals, simply because you don't agree with it? somehow, I think you might get into trouble for doing so. Maybe you should try it?

This is obviously futile on both sides to continue. I will not condone the ramming of another vessel engaged in an activity I don't agree with that happens to be legal under the current regime. From the perspective of the Japanese Whaling Fleet, the Arctic Sunrise was interfering in their legal operations, why not ram them? Surely, there is no jurisdiction to bother with. Hell, why not torpedo them? Since the only international maritime treaty you recognize is the UNCPN, and there is nothing in that document to forbid someone from killing another human being (since humans on boats are certainly not 'natural') I do not believe that this particular issue rises to the level of needing violence to intervene.

here's an example, based on your third grade level reasoning above. If you don't intervene in that circumstance, then you are morally culpable. That's why good samaritan laws are in place, to reinforce that you should intervene in certain circumstances (I'm going with your reading of the law on this, although I would posit that Jury Nullification is not a defense here) If you have the ability to stop a murder and you don't, then aren't you at least morally reponsible?

is that what you're saying about Greenpeace? since the Arctic Sunrise didn't ram the fleet, they didn't do what was neccesary to prevent the hunt from continuing?

[flvegan]

152. Good points.

As to your first point, you tell me...how is Watson and the SSCS "governed" so to speak?

Your 3rd grade analogy is...well, silly. Again, back on US land, subject to US law (at which point, I'd defer to my first question). Your suggestion that I "should try it" (t-boning a veterinarian on his/her way to euthanise strays at the pound) leaves me somewhat befuddled. Why would I do such a thing? Why should I, per your direction?

You should really read up on, and maybe check the video on the ramming of The Arctic Sunrise. It's on the greenpeace.org website.

As for your third grade level reasoning as last stated, "morally culpable" reaches further than a legal standpoint. "Ability" is such a grey area, I question any lawyer that would bring it up. As for "jury nullification", et al, if I have the ability to stop a murder, I would do so, and then count on my lawyer to take care of me, and the jury to see it as such. I belive in justice.

But then, to be honest, were I in a position to stop a murder (or rape, or the kidnapping of a child, etc.) I'd do so and not think of the consequences. I'd rather sit in jail, than sit in judgment of myself for having done nothing. It's easier for a jury to let you off than for you to let yourself off. At least, it is for me.

[northzax]

158. as to your points

I would assume that SSCS as an organization is governened by the laws of the United States and the State of Washington, since that is where they are chartered. The Farley Mowat was recently (within the last two years) reflagged to Canada, so the vessel is subject to Canadian law while in international waters. As I understand it, the captain of a vessel is responsible to the laws of the country under which the vessel is flagged, while in international waters. If I reflagged my sailboat in Panama, I would be subject to Panamanian jusrisdiction if I ever went into international waters (at which point I'd probably be sinking anyway, since it's only 18 feet, but that's not the point)

I've seen the video on the ramming of the Arctic Sunrise, actually, heck, I know a guy on the ship. And I have no qualms about the actions of the Captain of the Sunrise in that incident. There is a difference between putting yourself in a hazardous situation and deliberatly placing others in that situation.

honestly, I don't think we are too far apart on this (and it's time for bed for me) it's simply a matter of intent.

[blindpig]

39. Dare I say it?

Extremism in the defence of Mother Nature is no vice.

Fuck those pirates, I salute the Sea Shepards.

Above and beyond the capacity of the Minke whale population to tolerate human predation is the question of the sentiency of ceateans. I believe their relative intellegence as compared to the animals that we use for food should exempt them from exploitation.

[Greyskye]

51. Pic of the 'can opener'

There it is at the bottom right:




Gotta say that my sympathies are with the Sea Shepherds!

[LeftyMom]

52. .

:woohoo:

:yourock:

[flvegan]

53. Looks an awful lot like a shark's tooth, doesn't it?

Imagine the precision it takes to get THAT close to another vessel, at speed, on those seas, and NOT collide.

[Pavulon]

109. looks

like a good way to open the hull of a ship. I don't see the difference in that and a RPG or shaped charge. Both are designed to inflict damage and or sink a ship.

Support the cause not the act.

[flvegan]

111. An RPG would send that ship to the bottom.

A "can opener" v. a double hulled oil tanker doesn't even come close.

I support the cause, AND I support the act. So long as the crew were safely in lifeboats, I'd support the sinking of that ship.

The law won't defend them, and the spineless in power won't take a stand. Therefore, through those that defend the defenseless, I say scuttle the bastards.

[Pavulon]

112. What do you

propose to do with the bunker oil or diesel on the ship?

Ramming a fuel vessel is stupid, dangerous, and against maritime law.

Really, whaling is terrible, but this is over the edge.

Maybe they should plant explosives on the hull, oh wait.

[flvegan]

120. I don't propose to do anything.

She's not a fuel vessel, but she's certified to be one, hence the double hull.

Explosives, in the open sea, with crew on board? Nah. Your "oh wait" alluding to the past. You really should put things in perspective. Your suggestion, very right wing.

Oh, well.

[Pavulon]

126. The french

sunk a greenpeace ship, while doing something illegal and stupid. Just like these guys are doing now. Ramming a ship full of fuel is stupid, a bad environmental risk, and illegal.

Chase them, harass them, no need to endanger lives.

[flvegan]

128. The Rainbow Warrior

was sunk by the French, yes. I don't know the intent of your "illegal and stupid" comment, be it towards The Rainbow Warrior or the French.

The only ship rammed during this campaign is The Arctic Sunrise, Greenpeace's ship, rammed by a whaler with a chip on his shoulder.

[Pavulon]

129. Both acts were stupid and illegal, risk loss of life(nt)

[Harper_is_Bush]

55. Where is the mention of law enforcement being contacted?

Surely if this is illegal activity then they will want to involve Canadian or US authorities?

[flvegan]

57. Sea Shepherd has requested the Australian govt.

to send a Navy ship to monitor the activities of the Japanese whalers.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051230_1.html

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051222_1.html

[Harper_is_Bush]

56. If they are indeed fishing illegally (ie. "pirates") then OK, otherwise...

Excuse me if I don't believe a sea shephard press release, but "Captain" Watson and his group are the same ones who lied about the reasons a Canadian MP retired.

Lie to me once......

[Barrett808]

58. Update: Japanese Whaling Fleet on the Run Again – 48 Hours Without Whaling

Japanese Whaling Fleet on the Run Again – 48 Hours Without Whaling
Sea Shepherd News
News Releases
01/09/2006

As soon as the Sea Shepherd ship Farley Mowat arrived on the scene on the morning of the 8th of January, the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru began to run. She is still running and is now 300 miles to the west of the position the Sea Shepherd crew found her. She has also not processed any whales for over 48 hours.

Captain Paul Watson believes that the Nisshin Maru and the Oriental Bluebird are attempting to rendezvous to continue off-loading whale meat from the factory ship to the supply ship for transport back to Japan. The ships were in the process of transferring cargo when the Farley Mowat arrived. The Nisshin Maru slipped the mooring lines attached to the Oriental Bluebird and began to flee when the Farley Mowat was spotted. The Captain of the Nisshin Maru then collided with the nearby Arctic Sunrise causing damage to the Greenpeace ship. The Nisshin Maru fled north and the Oriental Bluebird fled northeast.

The Farley Mowat found the Oriental Bluebird on the morning of the 9th of January. The supply boat had her fenders out and appeared to be waiting to meet up with the Nisshin Maru to continue to transfer whale meat.

Captain Paul Watson ordered the Oriental Bluebird out of the Whale Sanctuary and sideswiped the vessel with the Farley Mowat.

"We hit her," said Captain Watson. "We hit her because she is a whale meat smuggler illegally loading contraband whale meat in the Whale Sanctuary. We acted in accordance with the World Charter for Nature to uphold international conservation laws protecting the whales. This ship has no business down here. We believe our actions this morning disrupted the plans by the Nisshin Maru to transfer their cargo. We have no apologies."

The Japanese whaling fleet has lost almost two weeks of whaling time so far this season.

There is no doubt that the Japanese fleet is running from the Sea Shepherd crew. The fleet left Commonwealth Bay and ran north for 3 days as the Farley Mowat first approached their position. When the Farley Mowat caught up and intercepted the fleet on December 25, the whalers ran over 3,000 miles to the west.

When the Farley Mowat caught up again on January 8, the whalers began to run again another 300 miles west and they are still running at 14 knots.

The Sea Shepherd crew have disrupted operations three times and forced the ship to run each time.

Captain Watson is confident that if he can secure a faster ship that he will be able to return next year to prevent the Japanese fleet from killing 50 humpbacks and 50 fins and another 1,000 piked whales.

"We have not seen one whale killed down here nor do we intend to. I can promise that no Sea Shepherd ship will stand by and watch the murder of a whale. This has never happened and it will never happen. We are down here to stop whaling not to watch it." said Captain Watson.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has been stopping outlaw whalers since 1979 and in that time has sunk nine illegal whaling ships without ever causing a single injury to any whaler.

In response to criticisms that he is violating the rules of the road, Captain Watson noted, "That Japanese have been in clear violation of these rules of the road (in addition to violating many international laws) and no one seems to be overly concerned with their behaviour. These ruthless, murdering cowards must be stopped and it is a disgrace that non-governmental organizations have to come down to these waters to do the work of governments."

The Sea Shepherd ship Farley Mowat continues to pursue the Japanese fleet westward across the bottom of the Indian Ocean. It is a bizarre race: One whaling factory ship, four harpoon vessels, one spotting vessel, one supply vessel, two Greenpeace ships, and a Sea Shepherd ship. Ten ships in total in a struggle over the lives of the great whales.

"This is the greatest whale story since Moby Dick," said Captain Watson. "Killers and defenders - a classic struggle between life and death, good and evil. This has the making of a great epic. The question is who will win? Life or death? Good or evil? Whale defenders or whale killers? I am thrilled to be on the side of the angels and of the leviathans."

http://seashepherd.org/news/media_060109_1.html

[xchrom]

83. "We have not seen one whale killed down here

nor do we intend to. I can promise that no Sea Shepherd ship will stand by and watch the murder of a whale. This has never happened and it will never happen. We are down here to stop whaling not to watch it." said Captain Watson.

:applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

[Herstal]

59. Sounds terroristic.

I deplore the actions of the "Sea Shepherd". Ramming another ship is NOT acceptable.

[The Stranger]

65. No it doesn't.

Terrorism involves things like unjustified wars, mass murder, torture, and illegal invasions. Enforcing laws that protect those which cannot protect themselves is the absofuckinglute opposite of "terrorism."

[Herstal]

71. Whales are not people.

And, it is legal.

[The Stranger]

73. People are not whales.

And, it is not legal.

[Vickers]

105. Whales are not people???????!!!? !?!?!?!?!?!??!

Holy fucking shit, that must be some kind of Intelligent Design chicanery going on!

Oh, and welcome to DU, yadda yadda yadda... :eyes:

[flvegan]

66. Then deplore the whalers, too.

The Japanese whale processing ship, the Nisshin Maru rammed the Greenpeace ship, The Arctic Sunrise on the 8th.



Both Greepeace and Sea Shepherd are in those waters legally, and aren't breaking any laws, unlike the whalers. At least Sea Shepherd is acting in defense of the law, whereas the Nisshin Maru is acting in defense of breaking the law.

[Kagemusha]

74. Frankly I do deplore the whalers, to a large degree. But...

My sympathy for the Greenpeace ship above (pending finding out if the Japanese vessel was truly responsible, given factory ships have very ugly response times) was COMPLETELY DESTROYED by what Sea Shepherd did.

So let me put this in really simple terms... who appointed Sea Shepherd sherrif of the high seas? I can't buy a badge off Ebay and call myself a police officer because I am not one. Sea Shepherd isn't a law enforcement or military vessel of any nation. It has no right to inflict "an eye for an eye".

There's a local story that I heard once in my part of the world that I never had any interest in confirming; the individual concerned is now deceased by unrelated causes (auto accident IIRC). Apparently this person was part of a group that broke into a house and stole various things. There may have been drugs related; I'm not sure. There certainly was high priced electronic equipment involved. The owner of the house and a few of his 'boys' found out that this person was involved. They apparently kidnapped this person, confined him in the basement of the house for two days, roughed him up (albeit not quite Al Ghraib, which occured some time after), and coaxed him by hook or by crook into giving up the other members of the group.

The goods were largely recovered and none of this ever reached the ears of the police.

Does that make what occured correct in the slightest...!? No! Ordinary citizens do not have the right of vendetta, either for themselves, their loved ones, or, for that matter, for whales. The law is not ours to take into our own hands. We have laws to make those sworn to uphold the law follow that law; we don't rely on oaths alone or good intentions alone. It is not the place of law enforcement to invent powers they were not given; it is most certainly not the place of non law enforcement to invent powers that no power on earth but themselves provided to them.

When you say that Sea Shepherd is not breaking any laws - whether it was or was not originally (and I concede for the sake of argument and through lack of knowledge it was not breaking any law in simply being there), and whether or not it is breaking any laws *now*, since you are using "aren't" in the present - the Sea Shepherd most assuredly did break a law through an intentional collision. It is an important law, a law intended to protect the lives of human beings who sail the high seas. To put it bluntly, ships aren't supposed to slam into each other!

Granted, you think what they're doing is right anyway. You are free to your opinion. I just don't appreciate being lied to about the legality of what Sea Shepherd did here. There is no gray. It is flat out illegal and dangerous. If you think that they should get a pass anyway, please, feel free to say so - just don't expect me to like it. I've heard enough "the law should bend to good intentions" arguments. They are corrosive and corruptive and even if I trusted Greenpeace with such power to act with impunity, I would not trust anyone else on the high seas with such impunity either. Once you give it to one group, you can't easily keep others from doing the same.

And that's just not cool.

[flvegan]

88. Here's their "badge"

In Watson's own words:

The United Nations World Charter for Nature states in Section 21:

States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall…:

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature, and the protection of the environment;
(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdiction , or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
(e) safeguard and conserver nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

And finally, Section 24 states:

Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present charter are met.

[Kagemusha]

91. I already replied to this charter above. This is no license to ram

If you look closely at the section, the means to promote the conservation of nature include things like consultation, holding of meetings... NOT RAMMING SHIPS ON THE HIGH SEAS.

Or to put this in a much blunter way, this section expects each person has a duty to act in accordance with this charter WITHIN THE LAW, and in no way, shape, or form provides privately owned vessels with a right to attack privately or government-owned ships of any flag.

...And I'm getting a real deja vu feeling typing these words.

[flvegan]

94. Your opinion.

I'll take the word of someone that's been doing this a long, long time.

[anotherdrew]

98. yeah, maybe they should use RPGs?

[DS1]

60. Sink the motherfuckers

and no, I don't care if whalers drown.

[wordpix]

93. I agree, sink them

[greiner3]

69. Japan's offical reason for gathering whale meat?

Scientific study. It's a delicacy in Japan. Big business. In the future, Japanese whaing ships will use force against force and there will be lives lost.

[greiner3]

70. Japan's official reason for gathering whale meat?

Scientific study. It's a delicacy in Japan. Big business. In the future, Japanese whaling ships will use force against force and there will be lives lost.

[wordpix]

92. why is ANYONE allowed to kill whales in a designated whale sanctuary?

By definition, a sanctuary should be off limits to killing.

[Kagemusha]

95. As someone posted above...

The body that established the sanctuary is allowing the Japanese to kill whales for "research".

(Enter rapid-fire talk of bribery to make that same body take what environmentalists and a good many others believe to be a corrupt and bought-off and illegitimate decision)

It's not an impartial court of law (you'd need some Martians for that), but in this case, it is indeed the law, and the Japanese are following the law they helped make in this matter.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[Rigby Reardon]

99. I am so tired of the GodDamned

Japaneese eating my whales. It pisses me off like you would not believe.

/I used to host to Crew of the SS at my house many times.

[flvegan]

110. If I may, a belated welcome to DU.

If you've hosted Sea Shepherd crew at your home, then my thanks goes out to you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

166. Other posts from you make me skeptic of that.

I also seriously suspect you (a) never worked at the NSA and (b) are perfectly capable of drinking Pepsi. But that's just me.

[StopTheMorans]

167. we refer to this in the DU game as "building up credibility"

:thumbsup:

[Richardo]

170. Was this *during* your stint at the NSA?

What else have you done that directly connects with threads at DU?

[Clara T]

104. Paul Watson is the best

The planet and her creatures is dying. We would do well to act as Paul Watson does.

As a legal matter the Sea Shepherd is now sanctioned to do these type of things.

[Pavulon]

108. Common Sense

will lead anyone with any doubt to the conclusion that one vessel can not ram another on the open seas. Never mind the laws of unintended consequences it is dangerous for all involved.

If they are so serious why don't they buy a surplus deck gun.

I grew up on a boat and can assure you there is no maritime law that allows you to ram a vessel.

Still whaling is disgusting.

[flvegan]

114. Surplus deck gun?

For what reason?

Enforcing the law is dangerous, ask any cop.

The only "ramming" that took place was the whalers ramming The Arctic Sunrise (Greenpeace's ship). The Farley Mowat sideswiped (allegedly) the Oriental Bluebird. Big difference.

[Pavulon]

116. The last time

I was on a boat that was accidentally rammed by a boat going 10 knots 1 person had a broken arm, another collapsed ribs. One was medivaced by the coast guard. Sailboats that weigh 20k lbs. These boats weigh tonnes.

It is illegal to ram a vessel.

Sarcasm, if they were going to ram it with a sharp hull ripping piece of metal, why not just shoot an old deck gun round into it?

Really whaling is sick, but these guys are going to kill someone.

[flvegan]

121. Good points, but they raise questions

What kind of boat, accidentally rammed? 20k pounds? Sort of a different league, right (not belittling the injuries nor the severity of the issue...I wasn't there, and I wouldn't do that).

Illegal to ram a vessel...when cops "pit" another vehicle, you'd get that same argument from the lawyer for the accused (rightfully so in many cases, too).

Shooting a round into "it" might harm an individual inside the ship, right? Good reason to not do so.

[Pavulon]

125. Boat

was a 40' J Boat. Accidentally rammed us at the start of a race. This was 15 years ago. The people sitting on the rail (as ballast). I was a kid and was standing in the cockpit door. The other boat hit us on the right side and the hull rode up over the life line and hit two people.

Sailboat races are chaotic. The other guy thought we were going to tack and he misjudged his speed and distance. The person who got the chest injury was an older woman. Everyone recovered. Insurance payed for the damage.

I think whaling is sick. I have no problem with these guys harassing them. But ramming endangers the crew of both ships. The fuel ship is probably crewed by normal guys who would prefer not to sink or burn in a fuel fire.

Remember the death star construction workers from Clerks, these guys did not know they were putting themselves in danger on a tender ship.

[flvegan]

130. Jeebus, what race was that?

At least that was accidental.

Again, though, the only ramming was done by the whaling crew. I also have a difficult time convincing myself that the whalers don't know what "dangers" they're in. Sort of like the "deadly catch" crews not knowing, either.

[Pavulon]

135. I thought

it was a resupply boat. I may have misread. Anyway, if it was whalers they knew what they were in for.

It was a small regatta race in the albemarle sound and now that I reflect it was closer to 25 years ago. Mostly sailboats between 20 - 50'. Very civil crowd. True accident., however there are some stubborn bastards would hit you if they thought they could get away with claiming right of way.

Messing with whaler is fine with me, I would hate to see someone killed.

[flvegan]

137. The boat in the Sea Shepherd confrontation

was The Oriental Bluebird, a whaling supply vessel.

As an aside, I can remember a cigarette boat (she was dubbed "ICBM", as I recall, a Scarab) damn near crossing the bow of my dad's ODay sailboat, with myself (6) my brother (9) and my parents on board. Assholes of the sea are abound. They had no right of way, either. Just assholes.

I'd hate to see someone killed, and I'd hate to see someone hurt, as well.

[LeftyMom]

117. Hey I hate to quibble (well not really, but I don't want to do it to you)

but there isn't much point in "allegedly" in the face of a press release saying "hey look what we did!"

Always the contrarian,
LMommy

[flvegan]

122. "Sideswipe" can imply intent

Since I wasn't there, and I don't know the specific intent behind SSCS' action and press release, I refuse to assist the spin that might result. Therefore, alleged "sideswipe" as might be defined by those other than Webster's, stands with me.

[LeftyMom]

124. Okay, cool.

Just giving you a hard time mostly. I see what you're saying. :)

[Harper_is_Bush]

127. Farley Mowat sideswiped "allegedly"??

I thought they've admitted that's what they did? Isn't that why they have the "can opener" attatched to the side of thier ship, to sideswipe other ships?

[flvegan]

132. I wasn't there, and as I stated in another post

"sideswipe" can imply intent that I don't know Capt. Watson nor SSCS wishes to invoke. "Sideswipe" is open to interpretation.

BTW, the can opener, I believe, is attached to The Farley Mowat largely to assist in sending a message to other captains that would otherwise break the law.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Centered]

161. agree

I have spent the past 5 years living on the ocean (non military) and NO I am not a whaler.

Ramming a ship in the middle of the ocean is an attempt to kill everyone on board that vessel.

DONE PERIOD END!!

Ships at sea are not bumper cars. Terrible things can happen when you are out there all alone. No one reading this can imagine this unless you have some background as a sailor. You don't FUCK around it doesn't matter if you command a rowboat.

If the whalers rammed the activists then that captain should be held responsible. AND/OR vise versa. Everyone here should know better, there should be no tolerance for ramming a vessel. Especially with a mounted weapon. Sinking a vessel flagged under a foreign nation is an Act of war btw.

Sometimes we want to believe that people are blameless when they are doing what we ourselves feel is right. Some of these activists do indeed act like terrorists in a way. (Some NOT all) They attempt to board ships in the middle of the night. Cut anchor chains. Purposefully violate right of way priorities to disrupt/harass and force course changes. Some people see these people as pests. Some people understand that they are trying to do good. But all it would take is one of these "boarding parties" to be gunned down using the "I thought they were pirates" defense and then we have even more tragedy.

They should take their evidence to the UN as proof of illegal activity no matter what anyone here wishes to say... These people are not peacekeepers or duly sworn agents chosen to enforce UN/international law.

People die when you fuck around.

[shockra]

118. Article today in the Canberra Times

No link available online. Got this from DawnWatch.com

Canberra Times
January 9, 2006 Monday

SHAMEFUL JAPANESE NOT ALONE

The Moral black spot that we have towards animals is so gaping that it will shame us in the eyes of future generations.

That's the message we should take from the Greenpeace activists that are harassing the Japanese whaling fleet as it goes about its brutal task of fulfilling its self-awarded licence quota of killing 935 minke and 10 fin whales this summer. The Japanese don't have a monopoly when it comes to dishing out doses of human savagery towards animals. All countries engage in the practice at obscenely high levels.

The killing of whales is a particularly distressing example of animal cruelty. Whales scream in terror as they are being massacred in a killing process that often lasts for several hours. Unlike humans, they are not blessed with a consciousness shut off valve that kicks in when they are subjected to extreme levels of pain. Their suffering continues as their flesh is repeatedly harpooned and ripped apart.

The rivers of blood that are now filling the Antarctic ocean should jar our moral psyche into overdrive to reassess the manner in which we treat animals.

Looking back on history many of us are bewildered at the barbarity displayed by previous generations towards the interests of certain agents. More enlightened future generations will regard the callous disregard with which we treat animals as on a par with the repugnant ways that our forefathers treated groups such as women and people with dark skin.

We eat millions of animals annually, despite the fact that animal products are not essential (and in some cases are detrimental) to our dietary needs. In the process we often farm and kill animals in cruel ways. We have no qualms about inflicting the cruel death of gentle creatures so that we can salivate on the transient delight of a yummy burger, even though we would salivate no less on a vegetarian meal, properly prepared.

Don't be conned into thinking that we don't inflict suffering on animals in the process. Just go to your local battery hen plant for a visit. There you will notice that within one to 10 days of being hatched, chicks will be debeaked, which involves amputating about half of their beak with a red hot blade or wire. The pain involved is so intense, that some chicks die of shock or injury. Shortly after this they are placed in 50cm x 50cm wire cages with up to four other hens, where they stay for the rest of their lives. They will never experience the ''luxury'' of walking or spreading their wings. Many hens lose all their feathers from being pecked by others and some even die from pecking injuries. All this so that we pay a few cents less for our omelettes. Mercifully, the laying capacity of battery hens reduces quickly and after one or two years most are slaughtered for pet food or flavour concentrates.

We also intentionally inflict pain on animals in scientific experiments that have less than remote chances of success and use their skins to keep us warm and enhance our looks, despite the fact that we have an oversupply of synthetic material which can satisfy these ''needs''.

Rarely is the benefits and burdens scale so grossly distorted. It's time for the carnage to stop.

There is no wriggle room on the animal cruelty front. It is unquestionably morally repugnant. Animals can't speak in ways that we understand. Their intellect is not high and they don't have an awareness of themselves as continuing entities over time. Yet they are entitled to be treated with concern and regard because they possess the most important attribute that qualifies an entity for moral standing: the capacity to feel pain and suffer.

Suffering is suffering, whether experienced by animals or humans. The physiological process is identical.

It is always agonising to endure and often as agonising to observe. That's why few people who witness the excruciating death of a whale would contemplate eating whale flesh and the best advertisement for free range eggs is a visit to a battery hen processing plant.

To remedy this situation we need to be cognisant of the lessons of history. Full moral status is not accorded quickly to repressed agents. Thus, we need to move towards incrementally improving the plight of animals. The first stage of this process involves ceasing to engage in activities that are cruel to animals, unless there is an overwhelming benefit to be obtained from such conduct. This means that it is never permissible to kill animals for food by painful means, given that we do not need animal products to maintain a healthy diet. Cruelty in relation to scientific experimentation should be only permitted where the objective of the research is to advance human or animal health; the potential benefits of the research are significant; the research goals cannot be achieved without animal experimentation and there is a high level of confidence that the research will achieve its stated outcomes.

Once the moral standing of animals has been elevated to a point where it is accepted that it is impermissible to treat them cruelly, the next stage involves a recognition of the fact that it is wrong to kill animals (even using painless techniques), or otherwise mistreat them, for our consumption. Until we reach that level of moral understanding our behaviour towards animals will continue to be the shame of our generation. Mahatma Gandhi correctly noted that: ''the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated''. It's not only the Japanese that stand condemned at this point in history.
----------------------
Professor Mirko Bagaric is the Head of Deakin Law School. This is a summary of his paper No absence of Malice Towards the Gallus - Animal Cruelty the Shame of a Generation in the Environmental and Planning Law Journal Generation (with Keith Akers).

[flvegan]

123. Excellent post!

Well stated by the author.

[Harper_is_Bush]

131. Regardless of the whaling issue, Sea Shepherd is not very credible..

After seeing how they blatantly lied about the circumstances of a Canadian fisheries minister leaving office.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051122_1.html

They may be telling the whole truth and nothing but regarding the circumstances between them and the Japanese boats, but the fact that I have doubts about past lying should serve as a lesson to them.

Seek your goals, but do it honestly always.

[LeftyMom]

133. .

[flvegan]

134. And the truth is...?

(insert link to crappity crap crap from Canadian Fisheries Minister here).

[Harper_is_Bush]

138. You're not interested in the truth.

If you are, there's many independent mainstream media stories on his departure from politics.

The "public pressure" regarding sealing and idea that he was "forced" out doesn't appear in any of them.

Your "Captain" Watson; who it's obvious you love in the same way a Bushite loves Chimp, chose to lie about it.

Oh well.

[flvegan]

139. Ooooh, a strawman post! How original.

MSM stories? Oh, please. Hey, tell you what, I'll show you a couple dozen independent mainstream media stories talking about how great W is. Oh, wait...that's not right...

And you hate Captain Watson the same way a purple-heart band-aid wearing neocon hated Kerry. And?

[Harper_is_Bush]

141. Hardly

The occasion of this Minister leaving office is hardly a partisan issue for partisan influences in mainstream media.

I'll address your analogy: You can find MSM pieces claiming W is great, sure. That has no bearing on what I've said. I could go find MSM stories (many of them) pointing out negatives about Bush. Bush is/isn't great is a general issue, this is a specific news event for which was documented in the MSM.

I have nothing at all against your Captain dear flvegan.
I have only pointed out that he and his group lied about the circumstances of a Canadian Minister leaving office, and for that there's definitive proof.

And as a result, his credibility takes a hit.

If you're interested in the truth, you're welcome to go and investigate for yourself what all the assorted MSM media had to say about this Canadian Minister leaving office. Noplace is there any whiff of him being "forced" out or that controversy or public pressure over sealing played a part.
Now, if you think that's a conspiracy of ALL the assorted MSM that reported on his departure then just say so.

[flvegan]

143. Eh, to be honest

I'll take your word for it.

Watson's credibility takes a hit for an alleged lie about the circumstances of a Canadian Minister leaving office. Okay.

I don't know that I really care "why" he left. If he supported sealing, I'm just glad he's gone, I guess.

However, Watson's credibility still stands head and shoulders above the other folks involved in the current situation, which is the illegal whaling in the Antarctic.

[Harper_is_Bush]

145. Thankyou

I am telling the truth, so you're correct to take my word on it.

And if I cared as much about the Sea Shephard organization as you seem to I would send them an email on the issue and stress to them that if they are to be successful at thier important work they should strive to never play free and loose with the truth.

[flvegan]

147. And, if I come to find that out, I will.

As I said, in so many words, I defer to your point as being correct simply for my lack of knowledge on the topic, whereas you seem to be well-read on the topic. I can't argue, refute nor backup that which I don't know.

[Harper_is_Bush]

151. It's easy to find the informati on on it if you're interested...

simply search google news for the ministers name from the Sea Shepherd press release on it.

[flvegan]

157. Efford? You're kidding. Pleae tell me you're kidding.

I honestly thought you were alluding to a less obvious candidate. You know, one that wasn't such an overwhelming, obvious shitbag.

[Harper_is_Bush]

160. See "credibility problem for Sea Shepherd" post below...

You don't seem that interested in knowing the truth here if you didn't even check out the Sea Shepherd press release that I pointed out was spreading a lie yet.

It was posted 1/2 hour ago with the subject
"Regardless of the whaling issue, Sea Shepherd is not very credible.."
you even responed to it.

And you're just NOW clueing into what is being discussed?

You're kidding. Please tell me you're kidding. :)

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

140. "very" is a relative term- looks like they're credible enough for the NEWS

and that is a bit more credible than they need to be-
The focus of attention is enough to stir the consciousness of humanity and awaken many unaware individuals to a couple of the cruel events that take place in this world.

"not Very Credible"?
no----it's more like "ROCKIN!"

Actually, most of us applaud their actions of Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace--
Saving our Planet's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it !

Sea Shepherd is well established and VERY "credible"(regardless of some Canadian event).
Sea Shepherd is guided by the UN Charter World Charter for Nature and cites Section 21 under the heading of Implementations as the Society’s authority to act on behalf of international conservation law.
http://seashepherd.org/about-mandate.html

Only a misinformed or sheltered individual would fail to see the drastic difference between "exploiters" and "protectors" and nit-pick some triviality to negate a positive action taken by the protectors.

[Harper_is_Bush]

142. In regards to the Sea Shepherd press release I linked no, they are not.

Not very credible at all.

When I see an organization lie once, I lose some trust. Sorry, that's just the way I am.

I'm not saying they're not doing good work in many regards...saving the planet and concervation efferts ect...but when they lie thier credibility takes a hit.
There is a lesson there for them and I hope they learn it.

[flvegan]

144. In that case, to prove relativity,

could we get a list of organizations that you do trust. I mean, some groups have NEVER lost credibility, right?

A short list will do...

[LeftyMom]

146. Well it would have to be somebody who's never misinterpreted a political

situation. That leaves out DU, everybody in the MSM, every politician...

[flvegan]

148. you see right through me

Foiled again!

[Harper_is_Bush]

153. How do you misinterpret a factual situation?

Maybe you're confused, thinking the circumstances of the Minister leaving were open to interpretation.

Some situations are open to interpretation, and others aren't.

It's not a "Bush is great/not great" kind of interpretation like your boyfriend brought up earlier, this is quite a bit more concrete.

[LeftyMom]

155. Because reasons for political retirements (or political anything)

are frequently obfuscated and the official stories should be treated with at least a little skepticism. Or do you really think all those Bush administration officials quit to "spend time with thier families?"

[Harper_is_Bush]

154. Most groups don't purposely lie.

sigh. I'll provide you some links below.

[flvegan]

156. I look forward to your non-partisan links.

Now, none of your usual Canadian Fisheries bullshit, okay? Didn't fly then/Ain't gonna fly now.

[northzax]

208. don't link Greenpeace to this

no Greenpeace vessel would intentionally collide with another vessel on the high seas.

on edit: unless of course, it was in a procedure to save human life.

[flvegan]

150. And with this post, right now

this topic ties the New Jersey smoking ban. Pretty good for whales, eh?

Keep it talked about, keep it kicked. The more people that read it and can form their own opinion, or look further into it, the better.

Capt. Watson, may The Farley Mowat have 10 times the proportionate ramming speed that this thread has had. May no lives be harmed, but may the whaling vessels be disabled in their ability to take these magnificent creatures from the sea.

And so as The Sea Shepherd rests, so should they.

[Harper_is_Bush]

159. The credibility problem for Sea Shepherd and Captain Watson.

They posted this press release about a Candian Minister:

...Canadian Minister Forced To Resign
Canada's Removal of Anti-Seal Minister Leaves Hope Of Honest Negotiations...
...Canada's decision to remove Minister Efford...
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051122_1.html

The general claim of the article is that Effords pro-sealing stance was the reason for "public pressure" and "scandal" which forced his resignation.

I found this interesting when I saw it posted in a thread here a while back (since I'm Canadian and this was a Canadian Minister) and went looking for more information on it.

In all the news I read about him retiring, there is NOTHING about him being forced out and not a whiff about the sealing issue. It appears to have been a choice. The only critisism or speculation arose from his missing too much time from work due to diabetes.
From CTV, generally thought of as right of center:
Efford expected to announce political intent:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051119/efford_intentions_051119?s_name=&no_ads=
Efford announces retirement:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051122/effort_election_051122/20051122?hub=Canada
And from CBC, thought of by most (except rightwingers) to be centrist:
http://www.cbc.ca/nl/story/nf_efford_future_20051118.html

Both saying much the same things. No mention of being forced out, or controversy regarding the seal hunt.

I have no problem with Captain Watson and his Sea Shepherd group being happy about Efford leaving and speculating about a better relationships with the Canadian government as a result. That's not the issue though.

The issue is that they have quite obviously lied about the circumstances of this Ministers decision to not seek another term. The only discernable reason I can see for the lie is to make it appear like opposition to thier sealing position spells political doom.

Honesty is important to me, and it should be to Sea Shepherd also. It impacts reputation and credibility in lasting ways.

[shockra]

162. Stress worsens diabetes

He'd been diabetic for 27 years, but apparently it only got out of control under the stress of being in the midst of this controversy. That was my interpretation. In that sense, he was "forced" out of his job due to the intractable stress of his own inflexibility.

http://www.activelivingmagazine.com/artman/publish/article_54.shtml

For many years, researchers have known that stress worsens diabetes. “The release of hormones from stress leads to energy mobilization, also known as the ‘fight or flight’ response,” explains Richard Surwit, the author of a new study from Duke University recently published in the journal, Diabetes Care.

“Key to this energy mobilization is the transport of glucose into the bloodstream, resulting in elevated glucose levels.”

[Harper_is_Bush]

163. What "controversy"?

You have an interesting interpretation, however you left out the most interesting detail of it. What controversy was causing him stress?

[oneoftheboys]

164. One thread says the Greenpeace ship hit the Japanese ship...

while another says the Japanese ship hit the Greenpeace ship.

No matter, the last thing anyone wants to hear is that ships are taking on water in the Antarctic.

This is a dangerous game!

[Harper_is_Bush]

165. In the case of "Sea Shepherd" though there's no question...eco-terrorists.

who did what to who.

They risked tearing out the Japanese drive shaft, which would have caused a sinking:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2032445

And they purposely side-swiped the Japanese ship with something that appears quite capable of opening a hole. That's documented in thier own press release in the topic post.

They're eco-terrorists.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

209. terrorist / environmental protection is not in the same category

Name calling is pretty low --isn't it?
-you are a terr--or ist!!--you don't let me do what I want so you are a terrorist!
That is pretty simple minded isn't it? WTF?
Eco---nomy
Eco--- logic
Eco--- just about anything
BUT eco "Terrorism" is better defined as: the act of terrorizing the envionment

Which is exactly what the Japanese Oceanic Rapists are doing--all for money-

Wouldn' a "terrorist" (az defined by our current fascist propaganda machine) have sunk the Japanese ship or harmed those on board- ??????
interfering with corporate interests by inhibiting their ability to perform
is only "interference" and not "terrorism"--

Let's get real-
Anti-environmentals like yourself (yes, I categorized you by observing your opinions)may choose to categorize terrorism broadly to include just about anything.

Don't think anyone here at D.U will convince you that the environment is worth protecting--
Hope this argument provides amusement--it is surely not intended to expand anyone's close-mindedness.

[HuckleB]

169. Interesting thread.

For all those who find the Sea Shepherd's actions wanting, I wonder what you'd do if you were in the Yellowstone Backcountry and came across poachers, whom you had the opportunity to stop. Would you really do nothing? If so, is that really the legal and moral thing to do?

[Harper_is_Bush]

193. I wouldn't risk thier lives to stop them.

Would you? Would you take an action that could quite possibly kill those poachers?

[HuckleB]

207. So you've bought into the shipping org's propaganda, eh?

[Harper_is_Bush]

171. Activists 'may put lives at risk'

Activists 'may put lives at risk'
D.D. McNicoll
January 11, 2006

THE actions of the US anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd could easily sink the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru in the freezing waters of the Southern Ocean and put the lives of the crew at risk, the head of Australia's master mariners association warned yesterday.

Captain John Carroll, the federal master of the Company of Master Mariners of Australia, said Sea Shepherd's stated aim of dragging a hawser under the Japanese ship to disable its propellers could rip the drive shafts from the ship and leave a gaping hole under its waterline.

"There is always a weak point built into a ship's drive shafts for safety reasons and you can actually pull the propeller shaft, or shafts, right off," Captain Carroll said. "If that happened, it is probable the ship would sink."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17787550%255E2702,00.html


Regardless of how anyone feels about the Japanese whaling that is occuring, risking lives is not cool.

They also purposely used a "can opener" in a sideswipe against the Japanese ship, which I've seen pictures of and appears more than capable of puncturing a hole.

If ever it was fair to use the term "eco-terrorist" it's against Captain Watson and his group.

[the other one]

172. From the Sea Shephard

http://www.seashepherd.org/

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060108_1.html

At 0030 Hours GMT - 09 Jan 2006 (1930 EST Hours - 08 Jan 2006): The flagship of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, the Farley Mowat, continues to chase the outlaw Japanese whaling fleet out of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary after sideswiping the Japanese whaling supply ship Oriental Bluebird.

Captain Paul Watson ordered the Japanese-owned Panamanian ship Oriental Bluebird to leave the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. The Japanese supply ship was waiting to rendezvous with the Nisshin Maru to continue the off-loading of whale meat for transport back to Japan.

“I informed the Oriental Bluebird that I was acting under the authority of the United Nations World Charter for Nature to uphold international conservation regulations prohibiting the slaughter of whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. When they refused, we backed up the message by slamming our starboard hull against their starboard hull.”

There was no damage apparent to either ship aside from a long scratch along the hull of the Oriental Bluebird caused by a device attached to the Farley Mowat’s hull called the “can opener.” The blow was meant as a warning to convey the seriousness of our order for them to leave the area and to stop assisting with the illegal slaughter of whales.

After the collision, the Oriental Bluebird began running with the Farley Mowat in pursuit. Farley Mowat First Officer Alex Cornelissen reported. “We are not down here to protest whaling. We are here to uphold international conservation law. This ship is assisting an illegal operation and thus has no business in the whale sanctuary.”

[Moochy]

201. Farley Mowat

That the ship is named after the author of one of my favorite books, the genre bending speculative pre-history blended with victional vignettes of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact with Europe and the New World.
The Farfarers: Before the Norse (2000) ISBN 1883642566

[sui generis]

173. if they're illegally whaling then they put their own lives at risk

Poaching and violating international law - they better have their lifeboats ready.

[Harper_is_Bush]

176. Nobody but Sea Shepherd has said they're illegally whaling. n/t

[sui generis]

183. well they are out there, and we are here

our words on DU aren't doing jack shit to save whales from REAL boats in REAL sanctuaries. At least he's doing something. I haven't heard the Australian government tell him to stand down . . . and that's saying something.

Plus, let's be honest: while I understand a "cultural" take on whaling, I despise anybody who calls it "scientific" whaling and expects me to just buy that bullshit.

Japan and Norway are disgusting in this regard. They routinely ignore international catch quotas, treaties, and oceanic preserves. As far as I'm concerned their whaling boats need to be blown out of the water, and not by "terrorists" but by governments.

[Harper_is_Bush]

186. Yeah. And if you were against abortion...

would you point at the radicals killing abortion doctors and say "at least they're doing something"?

In reply to the "let's be honest" portion of your post, I've said nothing about the whaling issue and that's not what I'm weighing in on here.

See that's the problem when a group decides to become violent in thier cause, the issues they are working for become secondary to thier violence.

[Harper_is_Bush]

174. "can opener"

Besides the risk of sinking from dragging a "hawser" under the Japanese ship, they purposely sideswiped it with this. What's the message, if you don't agree with what someone is doing you can attempt to kill them?



Given the lack of honesty (ie. LYING) demonstrated by this Sea Shepherd group in the past, it's hard to give them credibility on the ramming question either. Did you see the pic of that damage? Right on thier bow. If they were rammed, why is thier bow pushed in? Did the Japanese ship ram them in a perfect nose to nose manouver? :eyes:

[Kagemusha]

177. That was not the same ship.

That was a Greenpeace ship... and if you believe that a Japanese factory ship rammed them with a perfect maneuver... ...

Edit: Point being, factory ships aren't exactly nimble.

[Harper_is_Bush]

182. Yes, it was Greenpeace ship that claims to have been rammed. pic

You are correct.

And you're also correct in your observation about nimbleness. How did a factory ship manage to perform a nose-on-nose maneuver...

[Clara T]

175. "eco-terrorist"

is a loaded term.

The ecosystem constitutes more than just humans. So one terrorizing the ecosystem may be terrorizing creatures other than humans.

We are only a strand in the web of life. Though lately it appears we are the parasitic destructive strand that is shredding the entire web.

[Harper_is_Bush]

178. Sorry, I think "enviro-terrorist" is what I meant. n/t

[Bridget Burke]

179. Then why did you say "eco-terrorist"?

Aren't damaging property & hurting people already against the law?

Of course, Bush has made "terrorism" an all-purpose excuse....

[Clara T]

181. Same thing

The terms of the debate have been provided by the corporate PR machine to control the way people frame the issues and thusly think about it. The large scale terrorist (Such as the state or corporation) is then scot free from scrutiny as the source of the problem and the unititiated froth in the 'minute of hate' against the so-called "terrorist".

Slick job of branding.

[Harper_is_Bush]

185. Whatever. How about just "terrorist" then?

What would you call people who are attacking a ship on the open seas for a political purpose in such a way that they're risking lives?
Conservationists?

[Clara T]

187. Paul Watson

is for the Whales. So if that is a 'political purpose' then I support that political purpose.

But if you would do some research on Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd or have followed what they have done through the years you would know they have NO political agenda. The agenda is to preserve the life of the whales and other creatures of the sea. If humans weren't so arrogant and eviscerated from the natural world they would see that their lives are connected to everything else and would join in to stop the destruction of the planet, including the annihilation of the non-human creatures.

It's later than we think.

[sui generis]

188. so we should just let them harvest whatever they want

wherever they want.

Nice. I am a rabid conservationist. While I don't support illicit activity from conservationists, I won't tolerate it from commercial whalers. Or their supporters.

It's a limited resource. Japan particularly has an open disregard for international law, shared waters, sanctuary designations, breeding seasons, age, and endangered species.

They routinely lie about their commercial sales and invoke a scientific loophole by calling it "scientific" whaling, and we think that long term economic sanctions are going to discourage them from reducing whale populations? Short of physical assault, whaling operations in international waters will always be unchallenged because of international treaties that would make such a challenge by another government an act of war.

This is YET ANOTHER loophole that Japan and Norway exploit.

[Harper_is_Bush]

192. Do not misrepresent what I have said.

please. thanks.

[sui generis]

194. not misrepresenting

not even sure which part you find objectionable. But you didn't reply to anything I said.

[The Stranger]

180. Calling a Progressive an "eco-terrorist" is the tactic of Extremist Right.

It is intended to dehumanize individuals and organizations who seek, without exception, to preserve life, rather than to take it.

If these activists had wanted to take life, one can rest assured they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of launching a massive can opener on the high seas. Rather, they seek to defeat the abilities of the criminals engaged in illegal whaling from continuing to break the law. In addition, if the whaling criminals were truly in the right, they would not have fallen victim to the massive can opener, they would have taken other actions against the activists.

What is worse, is when those who are easily manipulated by the tactics of the Extremist Right then start taking on the terminology and viewpoint of the Extremist Right, inserting it into Progressive web sites and dividing the Progressive cause. It is by design. They begin, perhaps inadvertently, attacking other Progressives and Progressive causes.

[Harper_is_Bush]

191. Is that what a "progressive" is to you? Someone who threatens lives?

Someone who takes actions that risk lives?

You have a strange definition there.

I'm curious, can you explain this:
"If these activists had wanted to take life, one can rest assured they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of launching a massive can opener on the high seas."
or this
"In addition, if the whaling criminals were truly in the right, they would not have fallen victim to the massive can opener"

Why is using the "massive can opener" innocuous, in your view.
And how does the use of a "massive can opener" by this enviro-terrorist group reflect on whether or not the Whalers are in the right or not (which is something I have not commented on, please note)?

thanks

Oh, and don't call me "extremist right" anymore please. I'm pretty sure that's against the rules around here, and I would rather not have to alert on you. The idea that being critical of the dangerous actions of this group makes me part of the "extremist right" is silly.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[Harper_is_Bush]

198. Ok, let's assume the "can opener" is not a threat to people

on ships victimized by it, as you say.

What about dragging a "hawser" under a ship, which is something else they did?

Dragging a hawser could rip the drive shafts from the ship and leave a gaping hole under its waterline, according to the information in this article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17787550%255E2702,00.html

I don't consider Paul Watson and his group "progressives". Progressive people do not risk the lives of others like this. Therefore, you can stop making comments about my critisisms and labeling it consistent with the "extremist right".

You are attacking me in such a way to suggest I'm an rightwing operative/plant. That is a personal attack. Kindly stop it, thankyou.
If you disagree with how I am portraying this group and what I think are it's obviously dangerous actions you are free to do so, as you are.

[The Stranger]

206. Look.

It is hard enough for people to be "Progressives" these very strange days without being called "ecoterrorists" or "enviroterrorists" by their fellow Progressives trying to make a better world, especially when that is exactly what the Right is so successful at doing.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

210. RW straw man techniques are weak ! PROGRESSIVE thinkers see right thru

Let's clear something up:

"ECO-Terrorism" IS: the act of TERRORIZING the ENVIRONMENT

As you use the term "Ecoterrorist"remember that this is a favorite pet phrase of the Right Wingers and is used to target the protectors of our environment in order to label them as "criminal"(which they are NOT!!)-

it's up there with the word "MORAN"



.
Doh!!
.

[snooper2]

184. Sorry, with 6 billion humans on this Earth

and a limited number of these great whales, I feel the loss is justified....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

189. The population of this particular species of whale...

...is experiencing explosive growth and is making life more difficult for endangered species of whale fighting for the same resources.

[snooper2]

190. I haven't heard that, looking for info myself....

Do you have a link?

[sui generis]

195. reduced krill populations endanger all whales

killing some of the whales is not the answer.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

200. I agree.

Neither is intentionally attempting to damage or disable whaling vessels.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

211. Sure it is Buddy ! got any better ideas about what to Do?--interference IS

the way--
Look at the sucessful attention it is getting in the media-
Seems to be working-
When enough of us, who are too wrapped up in our daily routines to dig for news, realize that the Oceans are being ravaged by greedy corporate interests, we may all bond together and sucessfully oppose it and put a stop to it.(much like awareness has helped protect the wildlife in Africa)

In the meantime these Billion dollar Scumbag Ship Fleets are flipping off the world as they take take take and destroy what is left of our damaged environment!

Let's take'm down by bringing the problem to the attention of the masses!!!

This earth is as much yours and mine as it is THEIRS !!!


.

[Barrett808]

197. Press release: Sea Shepherd intends to ram and disable pirate whalers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEA SHEPHERD INTENDS TO RAM AND DISABLE PIRATE WHALERS

SOUTHERN OCEAN, January 9, 2006 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Sea Shepherd Conservation Society believes it is time to escalate the confrontation with the Japanese whaling fleet and bring an end to the illegal and ruthless slaughter of defenseless whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary.

“What part of the word ‘sanctuary’ do the whalers not understand?” said Captain Paul Watson from onboard the Sea Shepherd ship Farley Mowat. “The whalers have assaulted whale defenders with water cannons and wooden poles. The whalers have rammed two Greenpeace ships and attempted to ram the Farley Mowat. With every attack the whalers plead innocence. The whalers are far from innocent. They are criminals involved in a criminal operation and they must be stopped.”

“I am tired of politicians being apologists for these criminals,” said Captain Watson. “We sideswiped the whaling supply ship Oriental Bluebird yesterday and we intend to disable any pirate whaling vessel we find. We intend to uphold the laws protecting whales. This nonsense must be ended.”

At 0030 Hours GMT on Jan. 9, 2006, Captain Paul Watson ordered the Japanese-owned Panamanian ship Oriental Bluebird to leave the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. The Japanese supply ship was waiting to rendezvous with the Nisshin Maru to continue the off-loading of whale meat for transport back to Japan. When they refused, Sea Shepherd backed up the message by slamming the starboard hull of their conservation ship, Farley Mowat, against the starboard hull of the Oriental Bluebird.

Three times the Sea Shepherd crew has caught up with the whalers and each time the whalers have stopped whaling and have fled to avoid a confrontation with the Sea Shepherd crew. “They are afraid of us and we want them to be afraid of us.” said Farley Mowat 1st Officer Alex Cornelissen. “We want them to keep running. Once again we have stopped their whaling activities.”

Japan has threatened to send the airborne police to defend its whaling fleet. “What do they intend to do?” asked Captain Watson. “Take pictures or strafe us, parachute onto our decks and arrest us? I hate to quote George W. Bush but hey, ‘bring ‘em on.’”

New Zealand is threatening to send Orion aircraft to observe the situation. Australia is being asked to intervene militarily. “We’ve got quite a situation down here.” said Laura Dakin, 23, chief cook on the Farley Mowat and a resident of Canberra, Australia. “Some politicians are expressing concern that things are getting seriously dangerous down here. The fact is that, for the whales, the situation is beyond dangerous – it’s deadly.”

For pictures and more information, please visit: http://media-antarctica.seashepherd2.org/

About Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Established in 1977, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is an International non-profit conservation organization whose mission is to defend, conserve, and protect the world's marine wildlife and ecosystems. Their website, www.seashepherd.org, documents SSCS research, direct action, public education and outreach programs, and illustrates how SSCS has continuously worked for decades to eradicate pirate whaling, poaching, shark finning, sealing, unlawful habitat destruction, and other violations of established laws intended to protect the world's oceans.

Captain Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd's founder and President, also co-founder of Greenpeace Foundation, is a Director of Sierra Club USA, and is a renowned, respected leader in environmental issues.

For more information, pictures, or to interview Captain Watson:

CONTACT:
Heather Callin
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Phone: [phone]
Website: www.seashepherd.org
Email: [e-mail]

[Barrett808]

199. A whale of a story going ignored

A whale of a story going ignored
Date: 10 January 2006
Christian Kerr writes:

...Yet we seem to be happy with accepting second hand and subjective news from Japanese whalers and that multi-million dollar multinational Greenpeace about just what's going on in the Antarctic Ocean. Where are our sceptics on this issue?

...

Reports today show the intensity of the dangerous drama being played out to our south as whalers and Greenpeace activists clash. Take The Australian's report, for example:

Anti-whaling protest ship the Farley Mowat yesterday morning deliberately side-swiped the Japanese whaling supply ship Oriental Bluebird after it refused "demands" to leave the Antarctic whale sanctuary. No serious damage was suffered by either vessel, despite the crew of the Farley Mowat using a "can opener" cutting device attached to its vessel's hull to damage the Bluebird's hull. The same whaling supply vessel was at the centre of a collision between the Greenpeace ship, Arctic Sunrise, and the Japanese whaling vessel Nisshin Maru on Sunday.

Greenpeace claims the Nisshin Maru deliberately rammed the Arctic Sunrise in response to its crew using long-handled brushes to paint the words "whale meat" on the Bluebird's hull. However, the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research, which conducts the so-called scientific whaling, insisted the Nisshin Maru was rammed twice by the Arctic Sunrise, releasing photographs it said proved Greenpeace was the aggressor…

Farley Mowat skipper Paul Watson, of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, made no apology for ignoring international conventions requiring captains to avoid collision.

Is it responsible to run risks like that in Antarctic conditions? Are there goodies and baddies in this battle – or just two implacable, irresponsible forces fighting an irresolvable war in some of the most dangerous waters in the world?

Who, for example, is providing the on the ground coverage – let alone the highly emotive vision – on this story? Do media organisations have anyone on board Japanese or Greenpeace vessels? Or are they doing what the New Zealand Herald is doing – running pieces by Farley Mowat captain and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society president Paul Watson?

(more)

http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/01/10-1610-6839.html

[Barrett808]

202. New blog entry: 10 January 2006

10 January 2006
Report from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ship Farley Mowat

Farley Mowat crewmember Joel Capolongo (Deck), USA

Sunday January 8th saw the most intense action of the campaign to date. We launched our helicopter early in the morning to go on a scouting run looking for the Japanese whaling fleet. By 8:15 am, it had come back. The Japanese were 35 miles ahead. 2 hours later, the fleet appeared on our radar confirming the pilot's good news. By 11:00 am, the Nisshin Maru whale processing ship was visible on the horizon. 45 minutes later, our first action team was launched in a zodiac, the zodiac I got the privilege to be chosen to be on. Minutes later, the other two zodiacs were launched from the Farley Mowat and they followed close behind.

The zodiacs had one purpose: to keep the Nisshin Maru occupied and to keep it from running away like it had done the last time we encountered it on Christmas Day. We needed to buy time for the Farley Mowat, so it had a chance to catch up and intercept the Nisshin Maru. A few minutes after we left the Farley Mowat, we were on top of the Nisshin Maru. We circled their ship in our small zodiac several times, sizing up the enemy and waiting for the signal. After getting a close-up view of the Maru, it was very easy to see small pieces of whale blubber and sinew hanging from the lower railings along the hull of their ship as well as blood in the water which was being pumped off the flensing deck. The Nisshin Maru had a tape recorded message in English playing over their loudspeaker warning us not to attack their vessel. Several minutes passed. Our other zodiac also enlisted to engage the Maru arrived. Perhaps sensing trouble from the 2 much smaller, but faster and more agile Sea Shepherd watercraft, the Maru began to run. Now was our time to spring into our nonviolent direct action.

Two of our three zodiacs were equipped with devices we had made to foul their propeller; basically two buoys connected with steel cable and rope that we would place in front of their ship in hopes that the Maru would run it over, it would pass underneath their hull and into their propeller at the stern of their ship causing their ship to slow down dramatically or be stopped completely. The Maru was running at full speed away from the Farley. Both zodiacs deployed their devices repeatedly. None seemed to work against the goliath Nisshin Maru ship. One of our zodiacs ran into engine trouble and had to return to the ship. The zodiac I was in was still operating at full capacity. Although none of our efforts had worked up to that point, we had to keep trying. The Maru was putting distance between itself and the Farley, the very thing we wanted to prevent.

Running out of options and having lost both of our propeller fouling devices, all hope seemed lost of slowing the Maru. We went back and picked up one of the buoys that we had deployed earlier but had been detached from the steel cable. The line was cut and a part missing and we could only hope it was entangled around the prop. We scrounged for supplies on the zodiac and decided to use the anchor of the zodiac and some rope to make an impromptu device to try one last time. We deployed and redeployed the device close to 10 times and to our dismay, none ever made it into their propeller. We had been trying for close to an hour to bring the whale killing behemoth to a halt. We finally got a signal from the helicopter to return to the Farley which we did.

(more)

http://seashepherd.org/whales/blog/whales_blog_001.html

[Barrett808]

203. NZ Herald: Japan may use 'military' on Greenpeace

Japan may use 'military' on Greenpeace
11.01.06
By Ainsley Thomson

Japan has warned it may send armed aircraft to defend its whaling ships in the Southern Ocean if clashes with protest boats escalate.

The whaling nation also says it may ask Australia to take action against protesters.

The increasingly tense conflict prompted a Green Party call last night for New Zealand to send a frigate to Antarctica in a monitoring role - an option the Government quickly ruled out.

The confrontation with the whalers intensified yesterday, with conservation group Sea Shepherd threatening to ram and disable the Japanese whaling fleet.

(more)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10363188

[LeftyMom]

204. Oh that's just great.

:grr:

[Barrett808]

205. NZ air force monitoring Japanese whaling

New Zealand air force planes are monitoring clashes between a Japanese whaling fleet and protest ships in Antarctic waters, a NZ cabinet minister said.

But New Zealand Conservation Minister Chris Carter has rejected calls to send a frigate to the area in response to reports that Japan may send armed police or troops to guard the fleet which is catching whales in the Southern Ocean.

New Zealand described the Japanese threat as a "hysterical reaction" to confrontations between the whalers and the international environmentalist body Greenpeace and the more militant Sea Shepherd organisation.

Carter told Radio New Zealand that air force maritime surveillance aircraft had been flying over the area for some weeks for two reasons.

"One, we are totally opposed to the whaling program and we have made that clear to the Japanese. We want to see what they are up to.

"And secondly we are really concerned about the New Zealanders on board the Greenpeace boats."

(more)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/NZ-air-force-monitoring-Japanese-whaling/2006/01/11/1136863261498.html

[OKNancy]

212. Lock

This thread is no longer providing a productive discussion.