Activists bombard whaling ship

[Barrett808]

Source: The Age

Activists bombard whaling ship
Andrew Darby
March 3, 2008 - 11:48AM

Sea Shepherd activists have engaged with the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru inside Australia's Antarctic waters today in their bid to shut down the whaling season.

The activists bombarded the deck of the Nisshin Maru with bottles and packets containing foul-smelling and slippery substances that would make it difficult to process whales, a Sea Shepherd statement said.

"I guess we can call this non-violent chemical warfare," Sea Shepherd captain Paul Watson said.

"We only use organic, non-toxic materials designed to harass and obstruct illegal whaling operations."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/news/whale-watch/activists-bombard-whaling-ship/2008/03/03/1204402323969.html

[truthisfreedom]

1. Skunk gland? Deer musk?

What manner of foul smell?

[Barrett808]

2. Butyric acid

aka "Butter acid."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid

[Xipe Totec]

15. Buttery acid?

Rancid stuff!

:rofl:

[DRoseDARs]

20. Copies of Jonah Golberg's Liberal Fascism?

Comes with a filmy cover of cheeto dust and Mountain Dew on every book!

Damn, dirty fascist envirocommies!

[Omaha Steve]

3. K&R

When my good friend (seal lady) Marie Schwartz past away, Captain Paul Watson took time to sign her electronic memorial online. They communicated often. Great guy.

[flvegan]

4. YES!!!! Butyric acid is some foul shit.

[rpannier]

5. Bombard???

When I saw that I thought they were firing canons at the ship

[kristopher]

6. The Japanese are responding to bad faith, lies, arrogance and bullying by stepping up whaling

This is what they agreed to. When the antiwhaling groups started using this forum (the IWC) as a tool to totally ban whaling, the strategies they used were dishonest, culturally arrogant and carried out with all the sensitivity of a schoolyard bully.
I want to stop whaling also, but Watson and his supporters are wrong. Their (your) actions are counterproductive and are getting an increasing number of whales killed.
The Japanese don't much care for whale meat any more, but if you recall the recent dogfood scare caused by a chemical that fooled the tests for protein content, then you know that any kind of high quality animal protein has economic value. At the present scale, the Japanese actions are a burden on their economy. All you are doing is giving them a reason to step up operations and resume whaling on a scale that is commercially viable.

If that is what you want, keep this shit up.

Again, this is what the Japanese agreed to. Those who belittle them don't know the story.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING

WASHINGTON, 2ND DECEMBER, 1946

The Governments whose duly authorised representatives have subscribed hereto,

Recognizing the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks;

Considering that the history of whaling has seen over-fishing of one area after another and of one species of whale after another to such a degree that it is essential to protect all species of whales from further over-fishing;

Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources;

Recognizing that it is in the common interest to achieve the optimum level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible without causing widespread economic and nutritional distress;

Recognizing that in the course of achieving these objectives, whaling operations should be confined to those species best able to sustain exploitation in order to give an interval for recovery to certain species of whales now depleted in numbers;

Desiring to establish a system of international regulation for the whale fisheries to ensure proper and effective conservation and development of whale stocks on the basis of the principles embodied in the provisions of the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, signed in London on 8th June, 1937, and the protocols to that Agreement signed in London on 24th June, 1938, and 26th November, 1945; and

Having decided to conclude a convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry...

[Glorfindel]

13. Bullying? A few dozen brave activists are bullying Japan?

Oh, please. They kill whales because they ENJOY killing whales, and there's not enough contempt in the world to express how I feel about them.

[kristopher]

16. then you must enjoy killing babies

I repeat: This (the IWC convention) is what they agreed to. When the antiwhaling groups started using this forum (the IWC) as a tool to totally ban whaling, the strategies they used were dishonest, culturally arrogant and carried out with all the sensitivity of a schoolyard bully.
I want to stop whaling also, but Watson and his supporters are wrong. Their (your) actions are counterproductive and are getting an increasing number of whales killed.
The Japanese don't much care for whale meat any more, but if you recall the recent dogfood scare caused by a chemical that fooled the tests for protein content, then you know that any kind of high quality animal protein has economic value. At the present scale, the Japanese actions are a burden on their economy. All you are doing is giving them a reason to step up operations and resume whaling on a scale that is commercially viable.

If that is what you want, keep this shit up.

Again, this is what the Japanese agreed to. Those who belittle them don't know the story.

And I'll add to that: Those who belittle them either don't know the story or are as culturally arrogant as the antiabortion activists that most of us hold in such low esteem.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING

WASHINGTON, 2ND DECEMBER, 1946

The Governments whose duly authorised representatives have subscribed hereto,

Recognizing the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks;

Considering that the history of whaling has seen over-fishing of one area after another and of one species of whale after another to such a degree that it is essential to protect all species of whales from further over-fishing;

Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources;

Recognizing that it is in the common interest to achieve the optimum level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible without causing widespread economic and nutritional distress;

Recognizing that in the course of achieving these objectives, whaling operations should be confined to those species best able to sustain exploitation in order to give an interval for recovery to certain species of whales now depleted in numbers;

Desiring to establish a system of international regulation for the whale fisheries to ensure proper and effective conservation and development of whale stocks on the basis of the principles embodied in the provisions of the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, signed in London on 8th June, 1937, and the protocols to that Agreement signed in London on 24th June, 1938, and 26th November, 1945; and

Having decided to conclude a convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry...

[go west young man]

27. Maybe you haven't heard but the IWC changed things in 1986.

The 1986 Moratorium is what Paul Watson is enforcing. That and the Australian federal Court order. dated January 15, 2008.

A Warrant to Intervene: Sea Shepherd Intends to Enforce the Australian Federal Court Order


The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ship Steve Irwin is presently pursuing criminals in the territorial waters of Australia along the coast of the Australian Antarctic Territory.

The Japanese fleet is in clear violation of an Australian Federal Court order prohibiting whaling operations inside the Australian Economic Exclusion Zone.

The Court order was issued on January 15, 2008 by the Federal Court of Australia. The Court found that the Japanese whaling fleet killing whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary contravenes the Environment Protection and Bio-Diversity Conservation Act of 1999 of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Specifically the Court ruled that:

1. THE COURT DECLARES that the respondent has killed, injured, taken and interfered with Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and injured, taken and interfered with humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in contravention of sections 229, 229A, 229B and 229C of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), (the "Act"), and has treated and possessed such whales killed or taken in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in contravention of sections 229D and 230 of the Act, without permission or authorisation under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Act.

2. THE COURT ORDERS that the respondent be restrained from killing, injuring, taking or interfering with any Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) or humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, or treating or possessing any such whale killed or taken in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, unless permitted or authorised under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999


1986 IWC Moratorium.

The killing of whales for commercial purposes is a violation of the IWC global moratorium on commercial whaling that has been in effect since 1986.

Additionally the IWC declared the Southern Oceans Whale Sanctuary in 1994. Whaling is prohibited in the Southern Oceans Sanctuary. The killing of whales in the Sanctuary would continue to be restricted even if the global moratorium on commercial whaling is lifted.

The Japanese whaling fleet is 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 Protected Stocks.

Your theory that Sea Shepherds actions embolden the Japanese are just that... a theory. And to compare this argument to killing of babies is ridiculous and well off point. The Japanese have obviously been breaking the law for decades. They are not using whales for scientific purposes. It's as simple as that. They are using a factory ship to process whale meat for commercial purposes. Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd crew are doing what the UN mandated. Enforcing the ban on commercial whaling. Maybe police officers should never use force when dealing with criminals who are committing a crime? Is that how you see it? What about good sumaritans who stick out their foot to trip a thief? Are they out of bounds to do so? I would also add Australia makes a lot of tourist dollars with whale watching. Japan is effecting Australia's commercial tourism industry. Japan needs to wake up and move into the 21st century. And lastly do me a favor and look up the Chinese river dolphin which has recently gone functionally extinct. That was a case where Sea Shepherd, Greenpeace and others tried to give warning of the future danger and it went unheeded. Now the River Dolphin is no more. Sometimes you have to go to extremes to raise awareness. Violence is never good but to compare Sea Shepherds actions to killing babies or piracy or terrorism is absolutely ridiculous. They are on the right side of the issue.

[kristopher]

38. The moratorium was "to allow further study" to determine level of sustainable catch

Before getting into the technical issues a word about the similarity to antiabortion activism.
The analogy is precise. Here is why:

-The law is clearly on the side of the Japanese.
-The law is clearly on the side of those who support the right to choose.

-The Japanese DO NOT share your "value" that killing a whale is in any sense "murder".
-Prochoice people DO NOT share the "value" of antiabortion activists that abortion is in any sense "murder".

-The Japanese are being subjected to all means of "the ends justifies the means" type of harassment, intimidation, political pressure, legal trickery, and even on occasion terrorism, under the excuse that what they are doing is "murder".
-Abortion providers are being subjected to all means of "the ends justifies the means" type of harassment, intimidation, political pressure, legal trickery, and even on occasion terrorism, under the excuse that what they are doing is "murder".




The agreement to pause whaling isn't and never was an agreement to ban whaling. It isn't and never was, an agreement to set the catch level permanently at 0.

The bulk of the scientific evidence has been in since well before the 1982 agreement to "pause whaling" (that is the actual verbiage used) but the Japanese agreed to a TEMPORARY SUSPENSION because the USSR admitted it had been underreporting the number of whales it had been taking.

When the evidence became overwhelmingly clearly, obviously, unambiguously, undoubtedly established that the minke had recovered to level that was safe to harvest, the Japanese appealed to resume whaling that species.
They were stonewalled, and stonewalled, and stonewalled.

It was obvious even before the pause that antiwhaling forces were trying to alter the mission of the IWC for considerations that had nothing to do with managing the whale as a resource. In spite of that, the Japanese, good citizens that they are, understood the uncertainty caused by the USSR's actions and went along with this.

However, when the Commission refused their repeated request to live up to their mandate and authorize resumption of commercial take of minke, the Japanese felt relieved of the obligation to act honorably with those who were acting dishonorably.

Their reasoning was that if the animal rights activists had hijacked the IWC and essentially threw its mandate in the trash through legalistic trickery disguised under the cover of "more scientific study" (sound like anyone we know related to climate change?), then they, the Japanese, were free to act in the same legalistic fashion.

And so they commenced "scientific whaling". Here is the provision in the law they are operating under:

ARTICLE VIII, Paras 1-3

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.

2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.

3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.

You will note, if you have an ounce of honesty in your body, that this provision allows the Japanese to do what they are doing.
Yes it is a loophole; so is the "pause" that has extended now to 22 years

As far as to the Australian claim to the Antarctic exclusion zone the Japanese have been operating it, it has no basis in international law. Japan isn't the only nation that doesn't recognize this claim, it is so far outside the guidelines for national sovereignty over the seas as set forth in the LAW OF THE SEA TREATY (to which Australia is a signatory) that the international community has rejected it en masse.

You (the antiwhaling activists) are making up the law as you go along and piss on anyone that doesn't like it.

Sound like any antiabortion activists you know>

[go west young man]

39. The argument your making and all the data your supplying is based upon

something called "purposes of scientific research". Let me use my "ounce of honesty" and ask "Do you really believe the Japanese whalers are conducting scientific research?" The Nissin Maru is a floating whale meat processing factory! There is no loophole. The only research they are conducting is researching the numbers when it comes to finances. Your argument is not a good one as it's based upon a known lie. Maybe you'd like to present the results of the Japanese "research" as their whaling program has at least a few hundred years of "research" behind it. You seem pretty "up" and passionate about defending the Japanese's desire to kill/harvest whales. I wonder if your energy wouldn't be better applied trying to stop war. Your upset over Sea Shepherd throwing stinky and slimy bottles and you compare anti whaling activists to warmongers and antiabortionist. Why not put that energy into something a bit more constructive? Like stopping a war where humans are having their arms and legs blown off and their lives destroyed. I'm suspect of your reasons for defending the Japanese myself. Your arguments sound like those of someone who might possibly be employed or lobbying for the Japanese. You interpret the moratorium to suit your argument. The whalers put whale meat before scientific research and the whole world is aware of it. Everyone except you apparently. The comparing people to antiabortionist loses what little merit it had under the premise I have just presented you. The law is on the side of Sea Shepherd as dictated by the UN and the IWC.

[kristopher]

40. You lack even an ounce...

The agreement is clear. The nature of the scientific research is up to the government of the member nation to determine. Not you, not me, not the IWC. As I said, it is a loophole, and the Japanese are rubbing your nose in the fact that they are exploiting this loophole. They are doing that because your ilk initiated "negotiations" that employed such tactics

If I am passionate about anything it is to bring an end to the whaling. What I have seen with the pursuit of these tactics is a steady escalation in the number of whales killed. This is a direct result of the tactics being employed.

Perhaps you have no concept of honor, but the whether you like it or not, the Japanese do.

And frankly I don't give a flying fuck about how you interpret my motives. You obviously don't have a clue about the facts of the matter nor do you care. You would rather be as reactionary as the worst antiabortion activist out there.

[go west young man]

41. Your over reaction and angry response speaks volumes.

Serious debate doesn't require the use of the words "Flying Fuck". Supply the Japanese research data and you'd do better. For if you can show the research then you can easily make your point.

[go west young man]

42. While we're splitting hairs can you do me a favor and explain away this article on the UN

mandate against commercial whaling that appeared in The Telegraph UK back in 2006?

[go west young man]

43. Link not working: Here's the article.

Anti-whaling nations win 'great victory' against Japan proposals
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 12:11am BST 18/06/2006



Japan suffered an unexpected and total defeat when it tried to start attacking a 20-year-old ban on commercial whaling at the International Whaling Commission's meeting in the Caribbean state of St Kitts and Nevis last night.

The member countries of the UN whaling treaty voted down two proposals by Japan - the most significant one for secret ballots so that small Pacific and Caribbean nations that receive Japanese aid could unpick the protection of whales without fear of retribution.


Conservationists had feared that Japan would win a narrow majority


The other proposal sought to prevent the commission from discussing the fate of dolphins and porpoises as well as whales.

Ian Campbell, Australia's environment minister and a leader of the anti-whaling bloc, said: "The great victory is that we have raised the levels of understanding of this issue to levels that have probably not been seen since the 1970s.

"Tens of thousands of whales have been saved because of the moratorium that is under threat."

Conservationists and anti-whaling countries had predicted that the Japanese were likely to win a narrow overall majority of pro-whaling nations at this year's meeting.

advertisementHowever, quiet lobbying by anti-whaling countries led by Australia, Britain, New Zealand and South Africa, and environmental groups, appeared to have seen off the threat, though only by the narrowest of margins.

Earlier, in the first vote of the five-day talks, anti-whaling nations managed to hold on to a majority in a vote about whether to drop an item about the conservation of small whale, porpoise and dolphin species from the agenda.

The vote was won by 32 votes to 30, with one known pro-whaling nation, Senegal, absent and Denmark abstaining.

Japan had opened the conference with a demand for the resumption of commercial whaling.

Japan and other whaling nations such as Norway and Iceland almost got a simple majority at the annual IWC meeting a year ago in South Korea, but some allies failed to pay their dues and could not vote and others did not turn up. It is unclear as yet who let them down this time.

Sarah Duthie, of Greenpeace, said: "Whaling history may not have been rewritten this year but it was too close for comfort. The anti-whaling countries must see this as a wake-up call and add action to their rhetoric.

"Greenpeace will once again challenge the whalers on the high seas; the question is, what are the anti-whaling countries prepared to do?"

[Ian David]

21. Where is Godzilla when we need him? n/t

[LostinVA]

28. Oh yes -- whales are killed because of the Sea Shepherd -- hi Zack!

[sailor65]

7. Watson has been a criminal for some time

The Sea Shepherd belongs on the bottom. When Watson ceased peaceful operations and took to physical intervention, he became worse than those he hates. Attacking a ship registered to any country needs to be met with force by that country's Navy. I expected better from Japan.

[go west young man]

9. Your statements a bit of a paradox.

Your against use of force yet you appear to be for it.

[MaryCeleste]

45. There may be some Japanese Coasties aboard one of the ships

I assume they will intervene with firearms if Watson gets particularly stupid. Few here realize that this is the second time this season that Watson has done things that could be considered piracy.

The pictures of the this incident and the prior one when two of his crew illegally boarded a whaler were telling. None were wearing adequate survival gear. If someone goes in the water, they are history.

I abhor whaling, but I also abhor vigilantism and "ends justify the means" thinking. Watson is the former and many here are doing the latter.

[Raydawg1234]

8. sea sheperd rocks

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Sorry, this IS violence

When you hurl any fluid-containing missile at a ship with sufficient force to reach it, the danger of injury is quite real.

[tekisui]

12. It may be some violence.

The Sea Shepard is willing to use violence to protect the planet and the whales. They often feel other non-violence groups don't go far enough.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. You can't use violence

then claim to be non-violent. I believe the whole advantage of being a "non-violent" group is the moral high ground of not using tactics which can cause injury to make your point.

Now, if you wish to forgo that proscription and claim a moral imperative (protect the whales) requires violent action, then I can understand that position. They just can't have it both ways.

[tekisui]

36. No, they can't.

Greenpeace and other organizations use only non-violence. The Sea Shepherd does not adhere to strictly non-violence. They defend the whales, the seas and the planet whatever way they find effective.

I am for non-violence, but respect that others don't always see that as effective.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. Again

as I said, if they wish to claim a moral imperative justifies violence, then I understand that (don't condone it, but do understand). I just can't accept claims that they are still "non-violent" when they undertake actions which can harm people.

[MaryCeleste]

46. And it can legitimately be met with violence

Technically what they are doing is considered piracy (see the UN CLOS site). The whalers could shoot back at them legally.

If they do attempt a mass boarding it will be piracy and presumptively met with deadly force. More likely some will end up in the water and die and the rest taken back to Japan for trial. Such an event will clearly show that Watson is little more than a glory seeker and will hurt the anti whaling movement.

[The Stranger]

14. Please tell me you are joking because that is hilarious.

:rofl:

[Kelvin Mace]

24. ALways happy to amuse people

but no, I'm serious.

[The Stranger]

25. No, really, this is good material.

You're worried the poor criminal whalers or their whaling ship might be hit by a "fluid-containing missle"? "Missle" being a bag of smelly stuff the protesters are throwing. You have turned a water balloon fight into a violation of any number of international treaties. Seriously, where did you come up with this? I love it!

And, this is really just too good, "with sufficient force to reach it." "Sufficient force" and a "missle" -- I'm picturing the missle that general was riding in Dr. Strangelove. I'm thinking Hellfire missles with "fluid" in them -- shoot, I'm thinking heat seekers.

Get Letterman and Leno on the phone. Like now. Put this on that Discovery Channel show where they blow things up and "oooo" and "ahhh" over the latest Military-Industrial complex killing machines.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. As your mother used to say

"You'll put someone's eye out."

I am no fan of the scum who kill whales. But if you take a one pound object and hurl it with sufficient force to travel 30-50 yards, chances are it can hurt someone. A person struck in the face can fall and that fall may be sufficient to cause serious injury.

You assume I am "worried" about the heartless fucks who kill whales, sorry I'm not, beyond the fact that I wish NO ONE injury (a believe that is the core of non-violence). I am concerned about a movement that claims to be non-violent adopting tactics which are violent.

As I said, you can't have it both ways.

If you claim that a moral imperative (saving whales) compels you to commit violence, then I can except that. Just don't try an play games with the language.

[shangralee]

17. Paul Watson is a real hero

I have been following and donating to Sea Shepherd Society for years because Paul and his crews are constantly risking their lives and freedom in freezing weather to save the oceans and all marine live. They have stopped a lot of illegal killing of many species of fish and animals with a track record of no injury to people. In this case they didn't even do any real property damage, they just made it hard for the killers to process their catch. We could all benefit by donating to this amazing group.

[Kelvin Mace]

22. This is the first time

they have started hurling objects at a ship with the potential to injure someone. Sorry, it crosses the line.

[GeniusLib]

11. Keep up the good work Captain Paul

"The Path of the Righteous Man Is Beset on All Sides by The inequities of the Selfish and the Tyranny of Evil Men"

[mike_c]

18. I won't weep if whalers are sunk....

Pelting their decks with stink bombs is the least I'd do if it were up to me.

[roody]

19. I support Captain Paul Watson.

[Barrett808]

26. Japan retaliates after whaler attack

Tokyo - Japan has summoned the Dutch and Australian ambassadors following an attack by anti-whaling campaigners from the Sea Shepherd organisation on a Japanese whaling ship in Antarctica.

Japan claims that three members of the whaler's crew were injured by corrosive liquid when the campaigners threw more than 100 bottles of foul-smelling butyric acid at the ship. The campaigners say the bottles were intended to act as stink bombs. They also say that the packets of powder they threw on board were intended to make the whaler's decks slippery.

Tokyo is protesting to the two countries because Sea Shepherd is registered in the Netherlands, and Australia offered the ship a base of operations. Although Australia is one of the leaders of the worldwide protest against whaling, it has condemned Sea Shepherd's actions.

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5667571/Japan-retaliates-after-whaler-attack

[truebrit71]

48. Too fucking bad. Stop killing the whales and this won't be a problem...

...it;s very, very simple really...

[Barrett808]

29. Photo:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4424053a12.html

[LeftyMom]

31. Somebody should get them one of those big slingshot-style water balloon launchers.

Damn, ToysRUs doesn't deliver to the middle of the southern ocean. :(

[BreweryYardRat]

32. If you're serious, send them the suggestion for use in the future.

This will probably go on for at least another five years.

[LeftyMom]

33. If it'd get them more range, I'll buy as many as they need myself.

No idea who to email though. I'm sure teh fella would know, I'll go get him.

[Barrett808]

35. I don't think range is much of an issue

Accuracy is more important. Gotta get the slippery stuff on the decks, not the bulkheads.

}(

[MaryCeleste]

44. I don't think so, he will go overboard with his vigilante actions and then be shutdown for good

He will probably lose his Netherlands vessel registry for what he has already done. You really can not sail an unflagged vessel. It has slowed him down in the past.

[Barrett808]

47. Unlikely.

If it hasn't happened yet, it's not going to happen.

[Barrett808]

30. Video:

http://seashepherd.org/migaloo/video.html