Japanese Whalers vs Sea Shepherd

January 7th, 2010 at 9:13 am by David Farrar

Herald story is here.

My take:

Japanese Whalers Bad

Mad

Tags: , ,

80 Responses to “Japanese Whalers vs Sea Shepherd”

  1. redqueen (595 comments) says:

    I’m thinking we should send the entire fleet down there to sort out this dispute the old fashioned way. We could even set up an RNZN ‘Arctic Station’ and have a squadron on standby to deal with this sort of pesky nonsense. Just this, it could be an excuse to get a few more ships and it’d provide us with target practice (and why discriminate against protestors and whalers?). In either case, we should at least send a frigate down there to arrest the lot of them for wasting time.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Murray (8,803 comments) says:

    You like taxes redqueen becuase you’ll be paying for it.

    BTW we only have one “squadron” and it would spend much of the year ice locked in spite of Al Gore. I’m also wondering under what pretest you arrest a Japanese ship for carrying out its lawful activities.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Lance (2,709 comments) says:

    Dip shit Japs have just handed sea shepherd a coup.
    Ham fisted fuckwits.

    But then anyone so fucked up they claim large scale whale killing is ‘research’ when EVERYONE knows thats bullshit isn’t starting from the moral high ground.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. vibenna (305 comments) says:

    Piracy, in contradistinction, according to article 101 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is defined as: “any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

    http://www.maritimeterrorism.com/definitions/

    I suppose the attackers on Sea Shepherd would argue that they are not committing these acts for private ends and are therefore not pirates. Although that seems like a marginal distinction to me.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    There’s a better view of the incident there:
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/06/sea-shepherd-conservation-boat-sliced-in-two-after-japanese-whaling-ship-clash-watch-video-115875-21946414/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    Why are some people so obsessed with one particular sea dwelling animal?

    There is probably a greater danger that Cod would be wiped out in the North Atlantic than Whales are going to be fished to extinction due to the limited catch allowed under the current international whaling regulations.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. redqueen (595 comments) says:

    Very good, Murray, you appear to have entirely missed a point in jest. We have no legal authority to detain the Japanese on the high seas (and even if we did, their navy is bigger than ours), we have two frigates, and the odds of us increasing our fleet to anything capable of even mounting a single real squadron are zero. That we cannot jest at the fact that our protestors have caused a nuisance, that the Japanese are wankers when it comes to whaling, or the fact that we are militarily deficient, all seems to add to our collective problem. And yes, I would rather pay taxes for a few more ships than any of the rubbish ideas socialists have come up with for the past 75 years. $300m and jobs created in defence of NZ versus billions wasted for people to waste away…hmm…tough choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Sean (290 comments) says:

    Behave like pirates, get treated like pirates. These people have been putting themselves in harms way in a particularly aggressive manner and in a particularly unforgiving environment.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. tester (9 comments) says:

    stephen’s 10.02 and Rod’s 10.20 post are very interesting. in the second video in stephen’s post, watch the engine wake on the protest boat – it looks to me like they accelerate into the japanese vessel. and the video in Rod’s post makes it clear that the protesters are either incompetent sailors or just plain nuts.

    I don’t have a lot (any) sympathy for the whalers, but it is hard to take anything the protestors say with more than a grain of salt when you hear them complain about being rammed when it is them who appear to be doing the ramming. muppets.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. MT_Tinman (3,315 comments) says:

    Why the fuck would “we” want to detain the good guys?

    Headline should read Brave Japanese Captain Takes Out Pirate Ship

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Inventory2 (9,371 comments) says:

    Two words which Sea Shepherd should reflect upon

    Heat … and … Kitchen

    They go down there with the avowed intent of “hunting whalers”, so they shouldn’t moan when their “prey” reacts. Of course, a compliant, left-leaning media will go in to bat for Sea Shepherd …

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. grumpy (270 comments) says:

    Whatever video you look at, the Sea shepherd boat was stationary (or very slowly trying to start moving). The Mirror video is the clearest.

    it is a simple fact that deliberately ramming a boat on the high seas is a very serious maritime offence and the whalers will no doubt finish up in at least a Civil Court somewhere over it.

    Watson has shown he can use the dirty stuff himself so this stupid Japanese action has not finished yet.

    i’ve always wondered why Sea shepherd didn’t just buy a Russian warship when they were for sale cheaply a few years back.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 37 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    I agree with the view that the Anti-whaling movement is culturally insensitive and frankly if you are going to go and try and use force to stop it you shouldn’t go crying to the media when you come off the worse.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. freethinker (677 comments) says:

    Murray (4221) Says:
    January 7th, 2010 at 9:42 am

    You like taxes redqueen becuase you’ll be paying for it.

    BTW we only have one “squadron” and it would spend much of the year ice locked in spite of Al Gore. I’m also wondering under what pretest you arrest a Japanese ship for carrying out its lawful activities.

    I understood the Japanese whaled in a prohibited area – if so they breach international law.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    It is quite obvious from the video the Anti-Whalers accelerated just as the Japanese ship got within a few meters. Hence it was they who rammed the Japanese not the other way around.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. freethinker (677 comments) says:

    A torpedo sinking the factory ship at night/in a storm from an ex Russian Sub would remove Japanese ability to process – end of argument.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    Perhaps Minto and his motley band would make good whale fodder. Another boat for the Sea Shepherd, put Minto and his motley grew aboard and pray the Japanese put the pedal to the metal.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. excusesofpuppets (132 comments) says:

    Couldn’t agree more with the OP. I hate whaling, but what are the Sea Shepherd thinking.

    Watching the videos released, I am very suspect about what actually happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. budgieboy (110 comments) says:

    I KNOW many of the defenders of the ‘protesters’ will mock this pdf given it’s origin but the following link is a little about the jerks they are defending.

    http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/history.pdf

    If you haven’t got time to follow the link and read all three pages (only bullet points) then here are a couple of samples.

    (((1993: Paul Watson claims in an open letter to the people of Norway that Sea Shepherd has sunk eight ships and rammed and damaged a further six vessels. In the same letter, he states: “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a law abiding organization. We rigidly adhere to and respect the laws of nature or lex natura. We hold the position that the laws of ecology take precedence over the laws designed by nation states to protect corporate interests … the smell of guilt is already a stench in the nostrils of God.”)))

    (((2002 Watson tells Animal Rights 2002 Conference in Washington DC that if a person dies from one of his actions, he would consider it “collateral damage”. He believes it is not possible to “commit violence against non-sentient objects. Property damage is not violence.”)))

    This outfit is full of bloody nutters and for them to claim the moral high ground is unbefuckinleavable.

    They must thank god that there are so many useful idiots out there that run interference for them …on cue … each time…everytime!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 63 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Komata (1,220 comments) says:

    Personally, good on the Japanese – not for their whaling, but for putting-up with such harrassment without over-reacting – yet!!

    The videos would seem to indicate that the sunk vessel was actually under-way when the collision occurred. Cutting across the bow of a larger vessel is never good and goes against all reasonable maritime logic. My understanding is that you avoid moving if you are already stationary, and allow the ‘powered’ vessel to go past, NOT make a deliberate attempt to move with no sea-room whatsoever.

    It also raises questions about the capability and professional-competence of the master of the destroyed vessel – or was he just a protester and hired with the boat? (would that make him a mercenary?)

    It does seem to me however that even the renowned oriental ‘code of patience’ must be becoming ever so slightly stretched, and I have to wonder at what point the whalers will decide to point their harpoon guns at their antagonist’s bridge and fire. THAT would be an interesting situation and would legally, I suspect, be no different in International Law to combating pirates off the Somali coast.

    The captain of the protest boat would, as per usual, yell and scream about ‘attacks’ etc, etc. It is what he seems to be good at, although how he got his FGM certificate is a wonder – or was he ‘saner’ then?

    A question though: Operating a ships such as the ‘Sea Shepherd’ group does (love the irony of the name) requires substantial funds. Does anyone know who finances them?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. grumpy (270 comments) says:

    Gosman@
    “It is quite obvious from the video the Anti-Whalers accelerated just as the Japanese ship got within a few meters. Hence it was they who rammed the Japanese not the other way around.”

    Ridiculous, a ship is required to keep a safe distance from other vessels. as the Jap boat was under way and the SS boat stationary it is the Jap boat that is at fault. QED, 10/4, Over and Out.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 36 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    I wonder how much “scientific research” the world actually has achieved from Japanese whaling, if the United Nations had a backbone and some descent sized teeth it would perhaps condemn Japan for falsifying information and providing it to the world as a so-called excuse for its whaling.

    These whales are endangered species and the “scientific research” asserted by the Japanese whalers is complete and utter nonsense!

    Where is the Commonwealth? The United Nations? Green peace leadership (seems to be all bark and no substance) or even Western individual governments threatening military intervention if within territory?

    Some of us have had a guts full of all this media hype and smoke, we want to see some legitimate action to end this Japanese whaling once and for all!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    The Nippon Butchers deserve all the attention they receive just like the other practice of dolphin slaughter it is not about the butchery its about their right to butcher at will and of course there will be those who object to this aspecially when it occurs in your backyard.Oriental Patence be dammed the Nipponese still dont think they have to appoligise for ww2

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 37 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. MeneerCronje (43 comments) says:

    So the rest of the world stop whaling and managed to reverse the trend toward extinction and the Japs just keep poaching – the Shepherds may be green lefty shitheads but at least they’re doing something.

    And if you think there’s no difference between cod and whales, you might as well eat dogs instead cows.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    @the prince. What I see from that video is the jap ship alter course toward the ady gil – to just miss it.
    I then see the ady gill open the throttle and to move about 20m forward into the path of the jap ship………and lose 3m of her bow…
    …do the math!

    look on the bright side, its probably the first wash those hippes have had in the last year!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    The most unfortunate thing about this is that it is clearly obvious that the “poor protestors” used their engines at the last minute to make sure they were infront of the Japanese ship.

    I don’t know many people who would throw themselves infront of a train then claim the train tried to kill them. I was fully behind these guys but now I think it is funny that a few idiots tried to kill themselves in the southern ocean and now expect us to feel sorry for them.

    Oh and meneerCronje

    you might as well eat dogs instead cows.

    Have you been to Tonga ?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Angus (536 comments) says:

    “its probably the first wash those hippies have had in the last year!”

    LOL

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    The Jap ship turned towards the Ady Gil about 10 seconds before the collision, the Ady Gil hit the throttles about 4 seconds before impact, with a boat like that you hardly change your speed at all in the first few seconds because the props just cavitate, so I’ve no doubt the Ady Gil could do nothing to avoid the collision, I’ve also no doubt that the Ady Gil skipped was trying to accelerate away from the danger. Like knowing your going to be hit by a truck, putting your foot down and nothing seems to happen.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    Andrew W

    Yes, when I’m standing about a meter from the railway tracks I always try and run in front of the train to get away as well. Must be real drawback not having a reverse gear on a boat like that – how do they manoeuvre it into mariners etc when all it can do is suddenly lurch forward when it needs to go backward.

    Come on – it’s a game of chicken out there and the idiots pushed it too far. If that chump was incapable of handling the boat then he shouldn’t have had his hands on the controls.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (11,880 comments) says:

    I looked at the video referenced above. It appears to me that the skipper of the larger ship was merely trying to get closer to the stationary Greenpeace vessel so as to give his water hoses more effect. They were not reaching from where he was.

    When the Greenpeace vessel starts moving into his bow, he trys to swing away again to avoid contact. But it is too late, especially as the smaller boat is by then moving fast under his bow when he should have been reversing.

    It was clearly an accident.

    One that the Greenpeace arseholes have been asking for for some time.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    Burt, there were no tracks, the for the skipper of the Ady Gil there was no way to know which way the Shonan Maru No. 2 would turn, and the Ady Gil was well off to the side of the Shonan Maru’s course before the Shonan Maru’s turn to starboard, the Sea Shepard people may well be a pack of tossers but you’re endorsing what could have easily been multiple homicides.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    Redbaiter

    Driving into the path of a ship that is hundreds of times heavier and stronger than the vessel you are the skipper of is never an accident. I have previously pulled my credit card out of my wallet and thrown money at Greenpeace for their anti-whaling campaigns. I won’t be doing that again because they have just wasted $1m because the skipper showed reckless disregard for both the integrity of the campaign and the saftey of his crew.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    Red, these are the Sea Shepard arseholes, the Greenpeace arseholes are a different bunch.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    Andrew W

    You don’t put your crew at that kind of risk in conditions like that. Being chopped up in warmer waters close to shore might be some knobs idea of a good way to spend $1m of campaign supporters money. It was completely foolish to do so in the conditions they were in.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    Andrew W

    Also to suggest that a ship that size can out manouver a boat the size of the Ady Gil is not helping people believe the Ady Gil is not at fault here.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Chuck Bird (4,890 comments) says:

    I am sure there are basic laws of the sea that are very similar to the laws of the road in most countries. That is that even if you are in the right you must do everything practical to avoid a collision. Also in the case of an accident you are obliged to render assistance.

    In the case of accidents at sea a large ship is obliged to go to the assistance of a ship in distress even at considerable cost and inconvenience. I think I recall a protest ship assisting the Japanese with a seriously ill crewman. I may be wrong. Someone may recall if it did happen.

    The attitude of mainly looking at who started things justifies a gross increase in violence and gets nowhere.

    I recall the case of a young American female protester sitting down in front of Israeli tanks. She was deliberately run over and killed. I am generally pro Israel but there is no way such action can be justified.

    An analogy would be if people are blocking a road or even a motorway. It could be cyclist, biker or some other protesters.

    Large groups of cyclist taking up half the road piss me off. They may be breaking the law. However, if I deliberately hit one I am at fault if one gives me the fingers or even throws a water bottle that hits my car I am still at fault. If I drive very close to scare the cyclist and misjudge I am still very much at fault.

    The anti whaling protesters were prepared to take some risks and knew they would get hosed down. I am sure they did not expect to be rammed.

    I cannot believe the crew of the protest vessel decided to commit mass suicide. They were stationary and tried to reverse too late. The most likely explanation is that the Japanese tried to scare the Ady Gil and misjudged how close they were.

    The Japanese think they can treat the sea including New Zealand territorial waters as their backyard.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    Burt, I’ve never donated to Greenpeace or Sea Shepard and wouldn’t, If the Ady Gil had been in neutral it’s likely the skipper would have put it straight into reverse, but because he was moving forward when he realised just how close the Shonan Maru was he just pushed the throttles full open, when he was actually hit he then did the smart thing and put it in reverse, now, if you were driving slowely along and realised you were about to be hit by a truck in 4 seconds, can you be sure you’d shift into reverse rather than just put your foot down to get clear? The collision was not arranged by the skipper of the Ady Gil in advance, he was taken by surprise, and reacted as I would probably have had I been in the unenviable position.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    Burt, you may not believe this, but I’ve caught rabbits with my bare hand, (mind you, I have to sneak up on them!)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (11,880 comments) says:

    ” Driving into the path of a ship that is hundreds of times heavier and stronger than the vessel you are the skipper of is never an accident. ”

    Fair enuff Burt. I was trying to say that the smaller boat was not deliberately rammed. It is typical of these environmental arseholes (Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd or whoever) to distort the truth. The ends justifies the means is their credo.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Inventory2 (9,371 comments) says:

    I’ve just posted a few photographs which were sent to me this morning. Just in case anyone still believes that the crew of the Ady Gil had lily-white motives ….

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2010/01/pictorial-essay.html

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. MeneerCronje (43 comments) says:

    Have you been to Tonga ?

    No need – Tonga came to NZ and I saw enough thank you.

    Not sure if the concept of “cattle” vs “anything that moves” is just a silly Western cultural byproduct, but I suffer from it. Leave the animals I anthropomorphise with alone!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    Andrew W.

    There is an old Chinese saying, it goes something like this; An egg should not argue with a rock.

    Now if the skipper of the Japanese boat is at fault – hang him high, I’m all for that. However seeing the Ady Gil did actually motor itself into the path of the ship one way or another (by accident, by stupidity or just because the skipper thought he could go the hard/risky way to escape colision providing good footage for his cause or whatever) – these is no “they rammed us” high ground at this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Inventory2 (9,371 comments) says:

    Very well said burt

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    So if you’re flattened by a runaway truck it’s your fault, okaay. If you’re deliberately flattened by your deranged neighbour in his logging truck it’s still your fault, okaaay.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    Andrew W

    If I’m on my bicycle trying to make a bus change it’s path repeatedly to disrupt the driver following the planned bus route and then I suddenly swerve in front of the bus – yes my fault. Would be cool if the bus driver took the rapp but that would little consolation when I’m in the morgue with a tyre track across my face.

    Like the boat situation I will have a hard time convincing reasonable people the bus out manoeuvred me when it runs me down with clear video evidence that I was pedalling to get in front of it just before it struck me.

    The cyclist/bus analogy actually has many similarities in terms of egg/rock chicken games.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    But Burt, it was the Shonan Maru that swerved (right then left), it was the Shonan Maru that was travelling faster, if each vessel had remained on its course the Shonan Maru would have passed more than 100 metres ahead of the Ady Gil.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. grumpy (270 comments) says:

    I’ve got a mate who “accidentally” gave a bloke a nudge when he was trying to push in to his fishing spot. It was investigated by Maritime NZ who ruled thay each skipper was at fault. There is an obligation NOT to hit anyone and to do everything possible to AVOID hitting anyone.
    From the videos it appears the Japanese boat weas negligent. also remember that this ship was not involved in whaling, it is a “security” ship.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. macdo (18 comments) says:

    The strategy here interests me.
    When Sea Shepherd acquired the Ady Gil they talked about it as a stealth boat. On their website there was talk of it having a low radar profile and the application of some magical paint that would make it almost radar invisible. It’s also fast with a reasonable range (what it was built to do), not sure about maneuverability. OK, so they have a boat that can sneak up undetected until it is within visual range of the whalers. Pointing green lasers at the bridge makes sure the whalers know it is there when they do get close.
    They then seem to have engaged in a number of close up maneuvers that their inflatable rubber boats are ideally suited to – being highly maneuverable and impact resistant. What puzzles me is why they used the Ady Gil in that way. It is self evidently fragile and responds badly to collision, in a way that the IRBs don’t.
    So, did Sea Shepherd make a tactical error in the way they deployed the Ady Gil? That is, they seem to have employed the IRB tactics with a different kind of boat and it ended badly. It looked as if the Adu Gil was going to be a search boat, though there was talk of putting it between the harpoons and the whales.
    Or, is this strategic? The Ady Gil is distinctive and has brought a media profile. It sinking with all the crew safe has gained a much higher media (and blog) profile than the loss of an IRB would have. Looks expensive, insurance will be more than a simple phone call…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. david@tokyo (260 comments) says:

    I look at the videos, and guess it could be said that both captains could have taken actions that would have avoided the collision. But, it’s hard to say because we don’t have much video time before the point of impact to know what happened in the lead up.

    But what I do know is this. The Ady Gil (AG) has been used already this “season” to harass the Shonan Maru 2 (SM2) so as to create a “distraction” in an attempt to allow the other Sea Shepherd boat, the Steve Irwin (SI) to lose the pursuit of the SM2. This involved dangerously maneuvering around the SM2, attempting to disable it’s propulsion, shoot objects at it, and blind it’s crew with green lasers. This is a fact and Sea Shepherd proudly publicised it on it’s website. The tactic subsequently failed, and the SM2 kept up with the SI, which subsequent ran back to the Australian ports that habour it, in order to lose the surveillance by the SM2.

    Other video evidence posted from previous years shows the SI ramming other whaling vessels in incredibly dangerous fashion. Again in these instances SS blamed the Japanese.

    Additionally, Watson claimed a year or so back to have been shot at by the Japanese, but was saved by a bullet proof vest and his SS badge that he wears over his heart. Great story for the media, but only fools would believe it.

    Now this time the AG claims to have been dead in the water. The crew are on deck, purported to be waving farewell to their mates on the Bob Barker (the other member below deck is presumably at the controls?). Yet the SM2 which is there to monitor the location of the harassment vessels is for some reason blaring warnings at the AG, and then a collision occurs with the Bob Barker boat ship in close proximity, cameras rolling.

    My best guess is that this is a staged event to make another episode of Whale Wars. (Not certain they meant to destroy their boat entirely though!)

    Japanese reports mention that the AG had suddenly decreased it’s speed, prior to the collision, but the videos didn’t start in time to capture this to be able to verify it.

    Disclaimer: I agree with the whaling nation’s policies of pursuing the sustainable use of whale resources. I wouldn’t support the hunting of blue whales, but for other species such as minkes (hundreds of thousands) and fin and humpbacks (tens of thousands, and increasing) there are at least enough for limited catches to better understand the biological features of these animals so as to help facilitate sustainable whaling of them on a commercial basis either now or in future. Just as is prescribed in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    macdo

    It’s possible that the Ady Gil was used because the IRB’s are not powerful enough to drag long lengths of rope and nets through the water to tangle the propellers of the ship.

    If you wanted to tangle propellers the trick would be to cut closely across the bow while dragging the nets and rope in the water. If they had tangled the propellers then the ship may have suddenly veered off its course and that could have caused a collision.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. david@tokyo (260 comments) says:

    This report would suggests that the collision was not staged, but just an accident.

    http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=109368&fm=newsmain,nrhl

    –start–
    Skipper Pete Bethune says the incident occurred after they had spent the day hassling the whalers while being hosed down for their trouble.

    “As they came towards us, they aimed their hoses and stuff at us and I said to the guys, look, just stand there and stare them down and they were about 50 metres away when they suddenly veered to starboard and smacked off probably the front three metres of my boat”.

    –end–

    Harassing the surveillance boat for a day, and then suddenly stopping in their general path and attempting to “stare them down” may not have been the smartest thing to do. Anyone care to disagree?

    I doubt the SM2 captain knew that’s what the AG was trying to do, at that point in time, after a day of harassment.

    Just FYI, major Japanese message board “2ch” has at least more than 10,000 messages regarding this incident (and related whaling issues). The funny thing with these anti-whaling antics is that they put whaling in the news and this puts the idea of eating whale in the heads of the Japanese populace. “Oh yeah, haven’t had any whale lately”. Lots of Japanese people are thinking this today.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    …you’re endorsing what could have easily been multiple homicides.

    What else is new for comments threads on this blog? Festival of the inbreds.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    When push comes to shove the Ady Gil is far faster and more maneuverable than the ship that struck her – you a pushing shit uphill to get me to believe she was hunted down and deliberately rammed.

    If these cretins want to play silly games in the Southern Ocean that’s their problem.

    If they have lost their $1.5 million dollar bio-diesel fueled boat well tough cookies.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. david@tokyo (260 comments) says:

    Posted this once but it didn’t appear so trying again… This from the web:

    (start quote)
    Skipper Pete Bethune says the incident occurred after they had spent the day hassling the whalers while being hosed down for their trouble.

    “As they came towards us, they aimed their hoses and stuff at us and I said to the guys, look, just stand there and stare them down and they were about 50 metres away when they suddenly veered to starboard and smacked off probably the front three metres of my boat”.
    (end quote)

    After harassing the SM2 for a day, attempting to “stare them down” was probably not a wise thing to attempt. I doubt the SM2 captain would have guessed this was what the harassment vessel was planning to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. reid (16,681 comments) says:

    Frankly I think both are to blame but I think the media won’t take that approach.

    International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea

    Rule 7: Risk of Collision
    (a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

    (d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account:
    (i) Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change;
    (ii) Such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or when approaching a vessel at close range.

    Rule 8: Action to Avoid Collision
    (a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.
    (b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed shall be avoided.
    (c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.
    (f) (i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
    (ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the rules of this part.
    (iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

    A fair decision would be that both sides bear their own losses. According to that, they were both at fault.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. mikeysmokes (172 comments) says:

    Idiots, good riddance I say roll on the triple whopper and cheese burgers yum

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Dale 08 (34 comments) says:

    See its always bad luck to change the name of a boat.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    After harassing the SM2 for a day, attempting to “stare them down” was probably not a wise thing to attempt.

    In other words, you accept that the SM2 rammed them but feel it was OK because Sea Shepherd had annoyed them. Now we’re getting somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. kowtow (8,929 comments) says:

    All skippers have a duty to avoid collision at sea. The greenies are down there to cause trouble I have no sympathy with them and some one will get killed due to their irresponsibility.
    Footage on BBC shows silly looking boat was underway and so it caused the collision. The Japs gave them a hosing after,too bad,dont start a fight and then cry foul.
    If the Japs want to eat whales, thats fine by me, they shouldn’t have to pretend its scientific research.Everyone else eats mammals ,so what.
    The Sami harvest reindeer, Indians harvest cariboo,Koreans and Chinese eat dogs.Eskimoes have a polar bear quota thank you very much!
    The whole animal “rights” thing has gone too far.It’s more prosperous white ,city dwelling, anti people BOLLOCKS.
    Those green arseholes are down there becuase whales are “sexy’ and are a great cause ,lots of money from film stars and singers no doubt. Can you imagine them getting money to attack trawlers scooping up NZ kahawai? Like hell. How many dreadlocked turds from Hamburg or Vancouver would sign up for that?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. david@tokyo (260 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt,

    My views on the collision in particular were expressed in my earlier comment from 3:50 pm. Who is in the wrong (if not both), I don’t care.

    What I do think is that the Sea Shepherd vessels are unwise to harass, attempt to disable, and fire projectiles at other vessels in the way they have been doing. Or putting their boat in a position where they have the opportunity to “stare them down”. If it were me, I’d take care to stay well away at a safe distance. Should be no problem with a fast boat.

    This context leading up to the collision may indeed have contributed to it, I do not know. There have been collisions in the past, and I imagine there will be more in the coming days as well, until people get serious about resolving these issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. rightofleftcentre (72 comments) says:

    Just watched video on TV3.
    The sea shepherd boat is definitely idling and clear of the Japanese boat. As the japanese boat closes the sea shepherd guns it evidenced by huge increase in wake and bow lifting.

    If I had to lay money on who rammed who, I’d bet on the Sea Shepherd being the one that put itself directly and intentionally in the path of the whaler. No question.

    I’m anti-whaling, but idiots who do stupid things, tell lies then milk the media for sympathy are goons.

    And they do their cause no good by deliberately distorting the truth. But that’s a Greenpeace specialty as we all know!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. kowtow (8,929 comments) says:

    And if French Canadians want to club seals I don’t give a shit either.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. MikeNZ (3,233 comments) says:

    No reid
    both sides shouldn’t bear their own costs.
    if you drive dangerously close to other users not allowing them maneuverability you should get opinged by the authorities.
    Sea Shepherd went down there to do just that.

    Where are your brains?
    It has got nothing to do with the japs being lying bastards and killing the whales.
    lets get real here.

    The sea shepherd people boasted online what they were going to do, they keep guns to intimidate and interfere with people on the high seas in a dangerous way.
    In I might add a place where it is more than dangerous anyway due to it’s location in the southern seas.
    REM the Captain (S) of both ships are supposed to keep everyone safe.

    when one captain is maneuvering deliberately so that the other must keep moving away that is dangerous driving and the sea shepherd should have his masters ticket revoked and be made to sit it again.
    Come on mate think this through with out all the hoopla.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. reid (16,681 comments) says:

    “No reid. Where are your brains? It has got nothing to do with the japs being lying bastards and killing the whales. lets get real here.”

    Yes, lets.

    The captain of the Jap ship deliberately manoeuvred towards the bat boat according to the video taken from the Bob Barker. Maybe the angle gives us the wrong picture and no doubt, if it was a false picture then the GPS data will clear it up in Court.

    OTOH, the skipper of the bat boat deliberately placed himself in harms way as he said he intended to do and then arguably accelerated into the path of the bow, although personally I find that hard to believe, the evidence was there from the Jap film.

    Regardless of either side’s rights to be on the High Seas doing what they were doing, the facts are based on what we know at the mo and under international maritime law, both sides were at fault. Period.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    reid

    f it was a false picture then the GPS data will clear it up in Court.

    Exactly. That is the process to clear this up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    The Bob Barker video is a different angle to this one;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEmzp054cOA&feature=player_embedded

    where it is clearly evident that the Ady Gil accelerates.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. black paul (120 comments) says:

    burt says

    “Like the boat situation I will have a hard time convincing reasonable people the bus out manoeuvred me when it runs me down with clear video evidence that I was pedalling to get in front of it just before it struck me.”

    Even if the bus driver was firing water cannons in your face at the time?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. WebWrat (466 comments) says:

    “The Jap ship turned towards the Ady Gil about 10 seconds before the collision, the Ady Gil hit the throttles about 4 seconds before impact, with a boat like that you hardly change your speed at all in the first few seconds because the props just cavitate, so I’ve no doubt the Ady Gil could do nothing to avoid the collision, I’ve also no doubt that the Ady Gil skipped was trying to accelerate away from the danger. Like knowing your going to be hit by a truck, putting your foot down and nothing seems to happen.”

    Christ here is some shit talked on here!

    Ever heard of a steering wheel?
    Ever heard of reverse thrust?

    If I was crew on that hippy boat I would have thrown the so called “skipper” over the side for trying to kill me.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    black paul

    Even if the bus driver was firing water cannons in your face at the time?

    The water canons didn’t suddenly start did they. If they were a factor the skipper of the Ady Gil failed to take into account while harassing the Japanese ship then he is a muppet unworthy of being a skipper responsible for the lives of his crew.

    It is so obvious it hardly needs to be said, if the Ady Gil were out of reach of the water canons (which was only about 50m) then a colision would not have been possible.

    If I rode directly into the blinding headlights of a bus on my bicycle fingers crossed that it would be close but no collision – would you call me an idiot ?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Leonidas (1,448 comments) says:

    Full speed astern seems to be working after the impact.

    Pete Bethune’s intelligence, or lack thereof is widely known in the marine trade, my old foreman said he wouldn’t round north head let alone the world with him, and we must remember he has form

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    It’s a pity Sea Shepherd didn’t hire one of the heroic armchair sea captains of the Kiwiblog comments, who all know exactly the right thing to do when a ship is trying to ram them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. macdo (18 comments) says:

    burt

    I take your point about the power and proximity needed to tow a cable into the props/rudder that way. Intentionally disabling the steering of a ship that is under way, at close quarters when you are in a fragile boat is a still a high risk tactic.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Manolo (14,161 comments) says:

    “It’s a pity Sea Shepherd didn’t hire one of the heroic armchair sea captains of the Kiwiblog comments..”

    Methinks comrade Milt is starved for attention, or maybe nobody bothers to comment on his left-wing No Minister blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    Psycho

    It’s a pity Sea Shepherd didn’t hire one of the heroic armchair sea captains of the Kiwiblog comments, who all know exactly the right thing to do when a ship is trying to ram them.

    You don’t need to be an experienced sea captain to know that parking a small light weight boat in the path of a hulking steel ship then powering it up at the last minute to ensure you are directly in the path of the other vessel is not a good strategy to avoid collision. Most people understand that close proximity of the two vessels is a precondition for collision. Apparently the captain of the Ady Gil wanted to test the laws of physics and failed so now he wants to blame somebody else for his stuff up.

    Must be a lefty eh, it’s always someone else’s fault and as the Japanese ship is worth more than the Ady Gil it must have been the rich pricks that were in the wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote