Thread: Another catch, another hit.

its junk science, they do not even try to science on liivng populations, its just an excuse to kill.

They write papers, and do wonderful stuff with the tasty leftovers.

it is theft, they are doing commercial whaling illegally.

It's not theft, they have a right to do what they are doing. Japan could walk out of the IWC tomorrow, set their own quotas to still provide consumers with tasty oh so tasty Minke.

They are not innocent fishermen, they are engaged in ecological piracy.

They have broken no laws and are out to injure no people.

In a perfect world we'd say Midway part deuce for such an action.

Go to war to protect a bunch of wacko pirates.

Nice fiction, passa law to make yourself legal. I call BS

They are acting within the law, they are in compliance with the IWC.

Originally Posted by zraver

Nice fiction, passa law to make yourself legal. I call BS

Isn't that what the definition of "legal" is?

Income tax was not legal until a law made it so. The law was declared unconstitutional so an amendment to change the constitution was passed, thus making it not only legal, but constitutional.

Government conducts legal theft all the time. We just have different names for them.

Originally Posted by zraver

...What do you call ramming the Ady Gil and then tryign to wash the crew into the Antarctic seas and not stopping to render assistance?

I looked at that video as well.

The Ady Gil had positioned itself in front of the Japanese ship, off the starboard bow, and was bumping forward, then out of gear, then bump forward again, etc.

Relatively heavy following seas, the Japanese ship needed to have enough forward way to maintain steerage and prevent broaching. The position of the Ady Gil was such that as they got closer together, the Ady Gil would not have been visible to the skipper of the Japanese ship from the wheelhouse- they were hidden by the bow of the ship.

The Japanese skipper had 4 courses of action available.

First option was to maintain speed and heading. From the Japanese skipper's vantage point, the last thing he saw was the Ady Gil going under his bow on a collision course. Doing nothing meant a high probability of collision.

Option two was to slam the gears into reverse and try to kill forward motion. The proximity of the vessels was such that the Japanese ship would not have been able to stop in time, since it would take at least one full length of the ship to bring her to a dead stop, even at the slow speed she was going. With the sea state, he would have been at a high risk of broaching the ship had he done this, because he loses all rudder in the process.

Option three was to turn to port. Not a good choice either, because you don't know if the Ady Gil has passed across the bow yet, and swinging the stern in the direction of the Ady Gil would likely run her down.

Option four was to turn to starboard. This was the best choice, and the one I would have done given the sea state and last known position of the Ady Gil. I would try to put the Ady Gil on my port side. When you are on a closing collision course, it's best to turn into the oncoming vessel and put her across your bow. This is the quickest way to increase separation. Turning away from the oncoming vessel increases the chances of collision, because it puts the oncoming vessel down your side, and you aren't clear until she passes astern.

It so happened that the Ady Gil had stopped her forward motion on the starboard side, but the Japanese skipper had no way to know that- he couldn't see under his bow.

The end result was the collision, and was entirely the fault of the skipper of the Ady Gil for placing his vessel in that position, contrary to COLREG's. His license should be revoked for causing the incident.

There was no need for the Japanese skipper to render assistance, the Sea Shepherds had a large vessel on location to pick up their crew. Had the Sea Sheherds had asked for it, I'm sure they would have picked up the swimming crew- the Japanese on that ship are professional mariners, and unlike the Sea Shepherds are not seeking confrontations.

They wrote themselves the exception. How about you try dog that, I'd love to be able to exempt myself from speed limit laws. I won't buy into their fiction.

What planet are you from; seriously? Lobbying.

I wish they would so people in other countries could push for economic sanctions.

On the account of a few wackos?

The papers are junk science.

The papers are scientific which is all that matters. What they do with the delicious Minke afterwards is fine.

American nationals engaged in fighting ecological piracy.

Sigh, no piracy coming from the side of the fishermen; but acid attacks and ramming from the eco-terrorists. It is perfectly legal to research and then sell/eat the delicious Minke. Japan could actually leave the IWC then set a quota on their own and then whale to their heart's content.

zraver is this really what you support?

1977: Paul Watson, one of the founder members of Greenpeace, was expelled from the organisation after a campaign against sealing during which he threw the sealers’ clubs and skins into the sea. His actions temporarily cost Greenpeace their tax-exemption status in the US.

1977: Paul Watson establishes the “Sea Shepherd” organisation.

1979: A Sea Shepherd vessel rams the whaler “Sierra”.

1980: The “Sierra” is sunk in Lisbon harbour with the help of limpet mines. Sea Shepherd claims responsibility.

1981: Sea Shepherd sinks the two whaling vessels, Ibsa I and Ibsa II, in the Spanish harbour of Viga (Sole source Sea Shepherd. This has not been confirmed by any other source)
.

1986: Sea Shepherd activists shoot at Faroese police with a line rifle and try to sink their rubber dinghies.
The vessel “Sea Shepherd” was ordered to leave Faroese territorial waters after attempting to obstruct the Faroese pilot whale harvest. The vessel ignored the order, and Faroese police tried unsuccessfully to board the ship. In the police report of Oct. 7,1986, it says: “One of the rubber dinghies was attacked directly by a so called “Speed Line” line rifle. The attack is considered to have endangered the lives of the police crew members seriously ... also, signal flares containing phosphorous (a substance which both burns and cauterizes) was thrown at the police. At a later stage the Sea Shepherd used so called “toads” (i.e. rotating iron spikes, pointed and sharp at both ends), against the rubber dinghies .. petrol was poured over the side of the ship ... whereupon signal flares were thrown from the “Sea Shepherd” in a miscarried attempt to set the petrol on fire.” Sea Shepherd accused the Faroese police of having shot at them with rifles. The police emphasize in their report that they only used tear gas and gas cartridges from shotguns.


1986: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the sinking of two whaling vessels in Reykjavik, Iceland, and for malicious damage to the whaling station not far from the town. The act was carried out by two US citizens, one of them, Rodney Corronado, is now wanted in the US for several incidents of serious animal rights terrorism.

1988: Paul Watson arrives in Iceland demanding to be held responsible for the sinking of the whaling vessels in Reykjavik in 1986. He is arrested and held for questioning. He realizes that he can risk facing several years imprisonment. In a press release from the Icelandic Ministry of Justice it says: “At questioning Paul Watson has admitted that he has given some remarks that connect him with the sabotage, but in spite of this he now claims that he neither took part in the planning nor the execution of the sabotage.” There was no evidence incriminating Watson. He was ordered to leave the country and declared persona non grata in Iceland

1991: Mr A. Ferreira, A US crew member on a Mexican fishing vessel, reports to his senator that Sea Shepherd rammed his vessel causing considerable damage. Some of Sea Shepherd’s crew were armed with rifles. Senator John Seymour replies: “Your situation does not fall under my jurisdiction. I have therefore forwarded your letter to the American Tunaboat Association.”

1991: Scott Trimmingham, president of Sea Shepherd quits in protest. “We had rules about not hurting anyone, about not using weapons. I left because those rules and that philosophy seems to be changing,” he said to “Outside” magazine (Sept. 1991).
Paul Watson admits that there are arms on board “Sea Shepherd”. “We confront dangerous people. As the captain, it is my responsibility to protect the lives of my crew ... Therefore, I have prepared myself for the possibility of defending my crew in a situation that could go never occur, but if it does I will use firearms to first intimidate and then to defend,” said Watson to the Los Angeles Free Weekly (April 24, 1992).

Seattle Times columnist Alston Chase comments thus on Sea Shepherds relationship to weapons: “The business of Sea Shepherd is confrontation, whereby these sailor activists try to provoke others to attack. Crying self-defence in these circumstances is like the gunfighter who starts a quarrel to justify duelling his enemy.” (The Seattle Times, July 1, 1991).


1992: Sea Shepherd makes unsuccessful attempts at ramming three Costa Rican fishing vessels. In a written complaint to the local authorities the fishermen report that the Sea Shepherd crew shot at them with bullets containing a red substance, hitting two of them and causing them great pain.

1992: Sea Shepherd makes unsuccessful attempt at scuttling the combined minke whaling and fishing vessel "Nybræna" at her moorings in the Lofoten Islands. The vessel was salvaged, but the water had caused considerable damage.

1993: Paul Watson orders the crew on board the Sea Shepherd vessel “Edward Abbey” (formerly US Navy) to open cannon fire at a Japanese fishing vessel.
The following transcript stems from the 1993 Yorkshire Television documentary “Defenders of the Wild - Ocean Rider”

Paul Watson (over the radio): We are going to ram you!
Stand clear!

A Taiwanese drift-netter (over the radio): “Why are you
crushing our ship?”

Paul Watson: “You are killing too many dolphins ..
and you insulted us by calling us creeps.”
From another confrontation with a Japanese fishing vessel:
Narrator: Sea Shepherd is ready to ram again.
Now Paul Watson wants the Edward Abbey to fire directly
at the drift-netters.

Watson: “Fire a couple in the stern right at the water line.
Nobody’s there.”

Narrator: “To the relief of many of the crew members the
order is not carried out. The Edward Abbey fires a cannon
shot across its bow. Still the Japanese ship does not stop."
1993: Sea Shepherd makes an unsuccesful attempt at scuttling the combined minke whaling and fishing vessel "Senet" at her moorings in Gressvik. The vessel was salvaged, but the water had caused some damage.

1993: Sea Shepherd concludes that the organisation has sunk 8 ships and rammed and damaged a further 6.
Dismissed from the IWC
After the sinking of the Icelandic whaling vessels in 1986, Sea Shepherd lost its status as observer at the IWC. The organisation claims that it is merely enforcing IWC rules. In February 1994, IWC Secretary, Ray Gambell, declared to NTB (the Norwegian Telegram Agency) that the IWC and all its member states ardently condemn Sea Shepherd’s acts of terrorism.

Sea Shepherd's Record of Violence

Much more here:

http://contradicere3.wordpress.com/2...olent-history/

how many species need to be put on the brink for common sense to prevail over mere profit.

The Minke are not endangered.

The Sea Shepherds are merely doing what the worlds navies should be doing.

They should be jailed for their terrorist acts.

Wait...Sea Shepard possesses a ship that has operational cannons?

Originally Posted by zraver

The Sea Shepherds are merely doing what the worlds navies should be doing.

Sinking Sea Shepard ships?

Holland tables bill to deflag violent antiwhalers' ships
BRUSSELS, Feb. 5 KYODO
Kyodo News - Story
The Dutch government has submitted a bill that would empower it to strip violent antiwhaling environmentalists of the registry of their ships, following violent protests against Japanese whalers by Dutch-registered ships of the U.S. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, according to government and parliamentary sources.