Saving the whales is a dangerous business

For me, the fact that the vermin kept spraying the Ady Gil even after ramming it is proof enough of their guilt. They should all hang, every last whaler.

The spraying does clinch it; that was attempted murder.

The Sea Shepherd's next investment should be a submarine. With torpedoes.

But hey, if you're going to harass a Japanese whaler, sooner or later, someone's going to get hurt.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean, or even the entire post, which sounds like you're just bored. Why are you blogging on a subject you apparently have no interest in?

Very intriguing. I commend the courage of those who protect whales. I'm willing to spare the whaler who took and released the video footage.

Can anyone confirm if the distant boat shown at the beginning of the whaler's footage is the boat from which the 2nd video is taken? I've been trying to determine if the apparent turn to port of the whaler, as seen from the second video, could be a parallax from either that boat's movement or the Andy Gil's. The wake suggests this boat was going left and forward so that any parallax would open the space between the whaler and the Andy Gil's wake doesn't suggest much speed though the direction would be toward the path of the whale. Notice the Andy Gil's wake as it was hit, suggesting it's being accelorated.

I can, however, believe that the hind water gunner may not have seen the condition of the Andy Gil till after it came into range.
jg

It's a difficult ethical situation. What the whalers are doing is technically legal according to their country's laws. And by technical definitions the Sea Shepherds are committing piracy every time they attempt to interfere with operations or board the Japanese ships. Keep in mind that the Sea Shepherds have caused physical harm, and even scuttled, ships in the past; motivating Japanese sailors to defend their ships more vigorously. To my eyes it is unclear which boat was at fault, or if the rear water gunner knew their condition.

The true villain here, in my humble opinion, is the captain. Most of the crew is very green, often on only their first or second tour at sea. These well meaning people have absolutely no business (experience wise) attempting the dangerous stunts they pull on a regular basis in those freezing waters. And yet the captain pushes them hard without sufficient safety precautions or training, often making decisions that endanger his small boat crews even more. Sooner or later his recklessness and poor leadership is going to get good people killed.

It's pretty clear from the second POV the whaler turned into the cat. It is also pretty clear from both videos that the guys on the cat were blinded by the water cannon and could not see the whaler turning into them. Had the whaler not turned there probably would have been no collision. In fact the rules of way demand that the whaler should have turned away, or at least maintained course, not turned into the other vessel.

That the whaler continued with the cannon against an obviously disabled vessel, leaking its contents into the water and already sinking, and with people on board desperately trying to save themselves, is an unconscionable act of premeditated attempted murder.

Hey I'm all for saving the whales, but if a jet-black, x-wing fighter shaped, attack boat flying the fricking Jolly Roger heads for my trawler I'm probably gonna ram the thing too.

That boat looks like some kid from Van Nuys that had watched too much Battle Star Gallactica drew it up in 8th grade study hall.

There must be a better way to get the Japanese to give up whale meat.

"What the whalers are doing is technically legal according to their country's laws."

And patently illegal under international law, which, since they're not in japanese waters, trumps whatever nonsense is going on in tokyo.

"And by technical definitions the Sea Shepherds are committing piracy every time they attempt to interfere with operations or board the Japanese ships."

They're attempting to stop the illegal murder of these whales. Calling them "pirates" is akin to criticizing someone for preventing a madman from dashing a baby's head against a rock.

"The true villain here, in my humble opinion, is the captain."

No, the true villains here are the vermin whalers and their supporters. No one else.

Unfortunately, Japan is utterly culturally mired in whale meat and shit. So are the Scandinavian countries.

Frankly, I'd have found a way to fuck up their harpoons.

Woody Tanaka,

"Calling them 'pirates' is akin to criticizing someone for preventing a madman from dashing a baby's head against a rock."

Really? Why then are they flying the Jolly Roger and plastering it all over their boat if they're not pirates? They have boarded and scuttled ships. This is by definition piracy.

Again I'm all in favor of stopping the whaling trade but there is no doubt that these guys are trying to stop the whalers by illegal means. If the whalers are violating international law then there should be some law enforcement agency charged with stopping them.

Self-righteous rich kids in silly jet fighter shaped pirate attack boats don't have the right to endanger the sailors on the whaling ships any more than bible crazed anti-abortion nuts have the right to disrupt or bomb abortion clinics.

Indeed is telling that you used the analogy of killing babies to defend these twerps.

Lots of strange arguments here.
The rules of the sea state that a vessel should give way to another vessel on its starboard. By this strict definition, the whaler was at fault.
However, both vessels are supposed to take reasonable actions to avoid a collision - and its clear they were both harassing each other and therefore were not following this law of the sea and were both at fault.
Also, smaller vessels which are more manoueverable are supposed to give way to large vessels. By this definition, the batboat was at fault.
So really, if you want to look at the legal circumstances etc, they were probably both at fault, with the more legal 'fault' applied to the whaler. However, the people in the batboat are not law enforcement personnel, and notwithstanding their desire to protest about what they perceive as illegal activity, they had no right harassing a larger vessel and probably deserved what the got.
It doesn't matter what 'side' of this issue you are on. Given the circumstances of this issue, I am going to suggest you can't blame the whalers for this incident (and no, I am not pro-whaling).

Self-righteous rich kids in silly jet fighter shaped pirate attack boats don't have the right to endanger the sailors on the whaling ships any more than bible crazed anti-abortion nuts have the right to disrupt or bomb abortion clinics.

Not sure why you assume they're self-righteous rich kids, or why you think the boat's silly-looking (it was previously named the "Earthrace" and happens to hold the world record for circumnavigation of the globe by powerboat, lowering the record from 74 to 60 days, despite problems with delamination of its composite propellers) ...

But I agree with your assessment of Sea Shepard's tactics. They're a spin-off of Greenpeace, started because Greenpeace's refusing to engage in essentially pirate tactics pissed them off. So they got their own boats and began much more forceful (and illegal) harassment tactics. Counterproductive, IMO.

I'm curious to know the results of the research. Is whale meat, in fact, yummy? Only consisted scientific study of that important question can lead to any meaningful answer.

dhogaza,

The boat looks silly to me because;

1) It is jet black, not a very good color for a boat unless you are trying to get run into by other boats.

2) It has what look to be wings protruding from the back, not very useful for a boat with a top speed of 46 mph.

3) It is flying the Jolly Roger and painted with several skull and cross bones.

I did read up on the vessel and you're right it did set a world record but I doubt the silly looking bits helped much.

I assume that most of its crew must be financially well off because who else could spend months chasing whaling ships around the antarctic in the batboat. Of course in true pirate tradition they may have been conscripted into service at the end of a cutlass.

I assumed they were young because I can't see anybody over thirty thinking this was a dignified or rational pursuit.

The young, god bless them, are so full of misplaced enthusiasm. Mind you I'm on their side as far as not killing whales but playing chicken with Japanese whaling ships and hurling stink bombs while wearing Ninja suits probably isn't going to get the job done.

Did anyone catch tonight's South Park? It made fun of our intrepid pirates, and the Japanese. In the end it mocked the idea that eating whales is any more or less immoral than eating cows and chickens.

In the end it mocked the idea that eating whales is any more or less immoral than eating cows and chickens.

Sure - I mean, we've driven cows and chickens right to the brink of extinction too, haven't we?

"Really? Why then are they flying the Jolly Roger and plastering it all over their boat if they're not pirates?"

They also have the word "Shepherd" in their name and a crook in their logo, but, shockingly, there actions have nothing to do with sheep or shepherding. (Are you so lacking in basic cultural awareness that you are wholly ignorant of public relations?)

"They have boarded and scuttled ships. This is by definition piracy."

Wrong. Piracy is defined in part by taking a criminal action. Since the vermin in the whaling ships are violating international law, they are the criminals. Private enforcement of those laws is not piracy.

"Again I'm all in favor of stopping the whaling trade but there is no doubt that these guys are trying to stop the whalers by illegal means."

Yes, there is doubt. In fact, it is pretty clear that they are not doing anything by "illegal means." The Australians have investigated the actions of the Sea Shephards based on diplomatic complaints from the scum in Tokyo who protect these whaling vermin. If it was so clear, as you seem to suggest, that the Sea Shephards were acting illegally, don't you think that the Australians would have figured it out by now?

I know it might be tough, figuring out exactly what the Sea Shephards are up to. I mean, this situation would require the Australilan investigative services to employ radical, Sherlock-Holmes-style investigation techniques, such as turning on a television. But I think they probably would have figured that out by now.

"If the whalers are violating international law then there should be some law enforcement agency charged with stopping them."

LMAO. I'm sure you're going to be sitting at your computer, mouth all agape, when you learn that the nations of the world have yet to create an international police force to enforce these laws. Shocking, I know. Another stunner in the fact that an economically powerful nation, Japan, has done everything in its power to eliminate any effective enforcement mechanisms from the international laws against whaling that do exist.

So much for the idea that the Sea Shephards could have just called "911" and the UN anti-whaling police would have come over the horizon, with flashing lights and sirens all a-blazing.

"In the end it mocked the idea that eating whales is any more or less immoral than eating cows and chickens."

Cows and chickens are endangered species. True story.

Thanks for the legal clarifications orion!

No need to be so aggressive Woody. No one here is pro-whaling. But, the sailors making ends meat on the Japanese ships are not doing anything wrong according to the cultural norms and local laws that define them. The world isn't black and white and sometimes good people do bad things.

The issue is Woody, that the Sea Shepherds are acting like pirates. We reject vigilantism in modern society because it is law enforcement without oversight.

The reason I dislike the captain most of all is because he is putting bright, idealistic kids that want to make the world a better place, into situations that they do not have adequate training for, and consistently makes decisions that increase the danger his crew are in. I don't want to see well meaning people get killed because of his poor leadership. I'm sorry but human lives matter more to me than slowing a whaling operation.

2) It has what look to be wings protruding from the back, not very useful for a boat with a top speed of 46 mph.

More like 57 mph, and I wouldn't automatically assume vertical stabilizers are stupid. They certainly simplify airplane design.

Companies like Siemens were involved in the project, I'd say there's a pretty good chance the engineers involved in the boat's creation knows what they were doing.

I assume that most of its crew must be financially well off because who else could spend months chasing whaling ships around the antarctic in the batboat.

...

I assumed they were young

Well, I've worked with many young, non-wealthy field biologists who volunteer for months of field work for nothing more than a bus ticket and all the rice and beans you can eat, living in tents at 9,000 feet in the midst of a wilderness study area.

They do it because it's challenging, interesting, adventurous, and even a bit dangerous (I know seven volunteers who, over the years, have been jingle-jangled by ground current caused by lightning strikes, and there have been many, many more close calls).

Some people have a passion for the outdoors and adventure and don't mind living out of the back of a 20 year-old toyota or datsun station wagon or light pickup for a few years before settling down and (in the case of many of my young volunteer co-workers) returning to graduate school and a much more typical career working for the USF&W or state fish and game or going on to an academic position babysitting graduate students.

Now, it's possible that Sea Shepard only accepts volunteers who can pay expenses, but it's also possible that they don't. If I were in my twenties and believed in their tactics, I'd sign up myself (I don't approve of their tactics, as it turns out).

The young, god bless them, are so full of misplaced enthusiasm.

And some of the old, god bless you, are so full of misplaced science denialism ...

Mind you I'm on their side as far as not killing whales but playing chicken with Japanese whaling ships and hurling stink bombs while wearing Ninja suits probably isn't going to get the job done.

I already said I agree with you on this point. Don't push it to the point where I change my mind ...

Wrong. Piracy is defined in part by taking a criminal action. Since the vermin in the whaling ships are violating international law, they are the criminals. Private enforcement of those laws is not piracy.

International law permits lethal research studies on whales, and leaves it up to individual countries to define "research".

So they're not in violation of the international treaty on whaling. They certainly are violating the *spirit* of the treaty, and when it was written no one imagined that any country would use the research exception as cover for barely-veiled commercial whaling.

But the fact of the matter is that they've discovered a major loophole in the treaty, have blocked IWC action to invalidate their interpretation (by buying votes of smaller countries, in part), etc.

At least at this point they're largely restricting their harvesting to minke whales, which still have healthy populations. Thank God for small favors, or whatever.

I oppose whaling. But the treaty is what it is.

I wonder whether all the people who are supporting the Sea Shephard activities are also in favour of other vigilantes, because that's exactly what they are. Do you also support the 'minuteman' who patrol the US-Mexico border to prevent illegal immigrants? Do you support the 'lynching' of supposed offenders who haven't yet been tried in court?
I don't care whether or not you support or oppose whaling - it doesn't matter. But I for one am not in favour of people taking it upon themselves to go around deciding what is or isn't legal, and then acting as judge, jury and executioner of the supposed offenders. If the whalers are committing an illegal act, that is up to international courts to decide and to take appropriate action. Anyone who commits an illegal act to stop what they consider to be another illegal act is just as guilty as the supposed original offender, have no moral credibility, and deserve to be punished too. Sort of like locking 'terrorists' up in an offshore prison and torturing them.

@Orion. You can't really call them vigilantes because there is nobody who enforces law in international waters.

It's also worth noting that the Ady Gil had ran out of fuel and wasn't moving at all. I don't really see how there can be any doubt who is at fault given those circumstances. It can't move and the Japanese boat can...

It seems that many here really aren't too familiar with the Sea Shepherd.

It was started by Paul Watson who was a co-founder of Greenpeace here in Vancouver, he did leave as he did have a different vision of how to achieve his ends. I agree, his tactics are rather controversial.

The Sea Shepherd foundation does run entirely from volunteers (who have a pretty wide range of ages), but does NOT ask its volunteers for a certain amount of money. They ask the general public for donations - anything from money, food, gear, and yes, even boats or other vehicles, as is clear on their website. Having seen their movie "At the Edge of the World" I can say that some of their volunteers are young, but not all. Many are taking leave of work as teachers, etc. They CERTAINLY are not all wealthy.

I have also seen sea shepherd featured in 'the cove', and in 'sharkwater'. The sea shepherd is involved in more than just Japanese whaling, they are involved in dolphin drives, shark finning, and protection of the Galapagos. Their efforts do extend to more, as is clear on their website.

I believe Paul Watson is trying to bring about awareness to whaling and to the alarming lack of international law or enforcement to protect these animals. What the Japanese do on many of these ships is frankly, terrible. I understand the argument that 'they are trying to make ends meet, etc', but they hunt for more than just minke whales.

They also hunt humpbacks, and fins, which are endangered.

I am not comforted by the fact that supposedly the minke populations are healthier. Healthier according to what? Compared to the many other depleted whale populations out there? It is thought today's numbers still aren't close to what they were in pre-historic whaling times.

In the movie 'the cove' there is footage that shows the Japanese whalers had created signs to show to the circling helicopters, signs which taunted the watchers - indicating an almost glee at catching these whales and their calves too. I'm sure not all fleets and boats share this sentiment, but it was made more than clear by one. That's more than just 'making ends meet'. Plus, on a more rational side, it's just not sustainable fishing, harpooning the calves.

I don't know that I have decided any one way if I agree with Paul Watson's tactics or not, but some see it as necessary, as any country that has tried to stand up to Japans whaling techniques gets threatened on a disgusting political and economical scale. No country CAN really stand up to Japan right now, not in a way that makes sense on that political and economic scale. So WHAT is to be done on the situation? No country is standing up, which is why the sea shepherd boats are in some cases forced to fly the jolly roger, because they can't put up the flag of a country, because no country can safely back them. They have consistently had trouble flying the flag of a country, as any country that tries to help them, gets screwed by Japan until they back out. It's well documented.

So for those with passion, and anger, and a deep sense of morality - what are they to do when they see hundreds of whales killed every year? (And again, they are not all young). How does one bring attention to the situation to thousands who might otherwise be apathetic?

Paul Watson believes he's found a way, for better or for worse. He's seen no one else really stepping up to protect these whales, and until it stays that way, he's going to be out there on his boats, I'm sure.

Are his tactics necessary? No. Does he need to be making the effort to ram other boats (they have a contraption they call 'the can opener')? No. I don't think so. His tactics I believe DO go too far. And in watching the sea shepherd documentary, I did walk away feeling very concerned about training, and protection of those volunteers. I didn't feel there was enough in place to adequately protect them. I DO believe they are quite lucky nothing too terrible has gone wrong for any of those volunteers (Paul Watson after all was shot at by one of the Japanese boats).

For many, they don't believe they have any other choice, and perhaps instead of calling "shame on them!" to anyone involved, we need to think about what went wrong in the beginning, between our governments, the UN, the IWC, etc that people feel the need to get in that situation. How did it get to be that whales could lack so much protection in the first place?

oh and please, quoting South Park doesn't get you anywhere - they make fun of everyone pretty equally, it doesn't help anyone's case. Especially because Paul Watson rather liked that episode of South Park...

@keely:
Just wanted to comment on the alleged "shooting incident":
I have sincere doubts this is real. It's rather questionable that the Japanese, on a moving ship, manage to hit the captain of another moving ship, in the short period that he goes outside to take a look. Also, it's quite special they manage to hit the only person on that other moving ship who's wearing a protective vest and ON that protective vest (and just above the heart).

Sorry, too many coincidences to sound credible. Otherwise they have an amazing shooter, who would take all medals at the olympics without even making an effort.

@ Mike
"The issue is Woody, that the Sea Shepherds are acting like pirates. We reject vigilantism in modern society because it is law enforcement without oversight."

This isn't vigilantism, because these vermin are violating international law in international water, so there is no law enforcement oversight. Private enforcement is not only permissible, but necessary under international law.

@dhogaza
"International law permits lethal research studies on whales, and leaves it up to individual countries to define 'research'."

The law establishing the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary outlawed all commercial whaling. It would be an absurdity -- and therefore not legally tenable -- to read the law as absolutely banning commercial whaling in toto, but permitting any government to engage in full-scale commercial whaling so long as they paint "Research" on their sides and so long as the little cockroaches on the decks of the killing ships held up cardboard signs whenever someone flew by to photograph the slaughter.

Given the fact that these vermin are engaged in large scale commercial whaling and the "research" they have claimed to have done has amounted to nothing, no one but a fool would conclude that they aren't blatently violating the treaty and giving the finger to the rest of the world.

@Keely
"How did it get to be that whales could lack so much protection in the first place?"

Because there are certain countires and govenments in this world filed with enough immoral scum, like Japan, Norway, and, unfortunately, the US, who don't give a damn about these manificent creatures and won't act to stop the slaughter. Unfortunatly, there are far too many people who are content to navel gaze about the procedural and legal niceties of the nonsense, and are therefore objectively pro-whaling and give cover to the killers.

@Marco
"I have sincere doubts this is real. It's rather questionable that the Japanese, on a moving ship, manage to hit the captain of another moving ship, in the short period that he goes outside to take a look."

Well, it's a ship full of people who fire weapons from a moving platform at other moving objects; they murder whales for a living, so I can't imagine killing a human would matter to the bastards; and they would benefit from Watson being dead. So unless there is any evidence that this is anything but true, I'll just assume that these maggots did take a shot at him.

A factual error in the above posts is one of observation.

The Andy Gil is accelerating forward to under the whaler's prou when it gets hit. You can tell clearly by its wake. We don't know what they were thinking.

@Woody

It is sad, but true that the international law about whaling is so weak. Each country is allowed to define "research" and "commerce," and I believe you are even compelled to use as much of the whale as possible (ie the meat) when you kill for research.

If what you say is true, that international law allows for private enforcement, then that is in just as dire need of change as the whaling treaties. Private enforcement of law is never a good idea. Law enforcement has strict oversight policies for a reason, and if we're back to the days of privateers then same on us for our poor ability to govern.

"The issue is Woody, that the Sea Shepherds are acting like pirates. We reject vigilantism in modern society because it is law enforcement without oversight."

This isn't vigilantism, because these vermin are violating international law in international water, so there is no law enforcement oversight. Private enforcement is not only permissible, but necessary under international law.

"The issue is Woody, that the Sea Shepherds are acting like pirates. We reject vigilantism in modern society because it is law enforcement without oversight."

This isn't vigilantism, because these vermin are violating international law in international water, so there is no law enforcement oversight. Private enforcement is not only permissible, but necessary under international law.

Given the fact that these vermin are engaged in large scale commercial whaling and the "research" they have claimed to have done has amounted to nothing, no one but a fool would conclude that they aren't blatently violating the treaty and giving the finger to the rest of the world.

As I said, they discovered a giant loophole in the treaty. Even vermin are allowed to follow the law. You can rant and rave and say it's illegal to your heart's content, but it won't change facts any more than ranting at the sea will change the tides.

The proper thing, of course, is to work to strengthen the treaty. Efforts thus far have failed.

Yes, they're giving the world the finger - but, not in violation of international treaty.

David:

The Andy Gil is accelerating forward to under the whaler's prou when it gets hit. You can tell clearly by its wake. We don't know what they were thinking.

It looks to me that they were reacting to the whaler's turn to starboard, probably thinking that their accelerating forward combined with the whaler's turning might avoid the collision.

It then looks to me as though the whaler straightened, i.e. stopped its turn to starboard, and that the two actions together caused the collision.

Murder has a technical definition, and nothing you can do to a whale qualifies. And "willing to kill a whale = willing to kill a human" is as idiotic as me saying that since you eat plant matter you're willing to eat human babies.

@Mike
"If what you say is true, that international law allows for private enforcement, then that is in just as dire need of change as the whaling treaties."
Save the whales any way you want, be it private, governmental, whatever. Doesn't matter to me, as long as the whales are safe and the rats go scurrying back to Japan and Norway and wherever else their holes are.

@dhogaza

"As I said, they discovered a giant loophole in the treaty."

No, they didn't. What they've done is posit an interpretation of the law that would not only go against every tenet of legal interpretation, but does the act opposite of that which the law was designed to do. It is as if you cite to a statute outlawing murder to argue that the murder you committed is, in fact, legal. No one is bound by the Japanese interpretation, and all thinking people should reject it as absurd.

"The proper thing, of course, is to work to strengthen the treaty."

The proper thing would be for the United States or some similarly strong military nation to warn the whaling nations to stop whaling and, if they refuse, to blow the ships from the water.

@Paul
"Murder has a technical definition, and nothing you can do to a whale qualifies."
LOL Then I'll just use my own private definition of "murder" just like the Japanese whaler vermin use their own private definition of "research" and it'll be all fine...

Then I'll just use my own private definition...

It's clear you use your own private definition of many things, as does Paul Watson.

That's fine, but ... remember ... do the crime, serve the time.

@Woody:
A ship full of people shooting? They had camera's on the Sea Shepherd, and NONE recorded anyone shooting, EVER. Oh, and when they did NOT have camera's on the Sea Shepherd, they never hit anything? Sorry, way too many coincidences.

Also, if they were shooting so much, there must have been plenty of bullet holes all over the Sea Shepherd. Again, the one shot they could show off was one that happened to hit the one person who was supposedly briefly outside and who wore a bulletproof vest.

Whatever the unscrupulous nature of the Japanese whalers, when they shoot someone there are no loopholes in international law.

Note also, and quite telling, that Watson never filed a complaint.

Having observed Sea Shepherd for several years, I would like to make the following comments:

*Sea Shepherd's ships do NOT fly the Jolly Rogers. Rather than crossed bones, the flag displays a trident and a shepherd's crook, symbolizing Neptune as a protector of the seas.
*According to several reports, the ship that rammed the Ady Gil was not a whaler but a Japanese "security escort", comparable perhaps to the bodyguard of a mafia boss. This would explain its incredible action.
*Whenever direct action is undertaken anywhere in the world, some people claim there must be other, better ways of achieving the aim. However, given the Japanese's pathologically brutal attitude towards cetaceans (or rather, the attitude of a tiny minority of Japanese society, viz. some fishermen and the mafia-backed, subsidy-receiving whaling fleet), other options have not succeeded in past decades. While former whaling nations such as
Brazil, Peru, Chile, Spain, and yes, even the Soviet Union, have shown consideration of world opinion and stopped whaling, Japan and to some degree also Norway and several indigenous communities have continued. None of them has been so unashamedly and cynically using "research" as a cover for illegal whaling.

It's been very interesting reading the comments here.

@gernot neuwirth:
While the flag is not exactly the same as the Jolly Roger (of which several variations exist), it CLEARLY is based on the standard Jolly Roger.

To add injury to insult:
http://www.seashepherd.org/
Put your mouse pointer on the flag (on the right under "get involved"). Read the name of the file...