JAPANESE whalers face the threat of their worst Antarctic season as conservation activists tighten their hold on the whaling fleet.

A fuel resupply that may be vital to keeping the fleet in the Southern Ocean was being thwarted by the Sea Shepherd activists, who have preoccupied the fleet.   :)

More than a fortnight into a shortened season, few, if any, whales are believed to have been killed. For the activists, the tantalising prospect is rising that for the first time in decades of protest, whaling will be effectively shut down.   :)


''We're doing pretty good at it,'' Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson said yesterday, ''even though we're not being as proactive as in other seasons.'   ;)'

Last summer the fleet killed 506 minkes and one fin whale, despite what the Institute of Cetacean Research said was 31 days of violent interruptions by Sea Shepherd.

This year the activists' attacks on whaling ships have been limited to skirmishes with flares, stink bombs and attempts to foul propellers with ropes, in contrast to the collisions that climaxed with last year's wreck of Sea Shepherd's fast boat, the Ady Gil.

Instead, the presence of Sea Shepherd's three-ship fleet and its beefed-up helicopter capacity is proving a match for a whaling fleet, which is reduced to four vessels - factory ship Nisshin Maru and three harpoon boats.

Since finding the fleet in pack ice south-east of New Zealand on New Year's Eve, perhaps hours after it arrived in the whaling grounds, Sea Shepherd's boats Steve Irwin and Bob Barker have been tagged by at least two of the three harpoon ships. The group's Australian-registered fast interceptor boat, Gojira, tried to reach a fleeing Nisshin Maru without success, but late on Wednesday found the Korean-owned tanker, Sun Laurel, inside Antarctic Treaty waters and close to the international dateline.

Captain Watson said the Sun Laurel's captain admitted being there to refuel the fleet, but said he had not been able to do so. Sea Shepherd was watching the Sun Laurel, and would block a refuelling attempt.

''I think they're desperate for fuel,'' Captain Watson said. ''As long as our ships can prevent any transfer, the fleet will not be able to extend their killing season beyond the first week in February.'' He believed the Nisshin Maru, informed by the harpoon ships, was staying out of helicopter range.

Sea Shepherd's larger ships, which chose not to engage in a fuel-burning pursuit of the Nisshin Maru, have enough in their tanks for the Steve Irwin to stay in the Antarctic into February, and Bob Barker into March.   :)

The Institute of Cetacean Research does not comment on the fleet's movements, and made no statement on the Sun Laurel. It has repeatedly called for Australia to stop condoning the group's actions.

Quote:

Captain Watson said the Sun Laurel's captain admitted being there to refuel the fleet, but said he had not been able to do so. Sea Shepherd was watching the Sun Laurel, and would block a refuelling attempt.

Idiots. I hope they get sunk again.

seems that whaling is becoming more expensive for the japs. I wonder what the break even point is before they throw in the towel ;)

These Sea Shepherd fcukwits are doing the cause far more harm than good.

How so?

Hey still seem to be well supported.

They will have more polarised support from a shrinking support base, as you would expect with extremists.

Not everyone supports piracy on the open seas in the name of recently acquired cultural taboos.

No they don't, but most currently against them won't change regardless of what they do.

So Sea Shepherd is having more effect in stopping the illegal whaling activity of the Japanese.

So donating is a good investment

http://www.seashepherd.org/support-us/

Yes Green that is right.  What a good and very worthwhile cause it is.  Please send your donations in.   :)  

Quote:

No they don't, but most currently against them won't change regardless of what they do.

Plenty of people are changing their minds, because Sea Shepherd is forcing people to actually think about whaling for the first time in a few decades. Not sure what their 'endgame' is, but they seem to have deluded themselves into thinking there is a strategic benefit to their actions. Maybe they only care about short term donations and will move onto the next big taboo once they have destroyed the anti-whaling movement. Or maybe they hope that their actions will result in more whaling in the long term, so they can push people into even more extreme acts.

Infarction wrote on Jan 16^th, 2011 at 7:07am:

How so? Hey still seem to be well supported.

The tactics they are using are dangerous and contravene a number of internationally agreed laws regarding safe navigation and avoidance of collision at sea. Should anyone die as result of these tactics, Sea Shepherd will be solely responsible.  They have already lost one vessel through unsafe navigation and were lucky no one was killed then. Even Greenpeace disowns them and their tactics and they are costing the anti whaling movement the moral high ground.

Say next year because of these tactics Japan decides to send a couple of warships to escort the whaling fleet. What then? Does Australia respond in kind? There is then the prospect of a Southern Ocean version of the Cod War erupting, the potential for serious loss of life and very damaged relations between Australia and Japan.

All in your opinion of course and I appreciate the non massively sensationalised responses..

They are doing incredibly stupid and dangerous things in antarctic waters and telling everyone about it, thinking they have the moral high ground. There is no need to sensationalise that. It is only the good grace of the Japanese that is keeping this from turinging into a disaster.

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2011 at 9:11pm:

They are doing incredibly stupid and dangerous things in antarctic waters and telling everyone about it, thinking they have the moral high ground. There is no need to sensationalise that. It is only the good grace of the Japanese that is keeping this from turinging into a disaster.

The Japanese gracious?

You have to many air bubbles in you brain.

They are putting up with a lot of crap and illegal activity from Sea Shepherd. If they wanted to be nasty about it they could kill the lot of them and get away with it. Instead they are hoping Australia will come to it's senses and reign them in before any lives are lost.

Lets not forget that they arn't exactly playing by the rules either. Simply putting "research" on your boat doesn't make it so.

In any case, asides from the japanese ramming them last season there isn't too much going other than some butter bombs being thrown at them.

For the record, i am not against whaling as such. I am against them taking endangered whales which they have quotas for and as such have no issue with what the SS are doing.

Whale wars is also an interesting show to watch at times.

GREENPEACE STATEMENT - SEA SHEPHERD.


Paul Watson has made many public requests for Greenpeace to reveal the location of the whaling fleet or otherwise cooperate with Sea Shepherd in the Southern Ocean when the ships of both organizations have been there simultaneously.

We passionately want to stop whaling, and will do so peacefully. That's why we won't help Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace is committed to non-violence and we'll never, ever, change that; not for anything. If we helped Sea Shepherd to find the whaling fleet we'd be responsible for anything they did having got that information, and history shows that they've used violence in the past, in the most dangerous seas on Earth. For us, non-violence is a non-negotiable, precious principle. Greenpeace will continue to act to defend the whales, but will never attack or endanger the whalers.

We differ with Paul Watson on what constitutes violence. He states that nobody has ever been harmed by a Sea Shepherd action.  But the test of non-violence is the nature of your action, not whether harm results or not.  There are many acts of violence -- for example, holding a gun to someone's head -- which result in no harm.  That doesn't change their nature. We believe that throwing butryic acid at the whalers, dropping cables to foul their props, and threatening to ram them in the freezing waters of the Antarctic constitutes violence because of the potential consequences. The fact that the consequences have not been realized is irrelevant.

In addition to being morally wrong, we believe the use of violence in protection of whales to be a tactical error. If there's one way to harden Japanese public opinion and ensure whaling continues, it's to use violent tactics against their fleet. It's wrong because it puts human lives at risk, and it's wrong because it makes the whalers stronger in Japan.

Disabling a ship at sea in the Antarctic, regardless of how much one may object to its activities, is not only a callous act of disregard for human life -- it's courting an environmental disaster in one of the most fragile environments in the world.

Such tactics are not only dangerous to the whalers, they are dangerous to the cause of stopping Japanese whaling. Our political analysis is unequivocal: if Japanese whaling is to be stopped, it will be stopped by a domestic decision within the Japanese government to do so.   That's why we have invested heavily in a Greenpeace office in Japan and efforts to speak directly to the Japanese public -- 70 percent of whom are unaware that whaling takes place in the Southern Ocean at all.  A majority of those who are aware of the whaling program, oppose it.   Support for whaling in Japan has been steadily falling for the last decade. Consumption of whale meat is in decline, the cost of the program to taxpayers is being questioned by the business community, and the political costs of the program have created opposition in the Foreign Affairs department in Japan.  All of this progress could be undone by a nationalist backlash.  By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end.

We've got fairly thick skins here at Greenpeace.  When you challenge powerful forces, you need to be ready to put up with accusations of ulterior motives and hidden agendas. What's unfortunate is when we have to spend time countering friendly fire -- attacks by an organization that shares the same goals as we do.  We don't mind robust disagreements, but we do object to falsehoods.

Paul Watson has claimed that Greenpeace goes to the Antarctic merely to film whales being killed, to wave banners and to bear witness to their deaths -- but does nothing to save them.

This is untrue

Quote:

In any case, asides from the japanese ramming them last season there isn't too much going other than some butter bombs being thrown at them.

You forget the attempts to incapacitate and possibly sink large ships full of employees in antarctic waters. I'm surprised the Japanese haven't gunned them all down already. They are taking big risks with their own lives by letting Sea Shepherd carry on as they are. Possibly the only thing saving the Sea Shepherd people is their incompetence. Sooner or later someone is going to get killed and Sea Shepherd is going to cop the blame for that.


Quote:

For the record, i am not against whaling as such. I am against them taking endangered whales which they have quotas for and as such have no issue with what the SS are doing.

The Japanese are hunting Minke whales in the southern ocean. These whales are not endangered.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 16^th, 2011 at 4:25pm:

They have already lost one vessel through unsafe navigation and were lucky no one was killed then.

You are Joking right?

They were stationary and got mown down by a large ship which turned directly towards them when it had been on a safe course and clearly going to pass by a large distance.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 8:54pm:

Quote: The Japanese are hunting Minke whales in the southern ocean. These whales are not endangered. The IWC have them catagarised as unknown. (they do not know if they are endangered or not). [quote]"This data is then combined with information from high-definition video cameras, a high-resolution digital stills camera and an infrared camera installed in the base of the aircraft to detect whales hidden from view by the ice, helping provide a really comprehensive analysis of minke whales in the pack ice and their use of various pack-ice habitats." Dr Nick Gales, Leader of the Australian Marine Mammal Centre said ship-based surveys in the Southern Ocean over the past two decades had found increasing evidence of a possible decline in minke whale abundance. "The IWC has been counting whales in the Southern Ocean since 1978 and evidence of a decline was obviously of increasing concern. However it is difficult to know whether the decline is genuine or if it is due to the limitations of the ship-based survey technique.

Looks like something is impacting on the number of Minke whales - gee I wonder what it could be.

You go out counting Whales and the Japanese have killed about 10,000 of them in the period and you are progressivly counting less and less.

Someone get on the phone I think we need a rocket scientist to put these numbers together.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 8:54pm:

Quote: In any case, asides from the japanese ramming them last season there isn't too much going other than some butter bombs being thrown at them. You forget the attempts to incapacitate and possibly sink large ships full of employees in antarctic waters. I'm surprised the Japanese haven't gunned them all down already. They are taking big risks with their own lives by letting Sea Shepherd carry on as they are. Possibly the only thing saving the Sea Shepherd people is their incompetence. Sooner or later someone is going to get killed and Sea Shepherd is going to cop the blame for that. [quote]For the record, i am not against whaling as such. I am against them taking endangered whales which they have quotas for and as such have no issue with what the SS are doing.

The Japanese are hunting Minke whales in the southern ocean. These whales are not endangered.[/quote]

Do you specialise in only telling someparts of a story?

Their quota also contains fin whales which last time i checked were endangered and until recently they were hunting hump back whales but they backed down on these due to mounting  about that issue

Freediver.

---

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 11:08pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 8:54pm: Quote: The Japanese are hunting Minke whales in the southern ocean. These whales are not endangered. The IWC have them catagarised as unknown. (they do not know if they are endangered or not). [quote]"This data is then combined with information from high-definition video cameras, a high-resolution digital stills camera and an infrared camera installed in the base of the aircraft to detect whales hidden from view by the ice, helping provide a really comprehensive analysis of minke whales in the pack ice and their use of various pack-ice habitats." Dr Nick Gales, Leader of the Australian Marine Mammal Centre said ship-based surveys in the Southern Ocean over the past two decades had found increasing evidence of a possible decline in minke whale abundance. "The IWC has been counting whales in the Southern Ocean since 1978 and evidence of a decline was obviously of increasing concern. However it is difficult to know whether the decline is genuine or if it is due to the limitations of the ship-based survey technique. Looks like something is impacting on the number of Minke whales - gee I wonder what it could be. You go out counting Whales and the Japanese have killed about 10,000 of them in the period and you are progressivly counting less and less. Someone get on the phone I think we need a rocket scientist to put these numbers together.

DNA - Do you agree/disagree with Greenpeace's statement?

There must be something seriously afoot when Greenpeace has to come out and defend its position and criticise Sea Shepherd does there not?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 9:17am:

DNA - Do you agree/disagree with Greenpeace's statement?

I do not fully agree or disagree with either but less so with the whale poachers.

However Sea Sheppherd have had an impact which the people who should be responsible have been too gutless to take on.

.

Quote:

The IWC have them catagarised as unknown. (they do not know if they are endangered or not).

The IWC is a political body. If you want to know whether an animal is endangered, check with the IUCN. They are the relevant authority.


Quote:

You go out counting Whales and the Japanese have killed about 10,000 of them in the period and you are progressivly counting less and less.

Dna, you posted the evidence. Try reading it for yourself. This is what it says:


Quote:

ship-based surveys in the Southern Ocean over the past two decades had found increasing evidence of a possible decline in minke whale abundance

Quote:

Their quota also contains fin whales which last time i checked

OK infarction, your turn to decide what to do about this. Your choices are:

1) Turn the IWC into a political body that is fundamentally opposed to any form of whaling and which drives the whaling nations out into the wilderness.

2) Turn the IWC into a body that sustainably manages the commercial whale harvest.

You can't have it both ways.

I have already said i am not against whaling. I am against endangered whales being taken and if it is to be started again it has to be done sustainably and not how it has been done in the past.

I am not confident that they can do it though without greed and stupidity taking over again.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 10:03pm:

Dna, you posted the evidence. Try reading it for yourself. This is what it says:


Quote:

ship-based surveys in the Southern Ocean over the past two decades had found increasing evidence of a possible decline in minke whale abundance

Do you not think that a hunted species showing a decline goes to sustainability.

If you read it all you find that their doubt is a bit unreasonable, they say doubt is attributed to the method when the methods are the same as 30 years ago and just getting lower and lower results.

I would think the opposite improved technology over the time should have produced more accurate results.

I would think that the line that they will measure the whales under the ice would invalidate the comparison as they were probably always there and not counted, so to add previously uncounted whales to the mix would only give a false impression of the impact of the whaling.

If you remove that rather unreasonable doubt from the mix then the statment becomes the Minke whale population is in decline due to the level of the Japanese catch and that the current situation is not sustainable.

Quote:

Do you not think that a hunted species showing a decline goes to sustainability.

What it shows is evidence of a 'possible' decline. In other words, the impact of the hunting on the numbers is barely detectable. There are plenty of sustainable wild harvests around, but you would have a hard time finding a single one that has a barely detectable impact on the population, even though many of the animals involved are far harder to count than whales.


Quote:

If you read it all you find that their doubt is a bit unreasonable

Thanks, but I think I'll leave it to the experts.

freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 9:31pm:

What it shows is evidence of a 'possible' decline. In other words, the impact of the hunting on the numbers is barely detectable.

They are getting a clearly lower count with the same method.

They incorporate the word possible inferring the whales may have gone somewhere else - Like under the Ice.

I think much more probable that they are hiding in Japanese restaurants where they partisipate in scientific studies on taste & flavour.

They are now going to use methods to count the whales under the Ice but this clearly invalidates comparisons to past data as they do not know how many whales have always been under the ice.

Very clearly and obviously a less meaningfull indication of the population trend but a more accurate total count.

I would think a measure very likley to confirm the trend that has already been accuratly identified but it will take another 10 years.

We differ with Paul Watson on what constitutes violence. He states that nobody has ever been harmed by a Sea Shepherd action.  But the test of non-violence is the nature of your action, not whether harm results or not.  There are many acts of violence -- for example, holding a gun to someone's head -- which result in no harm.  That doesn't change their nature. We believe that throwing butryic acid at the whalers, dropping cables to foul their props, and threatening to ram them in the freezing waters of the Antarctic constitutes violence because of the potential consequences. The fact that the consequences have not been realized is irrelevant.

In addition to being morally wrong, we believe the use of violence in protection of whales to be a tactical error. If there's one way to harden Japanese public opinion and ensure whaling continues, it's to use violent tactics against their fleet. It's wrong because it puts human lives at risk, and it's wrong because it makes the whalers stronger in Japan.

Disabling a ship at sea in the Antarctic, regardless of how much one may object to its activities, is not only a callous act of disregard for human life -- it's courting an environmental disaster in one of the most fragile environments in the world.

- GREENPEACE



Now somebody tell me anything is wrong with that, because that, in a nutshell, is also my view.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 20^th, 2011 at 7:50am:

freediver wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 9:31pm: What it shows is evidence of a 'possible' decline. In other words, the impact of the hunting on the numbers is barely detectable. They are getting a clearly lower count with the same method. They incorporate the word possible inferring the whales may have gone somewhere else - Like under the Ice. I think much more probable that they are hiding in Japanese restaurants where they partisipate in scientific studies on taste & flavour. They are now going to use methods to count the whales under the Ice but this clearly invalidates comparisons to past data as they do not know how many whales have always been under the ice. Very clearly and obviously a less meaningfull indication of the population trend but a more accurate total count. I would think a measure very likley to confirm the trend that has already been accuratly identified but it will take another 10 years.

You missed all the more salient points. We are arguing about whether or not the impact on the whale population is even detectable. Doesn't that indicate to you that sustainability is a non-issue?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 10:41pm:

Belgarion wrote on Jan 16th, 2011 at 4:25pm:  They have already lost one vessel through unsafe navigation and were lucky no one was killed then. You are Joking right? They were stationary and got mown down by a large ship which turned directly towards them when it had been on a safe course and clearly going to pass by a large distance.

You are not a seaman are you?

Belgarion wrote on Jan 20^th, 2011 at 11:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:41pm: Belgarion wrote on Jan 16th, 2011 at 4:25pm:  They have already lost one vessel through unsafe navigation and were lucky no one was killed then. You are Joking right? They were stationary and got mown down by a large ship which turned directly towards them when it had been on a safe course and clearly going to pass by a large distance. You are not a seaman are you?

I believe he is an armchair eco-warrior.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 20^th, 2011 at 11:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:41pm: Belgarion wrote on Jan 16th, 2011 at 4:25pm:  They have already lost one vessel through unsafe navigation and were lucky no one was killed then. You are Joking right? They were stationary and got mown down by a large ship which turned directly towards them when it had been on a safe course and clearly going to pass by a large distance. You are not a seaman are you?

if it's the incident i am thinking of they were stationary and the japanese ship deliberately tuned in their direction causing the collision to occur.

unsure why you would need to be a seaman to see what is wrong with that

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 21^st, 2011 at 11:35am:

Belgarion wrote on Jan 20th, 2011 at 11:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:41pm: Belgarion wrote on Jan 16th, 2011 at 4:25pm:  They have already lost one vessel through unsafe navigation and were lucky no one was killed then. You are Joking right? They were stationary and got mown down by a large ship which turned directly towards them when it had been on a safe course and clearly going to pass by a large distance. You are not a seaman are you? I believe he is an armchair eco-warrior.

I can see. normal use of eye sight is all that is required when it is so obvious.

Saturday, January 15, 2011
Riding a Storm in Pursuit of a Black-Hearted Sun
Day Seventeen since finding the Japanese whaling fleet, and it is a wee bit uncomfortable today after the whaling fleet supply vessel Sun Laurel decided to lead us into a storm to try and shake the Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin off its tail.

We are now over 300 miles north of the Antarctic Treaty Zone Boundary and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary as the Sun Laurel wanders northward and eastward hoping to unload her cargo of heavy fuel for the Nisshin Maru and diesel fuel for the harpoon vessels.

It is mystifying why the Korean captain thinks he can lose us in a storm. The Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin are far superior sea vessels than this tanker and the rolling of the supply ship has to be uncomfortable for her crew, far more uncomfortable than for the Sea Shepherd crews.   :)

Behind the two Sea Shepherd ships in plain sight are the Yushin Maru # 1 and Yushin Maru #2. Both of them are more than a day's steaming from the whaling grounds, and if they are not on the whaling grounds, they are not killing whales.   :)

The Bob Barker tracking the Sun LaurelThe Bob Barker tracking the Sun LaurelThe Gojira continues to hunt for the Nisshin Maru and the Yushin Maru #3. Captain Paul Watson has decided that the most effective tactic that can be implemented is to cut the Nisshin Maru off from her supplies. The Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin will be able to pursue the Sun Laurel for longer than the Nisshin Maru can survive without fuel.

The Nisshin Maru has four choices now: (1) quit whaling and return to Japan, (2) attempt to refuel with the Sun Laurel, (3) go to a distant port to refuel, or (4) find another tanker somewhere to refuel them and hope they are not discovered before they do so.

Option two will put them into a direct confrontation with the Sea Shepherd ships. Options three and four will cost them weeks of time.

Yesterday, the crew of the Steve Irwin were accompanied by a large pod of pilot whales.

The crews of both the Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin are in high spirits as this pursuit continues.   :)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 21^st, 2011 at 11:35am:

Belgarion wrote on Jan 20th, 2011 at 11:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:41pm: Belgarion wrote on Jan 16th, 2011 at 4:25pm:  They have already lost one vessel through unsafe navigation and were lucky no one was killed then. You are Joking right? They were stationary and got mown down by a large ship which turned directly towards them when it had been on a safe course and clearly going to pass by a large distance. You are not a seaman are you? I believe he is an armchair eco-warrior.

Actually, as I recall, the reason the Gil was stationary was because they had run out of fuel and were awaiting refueling from the Barker.  I'd agree that the Gil was a poor choice and should never have been sent to the Antarctic in the first place.

As far as SS's present activities, the last report from the Southern Ocean was on January 15, 2011 when they said they were following the Korean tanker-supply ship for the whaling fleet into a storm and being followed by two of the Japanese harpoon vessels.  Since then, there has been nothing except editorials by Watson and others that could have been written at any time.  You'd think there would have been a report by now on what happened in this past week.

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2011 at 9:52pm:

You missed all the more salient points. We are arguing about whether or not the impact on the whale population is even detectable. Doesn't that indicate to you that sustainability is a non-issue?

No you are the only one with that View - the impact has clearly been detected, The doubt expressed by the scientists is not if it is detectable - they have results showing a decline - the doubt they raise is if the Whales have gone somewhere else - like under the ice.

The fact is they are counting less Minke whales in the relevant area.

I would think that the count from under the ice would mean little without past data. to show how many whales were always there and to simply add these whales to the current count would be misleading.

The missing whales from the hunt area would without doubt be much more likely to have migrated to Japanese restaurants then under the Ice.

Which leaves the question of sustainability open to a nation with a history of pursuing  unsustainable fishing practices.

Quote:

Which leaves the question of sustainability open to a nation with a history of pursuing  unsustainable fishing practices.

So why is it you focus on arguing whether the impact on stocks is even detectable and ignore whether it is sustainable? Do you even have an opinion on the sustainability? I also asked you previously whether there are any other wild harvests where the scientists have such difficulty confirming whether there has been any impact at all on stocks. What does it tell you about the sustainability of the harvest if we can't even be sure whether stocks have declined?

Think about it.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 4:36pm:

So why is it you focus on arguing whether the impact on stocks is even detectable and ignore whether it is sustainable? Do you even have an opinion on the sustainability?

I have only mentioned detability in response to you statements, it was your focus.


freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 4:36pm:

I also asked you previously whether there are any other wild harvests where the scientists have such difficulty confirming whether there has been any impact at all on stocks.

I do not remember that Q and I have no idea but would assume the answer would be yes if I thought their was a problem in this case.

In this case progressive counts have been getting lower results in an area where about 10,000 whales have migrated to Japanese Restaurants. The conclusion is very obvious even though you would prefer to not believe it.



freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 4:36pm:

What does it tell you about the sustainability of the harvest if we can't even be sure whether stocks have declined?

In any species repetitive counts showing a reduction in numbers in a given area where there is a hunt would indicate an unsustainable situation.

In the US when the Bison were in decline people may have assumed that they had migrated to Canada or to other areas. In the case of Antarctic whales they are hiding under the ICE?

Quote:

I do not remember that Q and I have no idea but would assume the answer would be yes if I thought their was a problem in this case.

So it would be easy for you to give an example?


Quote:

In any species repetitive counts showing a reduction in numbers in a given area where there is a hunt would indicate an unsustainable situation.

Not necessarily. Do the scientists involved claim any implications for sustainability, or this yet another example of you thinking you know better without doing any actual research?


Quote:

In the case of Antarctic whales they are hiding under the ICE?

If whales are as intelligent as people make out, this is a very real possibility given that there are ships trying to kill them.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 5:15pm:

Quote: I do not remember that Q and I have no idea but would assume the answer would be yes if I thought their was a problem in this case. So it would be easy for you to give an example?.

Clearly not what I said.


freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 5:15pm:

Quote: In any species repetitive counts showing a reduction in numbers in a given area where there is a hunt would indicate an unsustainable situation Not necessarily. Do the scientists involved claim any implications for sustainability, or this yet another example of you thinking you know better without doing any actual research?.

Let me see - we have a process which appears to be causing a reduction in numbers of stock.

As long as the process continues as is the numbers would continue to decline

This decline would slow as the stock numbers approached Zero.

I.E obviously sustainable.


freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 5:15pm:

Quote: In the case of Antarctic whales they are hiding under the ICE? If whales are as intelligent as people make out, this is a very real possibility given that there are ships trying to kill them.

So half of them swim up to the ship to have a look and the rest are hiding under the ice?  So the Japanese only eat stupid whale, thats ok then.

Quote:

Clearly not what I said.

So you assume that wild harvests become unsustainable despite scientists being unable to tell whether the population had even declined, even though you cannot think of a single example? In that case, please explain your assumption?


Quote:

Let me see - we have a process which appears to be causing a reduction in numbers of stock.

No. We have a process that either has started to cause a reduction, or has for some unfathomable (to you) reason, caused the whales to hide from ships.


Quote:

As long as the process continues as is the numbers would continue to decline

Can you explain the logic behind that?

Quote:

This decline would slow as the stock numbers approached Zero. I.E obviously sustainable.

This too please.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 21^st, 2011 at 12:16pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 21st, 2011 at 11:35am: Belgarion wrote on Jan 20th, 2011 at 11:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:41pm: Belgarion wrote on Jan 16th, 2011 at 4:25pm:  They have already lost one vessel through unsafe navigation and were lucky no one was killed then. You are Joking right? They were stationary and got mown down by a large ship which turned directly towards them when it had been on a safe course and clearly going to pass by a large distance. You are not a seaman are you? I believe he is an armchair eco-warrior. I can see. normal use of eye sight is all that is required when it is so obvious.

I could attempt to explain the situation in laymans terms but I doubt you would be receptive to the facts, as they would interfere with your pre-conceptions.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 11:09pm:

I could attempt to explain the situation in laymans terms but I doubt you would be receptive to the facts, as they would interfere with your pre-conceptions.

I believe that the inverse is true


This shows the vision from the BoB Barker and the Maru2 - which both clearly show the Maru going to miss by a long way and then turn into the Ady Gill.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Qyrd27kvU&feature=related


Vision from the Ady Gill Shows the same thing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brw6JN0lQXY&feature=related

It is difficult to deciede if you guys do not believ what you see or only see what you want to believe.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 7:30pm:

Quote: Let me see - we have a process which appears to be causing a reduction in numbers of stock. No. We have a process that either has started to cause a reduction, or has for some unfathomable (to you) reason, caused the whales to hide from ships.

The whale numbers are not declining they are playing hide and seek.

the scientific term for this method of survival is hiderousseekius.

Have you any examples of endangered species which have been able to survive by playing a few rounds of hide and seek?

A species apperas to be in decline in an area where they are being hunted because they are playing hide and seek - Now I have heard everything, I think there is a much more obvious reason.



Quote:

[quote]As long as the process continues as is the numbers would continue to decline

Can you explain the logic behind that?
[/quote]

well if the current species target of around 900 whales per season is causing the numbers to be reduced it stands to reason that to continue with the same quota from the reduced number of whales would have a progressivly greater impact, the number would obviously reduce at an accelerated rate.

i.e. taking a larger quota then is naturally replenished is not sustainable.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 12:56am:

Belgarion wrote on Jan 22nd, 2011 at 11:09pm: I could attempt to explain the situation in laymans terms but I doubt you would be receptive to the facts, as they would interfere with your pre-conceptions. I believe that the inverse is true This shows the vision from the BoB Barker and the Maru2 - which both clearly show the Maru going to miss by a long way and then turn into the Ady Gill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Qyrd27kvU&feature=related Vision from the Ady Gill Shows the same thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brw6JN0lQXY&feature=related It is difficult to deciede if you guys do not believ what you see or only see what you want to believe.

OK... The rule of the road says "action to avoid collision should be positive, obvious and made in good time". Given that both vessels were engaged in activity outside the normal behaviour of ships going about their lawful business, we may safely say they both ignored this one.

Which brings us to..

"15. Crossing situations

When two power-driven vessels are crossing, the vessel which has the other on the starboard side must give way and avoid crossing ahead of her.

Ady Gill had maneuvered to place Shonan Maru as the give way vessel and was stopped in the water, then, as Shonan Maru altered course, probably  to bring Ady Gill in effective range of her water cannon, Ady Gill accelerated in what was a deliberate move to ensure a collision.

The presence of the other Sea Shepherd  vessel, Bob Barker, is also a factor. From the video taken of the incident this vessel appears to be directly ahead of Shonan Maru thus presenting a possible risk of collision and possibly playing a part in the maneuvers of Shonan Maru. The NZ enquiry found both vessels at fault :http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/ady-gil--and-whalers-both-at-fault-for-collision-inquiry-20101118-17y8u.html
however  the video evidence clearly shows the actual collision was caused by the actions of Ady Gil.

If Sea SHepherd had any justifiable claim at all against the Japs for sinking that boat, it would be in the courts. But it isn't, because it was Sea Shepherd's fault and they know it. If anything the Japs for charge them for damage to the paint job. Except the Japs aren't a bunch of whiny little kids playing pirates then complaining when reality smacks them in the face.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 2:21am:

[quote OK... The rule of the road says "action to avoid collision should be positive, obvious and made in good time". Given that both vessels were engaged in activity outside the normal behaviour of ships going about their lawful business, we may safely say they both ignored this one

What does it say about a ship deliberatly changing onto a collision course  with a stationary vessel as the Maru 2 obviously did.


Belgarion wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 2:21am:

Quote: Which brings us to.. "15. Crossing situations When two power-driven vessels are crossing, the vessel which has the other on the starboard side must give way and avoid crossing ahead of her. Ady Gill had maneuvered to place Shonan Maru as the give way vessel and was stopped in the water, then, as Shonan Maru altered course, probably  to bring Ady Gill in effective range of her water cannon, Ady Gill accelerated in what was a deliberate move to ensure a collision.

The Ady Gill was statioary with the Maru on a course to pass by at least 30 mtrs and probably more like 70 mtrs till the Maru turned directly at the Ady Gill at speed.

The Ady Gill had not manouvered to place the Maru anywhere.

The Ady Gill brought up power too late in what looks like an attempt to manouver



Quote:

The presence of the other Sea Shepherd  vessel, Bob Barker, is also a factor. From the video taken of the incident this vessel appears to be directly ahead of Shonan Maru thus presenting a possible risk of collision and possibly playing a part in the maneuvers of Shonan Maru.

Rubbish - The film from the Barker clearly shows the Ady Gill Between the Maru and the Barler - this means that obviously untill the Maru Changed direction towards the Gill it was going away from or parrallel to the Barker.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 2:21am:

The NZ enquiry found both vessels at fault :http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/ady-gil--and-whalers-both-at-fault-for-collision-inquiry-20101118-17y8u.html however  the video evidence clearly shows the actual collision was caused by the actions of Ady Gil.

Quote:

An exhaustive investigation by New Zealand authorities has found both Japanese whalers and Sea Shepherd activists at fault for the Ady Gil collision in Antarctica. The whalers' security ship, Shonan Maru No. 2, should have kept clear of the Ady Gil under international collision regulations, and had ample opportunity to avoid hitting it, the Maritime New Zealand inquiry concluded. But MNZ also found the Ady Gil failed to take avoiding action, and its helmsman did not see the Japanese ship bearing down until seconds before the impact.

As unbelievable as this is what they have ruled is that if a vessel turns directly towards you and you can not get out of the way it is your fault.

A ruling with no credability.

Perhaps they had more to go on than a dodgy little video.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 10:38am:

Perhaps they had more to go on than a dodgy little video.

Indeed they did. What the video shows however is Ady Gil deliberately moving across the bow of Shonan Maru. Wathc the video taken from Bob Barker 1:28 to 1:34. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLdUISE3e8c you will notice the ATB on Shonan Maru remains constant while that of Ady Gill broadens considerably, indicating forward movement.  There is also the video from Shonan Mary ath the same time clearly showing the wake of Ady Gill indicating forward movement.

Thr ROTR clearly states that the give way vessel (Shonan Maru) must take early and substantial action to keep clear. It also says the  stand on vessel (Ady Gill) shall maintain her course and speed, but may take action to avoid collision. Neither vessel did any of these things. Ady Gill in fact manipulated the situation to cause the collision.

So the whalers didn't sink the Ady Gill - Sea Shepherd did.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 10:38am:

Perhaps they had more to go on than a dodgy little video.

Or 4 from both sides and the centre which all show the same thing.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 11:16am:

freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2011 at 10:38am: Perhaps they had more to go on than a dodgy little video. Indeed they did. What the video shows however is Ady Gil deliberately moving across the bow of Shonan Maru. Wathc the video taken from Bob Barker 1:28 to 1:34. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLdUISE3e8c you will notice the ATB on Shonan Maru remains constant while that of Ady Gill broadens considerably, indicating forward movement.  There is also the video from Shonan Mary ath the same time clearly showing the wake of Ady Gill indicating forward movement. Thr ROTR clearly states that the give way vessel (Shonan Maru) must take early and substantial action to keep clear. It also says the  stand on vessel (Ady Gill) shall maintain her course and speed, but may take action to avoid collision. Neither vessel did any of these things. Ady Gill in fact manipulated the situation to cause the collision.

The Ady Gill brought power up very late and I would agree that their panic action probably made the collision worse but no doubt their was going to be impact anyway.


Quote:

Thr ROTR clearly states that the give way vessel (Shonan Maru) must take early and substantial action to keep clear.

They did take early and substantial action but it was not to keep clear it was to deliberatly initiate a collision or very near collision course.

Had the Maru 2 maintained its original line it would have passed probably 70 mtrs away from the Ady Gill with no chance of an accident.

Quote:

The Ady Gill brought power up very late and I would agree that their panic action probably made the collision worse

;D So they 'accidentally' rammed their own boat, then deliberately sank it. Then tried to blame someone else.


Quote:

but no doubt their was going to be impact anyway

No doubt? I have plenty of doubt. If Sea Shepherd was not there with the sole intention of getting in the way of ships in antarctic waters, there would have been no collision. If Paul Watson had not ordered the Ady Gill to be sank after the collision, it would not have sank. What do you think Sea Shepherd is trying to do with their ships? Keep out of the way and let the whalers go about their business?

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 10:00pm:

Quote: The Ady Gill brought power up very late and I would agree that their panic action probably made the collision worse  So they 'accidentally' rammed their own boat, then deliberately sank it. Then tried to blame someone else.

You seem to be talanted at identifying what was not said.



Quote:

No doubt? I have plenty of doubt.

I had no doubt you would, I also have no doubt that had the Maru not been turned directly towards the Ady Gill there would have been no collision, Had the Ady gill needed to move 70 mtrs it would have been a tad more obvious.


Quote:

If Sea Shepherd was not there with the sole intention of getting in the way of ships in antarctic waters, there would have been no collision.

And if the Japanese were not illegally poaching whales in the southern ocean then neither would have been there.


Quote:

If Paul Watson had not ordered the Ady Gill to be sank after the collision, it would not have sank.

The damaged boat would have been more valuable to sea shepherd had it reached port. I doubt the decision was as simple as you suggest - yes I have seen the quotes and the captain thinks his boat could have been saved.

Quote:

And if the Japanese were not illegally poaching whales in the southern ocean then neither would have been there

Actually, going by the convention on whaling, it's not illegal at all.

If the catch is declared to be for scientific purposes then it's legal anywhere - even within declared whale sanctuaries.

And according to the convention, that catch can then be disposed of in any way they desire - destroyed, sold, eaten etc.

Sure, you can bleat that they're exploiting the wording of the convention, but you'll find that if you attempt to contest it in a court of law that there's nothing illegal about it.

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 12:25am:

Sure, you can bleat that they're exploiting the wording of the convention, but you'll find that if you attempt to contest it in a court of law that there's nothing illegal about it.

You mean that running a commercial fishing opperation disguised as a scientific study is using a loop hole, I would think more like corruption and dishonesty at a national level.

If you go out there and catch whales for a study you would find yourself in a lot of trouble - it is illegal.

Quote:

And if the Japanese were not illegally poaching whales

You are right. They are not illegally poaching whales. There is a reaosn why we don't let lunatics take the law into their own hands.


Quote:

The damaged boat would have been more valuable to sea shepherd had it reached port. I doubt the decision was as simple as you suggest - yes I have seen the quotes and the captain thinks his boat could have been saved.

Wrong. It was more valuable for the media coverage of it getting sunk - simple as that. Sea Shepherd want idiots to think the Japs sank their boat, when in fact they sank it themselves.


Quote:

If you go out there and catch whales for a study you would find yourself in a lot of trouble - it is illegal.

What the Japanese are doing is not illegal. It is that simple.

Sea Shepherd has an objective - we intend to abolish all whaling activities in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. We are here to defend the integrity of the sanctuary. It is a simple, uncomplicated objective and we have very straightforward rules of engagement. We have not and will not cause a single injury to the whalers, although we will obstruct their ships and equipment. We will not break any international law in pursuit of this objective; Sea Shepherd has not been charged or reprimanded for any offense related to blocking and intercepting these whaling operations. Finally, we will not compromise on our objective – we will not accept any whaling, regardless of whom it is done by, anytime in the sanctuary.   :)

In reference to the argument that our efforts are entrenching on Japanese resistance to end whaling, we can only remind people that the alternative is to surrender to the will of the whalers, and that we simply shall not do. The same argument was said during the movement to oppose apartheid in South Africa. Yes, the white South African regime did entrench but then ultimately they fell under the weight of international public opinion.   :)

Sea Shepherd’s strategy is to focus on causing financial damage to the whalers. Our intent is to economically sink the Japanese whaling fleet, bankrupt them, and then drive them out of business.   ;)  

The days down here in the Southern Ocean are long – literally. The miles of ocean we have covered are immense and the weather and ice dangers are very real and always close.

However, crew morale grows with each day that we stop the whalers from whaling. Each day brings us sightings of whales unmolested by the cruel harpoons, which serve as daily reminders for the crew of why we are here and whom we represent. Today we saw a pod of orcas, but since arriving in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, we have been given the pleasure of the company from the humpback, Minke, fin, blue, pilot and sperm whales.

These whales are our clients and they are the reason we come down here for four months of every year. We are here to represent their interests. They are our clients, and our objective is to eradicate the obscenity of whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. We will succeed in realizing this objective no matter how long it takes or how dangerous it becomes…we will end whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary!   :)

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 10:03pm:

Quote: And if the Japanese were not illegally poaching whales You are right. They are not illegally poaching whales. There is a reaosn why we don't let lunatics take the law into their own hands. [quote]The damaged boat would have been more valuable to sea shepherd had it reached port. I doubt the decision was as simple as you suggest - yes I have seen the quotes and the captain thinks his boat could have been saved.

Wrong. It was more valuable for the media coverage of it getting sunk - simple as that. Sea Shepherd want idiots to think the Japs sank their boat, when in fact they sank it themselves.


Quote:

If you go out there and catch whales for a study you would find yourself in a lot of trouble - it is illegal.

What the Japanese are doing is not illegal. It is that simple.[/quote]

Wow.

Putting the word research onthe side of their ships sure has you conned doesn't it.

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 10:03pm:

Quote: And if the Japanese were not illegally poaching whales [quote]The damaged boat would have been more valuable to sea shepherd had it reached port. I doubt the decision was as simple as you suggest - yes I have seen the quotes and the captain thinks his boat could have been saved.

Wrong. It was more valuable for the media coverage of it getting sunk - simple as that. Sea Shepherd want idiots to think the Japs sank their boat, when in fact they sank it themselves.[/quote]

I would have had it on a trailer on display in every major city of the world showing the damage with the film showing how it happened.

If the Sea Shepherd weren't there threatening and provoking another vessel, this wouldn't have happened.

Their actions and behaviour continue to appall people.

How you can support people who provoke and engage in violence in some of the most dangerous areas of the world is beyond me.

Do you know how fking dangerous it is to try and entangle a rudder and disable a ship in the Southern Ocean??

It is irresponsible in the extreme - no matter what your belief in whaling.

Infarction wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 5:41am:

freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2011 at 10:03pm: Quote: And if the Japanese were not illegally poaching whales You are right. They are not illegally poaching whales. There is a reaosn why we don't let lunatics take the law into their own hands. [quote]The damaged boat would have been more valuable to sea shepherd had it reached port. I doubt the decision was as simple as you suggest - yes I have seen the quotes and the captain thinks his boat could have been saved. Wrong. It was more valuable for the media coverage of it getting sunk - simple as that. Sea Shepherd want idiots to think the Japs sank their boat, when in fact they sank it themselves. [quote]If you go out there and catch whales for a study you would find yourself in a lot of trouble - it is illegal.

What the Japanese are doing is not illegal. It is that simple.[/quote]

Wow.

Putting the word research onthe side of their ships sure has you conned doesn't it.[/quote]

Not conned. The Japs are not breaking international law. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Sea Shepherd activists target whalers' key ship



JAPAN'S whalers face a crippling blow to their Antarctic season after Sea Shepherd activists last night pounced on the fleet's key factory ship, the Nisshin Maru.   :)

The discovery of the Nisshin Maru at the edge of the Ross Sea capped earlier successes for the conservationists, who have engaged other ships of the fleet for nearly four weeks.

''This whaling fleet belongs to us now - lock, stock and smoking harpoon gun,'' said Sea Shepherd's leader Paul Watson.


''Unfortunately, they appear to have just begun whaling operations,'' Captain Watson said. ''There is a whale presently being butchered on the deck. Sea Shepherd's objective now is to make sure that whale is the last one taken this season.''

The group said Nisshin Maru and two harpoon ships were found in a bay in the Ross Sea and fled into thick ice under pursuit from the Steve Irwin.

The group's second ship, Bob Barker, was approaching from about 300 nautical miles away. Its third vessel, Gojira, has been in Hobart undergoing repairs.

For much of the past fortnight, Sea Shepherd vessels have been escorting a refuelling ship away from the whalers. They hoped the departure of the tanker Sun Laurel meant the whaling season would be cut short.

''We are well on our way to sinking this whaling fleet - economically,'' Captain Watson said.   :)

A spokesman for Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research did not respond to a request for comment.

wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 10:28pm:

Sea Shepherd has an objective - we intend to abolish all whaling activities in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. We are here to defend the integrity of the sanctuary. It is a simple, uncomplicated objective and we have very straightforward rules of engagement. We have not and will not cause a single injury to the whalers, although we will obstruct their ships and equipment. We will not break any international law in pursuit of this objective; Sea Shepherd has not been charged or reprimanded for any offense related to blocking and intercepting these whaling operations. Finally, we will not compromise on our objective – we will not accept any whaling, regardless of whom it is done by, anytime in the sanctuary.   :) In reference to the argument that our efforts are entrenching on Japanese resistance to end whaling, we can only remind people that the alternative is to surrender to the will of the whalers, and that we simply shall not do. The same argument was said during the movement to oppose apartheid in South Africa. Yes, the white South African regime did entrench but then ultimately they fell under the weight of international public opinion.   :) Sea Shepherd’s strategy is to focus on causing financial damage to the whalers. Our intent is to economically sink the Japanese whaling fleet, bankrupt them, and then drive them out of business.   ;)   The days down here in the Southern Ocean are long – literally. The miles of ocean we have covered are immense and the weather and ice dangers are very real and always close. However, crew morale grows with each day that we stop the whalers from whaling. Each day brings us sightings of whales unmolested by the cruel harpoons, which serve as daily reminders for the crew of why we are here and whom we represent. Today we saw a pod of orcas, but since arriving in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, we have been given the pleasure of the company from the humpback, Minke, fin, blue, pilot and sperm whales. These whales are our clients and they are the reason we come down here for four months of every year. We are here to represent their interests. They are our clients, and our objective is to eradicate the obscenity of whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. We will succeed in realizing this objective no matter how long it takes or how dangerous it becomes…we will end whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary!   :)

What a load of self righteous and self indulgent bullshit. These sea shepherd dickheads get off on pretending to be on some great crusade when in reality they are little kids playing pirates.

This isn't a game though, and when someone is killed by their actions (note: when, not if) we will hear the whining self justification and excuses a spoiled child uses when caught out doing something wrong.