Fail: Sea Shepherd

[Hinny]

They are doing it for reality TV - after that taboo we will be watching American, British and New Zealand troops being killed by Al Quaeda I expect.

.

Brainwashed Brit. Yeah get over it - you Scots are Brits.
We have a Govt. that is similarly brainwashed so that hypothesis is not beyond the realms of possibility.
The last Nat govt. sent troops to fight an illegal war.
This one may commit the same insanity.

[Lias]

Holy shit, never though I'd see myself agreeing with ya Lias. But I am.
I'm an ex maritime patrol pilot and have seen those bloody Japs ad others raping and pillaging NZ and Australian resources with impudence and relatively unchecked. I have flown flights in the Southern ocean and seen the activities for myself. Its definitely not right. Send em to the bottom...

You think thats bad.. Skyryder and me foudn ourselves agreeing on a few things recently.. I shat bricks lol

[Mikkel]

Haha my 8 year old grandaughter can easily push my 48ft boat off the jetty. In fact, she can do it with one hand, and often does when grandad is trying to board.

Its not like a 13g pool ball deflecting a 500g pool ball.

Merely changing the angle of approach into a wave - or the wake of another much smaller boat will substantially cause a boat to move.

The impact, even on the larger vessel is substantial. The video from the 3rd vessel clearly shows the bow of the Shonan Maru being deflected to port by the impact. The Ady Gill was moving at what I would guess was about 5 to 10 knots. The impact is lateral to the direction of travel and would easily cause the observed deflection. There is no way that the helmsman of the Shonan Maru could go from slightly to starboard to hard a'port in the time the video shows.

You guys should really consider going back to school. In this particular case you are both very much incorrect. This is not an invitation for debate either. You can keep on disagreeing as much as you want, but you'll still be wrong. We are talking about a weight ration of about 38:1 - how much do you expect to be able to change the direction of a 38 ton truck in a 1 ton car? How much would you expect to be able to change the direction of a 10 ton truck by hitting it on your motorcycle? Please, grow a perspective.

The fact that the Ady Gil didn't just shatter into a million pieces is clear evidence that the forward momentum of the Ady Gil relative to the hull of the Shonan Maru 2 was negligible.

If you don't believe me, by all means do try and go out and see if you can deflect a Bayliner idling along using a sea kayak.

Holy shit, never though I'd see myself agreeing with ya Lias. But I am.
I'm an ex maritime patrol pilot and have seen those bloody Japs ad others raping and pillaging NZ and Australian resources with impudence and relatively unchecked. I have flown flights in the Southern ocean and seen the activities for myself. Its definitely not right. Send em to the bottom...

Unless you raised the specific animal you do not own it. Plenty of NZ fishing boats operating in Tongan, Fijian and Samoan waters too. Most tuna eaten in NZ is flown in from Fiji. Most Marlins and Swordfish caught in NZ waters are flown off to Japan or the States - it's just how the market works.

[SPman]

Sea terrorist:

Look at the history of this group

# 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.

Fucking great , eh....good on them. Use American tactics!
Let's hope they have an even more productive next 30 years!
All these useless talking wankers going to conferences and having a great time.
Action is where it's at - it's the only language most people understand!
Maybe we should get Sea Shepherd some Harpoons - US missile style!

[LBD]

no right to deliberalty ram another vessel.

As for the Somali analogy, in this instance, as there was no boarding in progress the analogy is not relevent.

Skyryder

At first I was hoping you are playing the devils advicate...but maybe not....

I think the Somali analogy is fitting, the intent of the pirates and the protesters is harm to the ships and a threat to the well being of the crews

I have not seen the film clips, we cannot live stream here at site....but I doubt the jap master would attempt to deliberatly ram the Gil...especially with all the cameras rolling... Every captain instictivly avoids collision. Any collision, unintentional can be a career stopper...any collision intentional is criminal...and in international waters, it will not be a trial in Japan.

The impact, even on the larger vessel is substantial. The video from the 3rd vessel clearly shows the bow of the Shonan Maru being deflected to port by the impact. The Ady Gill was moving at what I would guess was about 5 to 10 knots. The impact is lateral to the direction of travel and would easily cause the observed deflection. There is no way that the helmsman of the Shonan Maru could go from slightly to starboard to hard a'port in the time the video shows.

Something that needs to be kept in mind is that the filming from the third vessel, is not filming from a fixed point on land, the third vessel is moving and if the third vessel is travelling accross the bow of the jap boat from starboard to port (On the Jap Boat) the jap boat will look to be turning to stbd.

At 0.07 there is a considerable turn to starboard. The boat heels substantially. This elicits the "Fuck" comment as the intention of this manoeuvre is apparent. The manoeuvreability of the Shonan Maru is impressive.
Four seconds later she is heeling to Starboard.
Two seconds later Ady Gil is crossing her bow. .

A heel to Stbd is a turn to port...were you saying the Jap turned to stbd initially then to Port?

From the bridge of the whaler, the master cannot see what is happening under his bow, any action decisions made at very close quarters would be based on the last actions observed of the Andy Gill

Can some one tell me if there is any visible change in exhaust colour at any time from the whaler?

In my books...irrespective of what may or may not be the actions of the Jap Master, The Japs were not hunting down the protesters with the intention of disabling the protest fleet, it was the other way around and the actions of the Andy Gill were mallicious....shame she went down but no one to blame but the Skipper / Helmsman on the Andy Gill

Maybe they should have used a harpoon with big barbs through the Andy Gill....then they could have skull dragged her up on the deck of the whaler....Patched up the two holes and sold her back to the owner for a good profit...and given the Andy Gill crew a Jolly Good Rodgering in the mean time.....

[MisterD]

If the Jap whaler had stayed on course it would not have collided with the Sea Shepherd.

Skyryder

The trouble with that statement, is that you're basing it on video taken from another ship - a moving POV. Unless we get a GPS track for both vessels it's bloody difficult to prove anything.

Happy New Year btw.

[Genie]

The trouble with that statement, is that you're basing it on video taken from another ship - a moving POV. Unless we get a GPS track for both vessels it's bloody difficult to prove anything.

Happy New Year btw.

at last..some common sense pervails....GPS tracking will prove beyond a doubt who was where and when. Wise man **

[Skyryder]

At first I was hoping you are playing the devils advicate...but maybe not....

I think the Somali analogy is fitting, the intent of the pirates and the protesters is harm to the ships and a threat to the well being of the crews

I have not seen the film clips, we cannot live stream here at site....but I doubt the jap master would attempt to deliberatly ram the Gil...especially with all the cameras rolling... Every captain instictivly avoids collision. Any collision, unintentional can be a career stopper...any collision intentional is criminal...and in international waters, it will not be a trial in Japan.



Something that needs to be kept in mind is that the filming from the third vessel, is not filming from a fixed point on land, the third vessel is moving and if the third vessel is travelling accross the bow of the jap boat from starboard to port (On the Jap Boat) the jap boat will look to be turning to stbd..

The purpose of the somali piratres is to capture the ship...................not sink it. Crew safety is conditional on handing over the boat. No evidence has emerged that the Jap master gave the Sea Shepherd people that option. In fact SS have claimed that the Jap boat ignored their distress calls after the ramming. So how on earth you can claim that the Somali analogy is fitting to what happened in the southern ocean is beyond me.

For someone who has not seen the clip you make excuses based on assumptions. You state that (in part)......................"the third vessel is moving and 'if' the third vessel is moving................................." Well yes 'if' the filming boat was travelling from port to starboard, you conjecture is a possibility. But what 'if' the filming boat was travelling in the eopposite direction..................or what 'if' the filming boat was stationary.

No' ifs' in the vid clip. The Sea Shepherd stays in a relitive position. If what you say is correct then both vessels would appear to move, from the pespective of the filming boat. That is not apparent. In fact SS people say they were stationary.

Pretty plain for all to see and not even the hardcore apologists have come up with your excuse. But no doubt they wlil expand on it.


Skyryder

[CookMySock]

Unless we get a GPS track for both vessels it's bloody difficult to prove anything.

It's fairly clear from the wake of the whaler that it was in a constant rate turn to the left - away from the andy gil.

Steve

[Owl]

It's fairly clear from the wake of the whaler that it was in a constant rate turn to the left - away from the andy gil.

Steve

You obviously haven't seen the second video then!

[Skyryder]

The trouble with that statement, is that you're basing it on video taken from another ship - a moving POV. Unless we get a GPS track for both vessels it's bloody difficult to prove anything.

Happy New Year btw.

Yes it will but its difficult to accept that the intentions of the Jap master were benign with his water cannon on. Even if he uses the excuse of de-icing (you apoligists never thought of that one) his radar would have informed him of the close proximity of another vessel. At best he is guilty of negligence and endangering the lives of those on board the rammed vessel. As for GPS records yes they will give a clearer picture of vellel movemnet , so to will the radio traffic on the alegations of the SS that the Jap whaler ignored their distress call.

Skyryder

[CookMySock]

You obviously haven't seen the second video then!

Oops. My apologise!

Steve

[Skyryder]

The trouble with that statement, is that you're basing it on video taken from another ship - a moving POV. Unless we get a GPS track for both vessels it's bloody difficult to prove anything.

Happy New Year btw.

Yes it will but its difficult to accept that the intentions of the Jap master were benign with his water cannon on. Even if he uses the excuse of de-icing (you apologists never thought of that one) his radar would have informed him of the close proximity of another vessel. At best he is guilty of negligence and endangering the lives of those on board the rammed vessel. As for GPS records yes they will give a clearer picture of vessel movement , so too will the radio traffic on the allegations of the SS that the Jap whaler ignored their distress call.

Skyryder

PS Same on the New Year too.

[davereid]

In this particular case you are both very much incorrect. This is not an invitation for debate either. You can keep on disagreeing as much as you want, but you'll still be wrong. We are talking about a weight ration of about 38:1 - how much do you expect to be able to change the direction of a 38 ton truck in a 1 ton car? How much would you expect to be able to change the direction of a 10 ton truck by hitting it on your motorcycle? Please, grow a perspective.

As I said in my original post, I couldn't hand - on - heart say I could see what happened.

But your claim thats its not an invitation for debate makes you sound like a climate scientist and makes it therefore essential that I debate !

I pointed out earlier, its not a simple equation like two pool balls hitting on a table, there is a lot more happening than a simple collision. The relationship between vessels is much more complicated.

Even a 400kg Jetski can create a wake that will disrupt and rock a 2000 ton fishing boat.

And the video appears to show that the Ady Gill had power on when it hit the Jap, so not only do you have to consider the relative weights, you have to consider the thrust of the boats as well.

The bow thruster in the Arahura weighs only 1100 kg, and it can easily move the 9000 tons of the Arahura.

Thats 1 : 8200.

Now I guess you will say you can "see" that the Ady Gil had no power on.

But it did have. And thats not up for debate really.

[davereid]

Yes it will but its difficult to accept that the intentions of the Jap master were benign with his water cannon on. Even if he uses the excuse of de-icing (you apologists never thought of that one) his radar would have informed him of the close proximity of another vessel. At best he is guilty of negligence and endangering the lives of those on board the rammed vessel. As for GPS records yes they will give a clearer picture of vessel movement , so too will the radio traffic on the allegations of the SS that the Jap whaler ignored their distress call.

Skyryder

PS Same on the New Year too.

Both boats were very clearly aware of one another. Radar was completely un-necessary, this incident did not occur in crowded shipping lanes, it occured in the middle of a bloody great empty ocean.

All the posturing ignores the fact that the Ady Gill was deliberately approaching the Jap boat from starboard to force the Jap boat to turn. And what an effective way of using the rules of the Sea to disrupt the Whaler, which is much larger and slower. By the time it is back on course, the Ady Gill is ready for a new approach and can repeat this ad-nauseum.

What happened here was a game of Chicken.

This time BOTH skippers misjudged.

The Japs made little effort to avoid the Ady Gill, underestimating the resolve of the Ady Gil to get under the bows of the Jap boat.

The Ady Gill had overestimated the Jab skippers adherence to the right-hand-rule.